Jump to content

jonstewart

Member
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CT
  1. Make NO MISTAKE, anyone who truly knows jonstewart, will tell you he is far too savvy, to actually buy into these political blowviators, spouting their particular political brand of "they are evil, WE are good" rap. While it may be TRUE, that some of their targets ARE EVIL, that doesn't mean that THEY (the blowviators, Chris Matthews, Rush, Morning Shmoe, Glenn Beck) are always right.... There are PLENTY of "bought-off, whore Republicans", to go along with the "bought-off, whore Democrats"... It just so happens, that the whores on the Left seem to far outnumber, those on the Right, Hahaha. But none of that matters - , that's not what this is about. It's about something FAR MORE IMPORTANT. I HAVE JUST ONE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU. DO YOU LOVE, AND VALUE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS IT WAS DESIGNED AND CONCEIVED IN THE CONSTITUTION, BY MEN LIKE THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, GEORGE MASON, ROGER SHERMAN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, etc., etc. IF YOU HAVE A LOVE OF YOUR COUNTRY, THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED BY THESE MEN --- (AS IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN AND STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION), THEN IT SHOULD NOT MATTER TO YOU, WHETHER jonstewart, OR ANYONE ELSE, is LEFT, RIGHT, LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE....... THERE IS ONLY ONE PROPER AND CORRECT VIEWPOINT, ON HOW THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE RUN AND GOVERNED: CONSTITUTIONALLY . IT IS THAT SIMPLE. THESE WISE MEN, WRITING DOCUMENTS OVER 200 YEARS AGO, PROVIDED ANSWERS, FOR ALL THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND SITUATIONS THAT WOULD ARISE. AND IF SOMETHING IS "NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED", LIKE "DENYING THE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" OF A BABY, BEFORE IT EVEN HAS A CHANCE TO TAKE ITS FIRST BREATH, THEN COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL US, IF STATES CAN DECIDE THAT EVIL RAPISTS AND MURDERERS CANNOT BE DENIED THESE RIGHTS, THAN SURELY, A TINY, INNOCENT BABY CANNOT BE DENIED THOSE RIGHTS, LIKE LEAVING A SUFFERING BABAY, ALIVE, AFTER A BOTCHED ABORTION, TO SUFFER ON A COLD METAL TABLE UNTIL IT DIES, BECAUSE A CERTAIN ILLINOIS SENATOR, WHO IS NOW PRESIDENT, VOTED TO ALLOW THAT BABY TO SUFER AND DIE. ******************************************************************************************************** The Top Ten Worst Violations of the Constitution, by President Obama, and the 111th Congress: At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government. By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length. #10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The statesmay reward heroes, if they so choose. #9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs. #8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations. #7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1. #6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity. #5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense. 2 #4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other institutions. The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups. #3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion. #2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due. And the worst violation of the Constitution over the past two years is … #1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking: For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines. Language in the bill says the health care law may NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed into law. This violates the role of Congress. Article 1.1 makes it clear that only Congress is authorized to make law, meaning it has every right to alter, amend and change the health care law. To restrict Congress is to change its constitutional duty. The 111th Congress must think it can change the Constitution without amending it — a violation of Article 5, which outlines the amendment pThe health care bill also violates the 10th Amendment because it coerces states into complying with a new national program that reaches far into state jurisdiction. So, what do you do when you’re navigating through a blizzard of political white-out where visibility is reduced to zero, the road is slick and slippery, and disaster is strewn about in all directions? You come to a complete stop — and put on the chains. How Cruise Ships Fill Their Unsold Cabins
  2. After anti-constitutional moves, Obama-Crap-Care, giving Miranda and Constitutional RIGHTS TO TEWRORIST ENEMIES, DOZENS MORE, WITHOUT CONGRESS, NOW, HE WANTS TO ASK CONGRESS, TO TAKE PART OF BLAME! Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals By CHARLIE SAVAGE WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obamainterrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism. Doug Mills/The New York TimesPresident Obama speaking in Cleveland in January. Increasingly in recent months, the Obama administration has been seeking ways to bypass Congress. Unilateralist Strategy “We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.” For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals. But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress. Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor (FAR-LEFTIST CHICAGO KOOK) and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not a problem. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution but doesn't hold it in high regard — He is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.” Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress’s attempt to prevent him from having White House “czars” on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama’s increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor’s administration: Mr. Bush’s frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture.
  3. One Hundred Articles of Impeachment Against Obama There is a growing groundswell among Tea Party loyalists that impeachment proceedings must be initiated against President Obama. Congressmen Allen West of Florida (R-Florida) and Darrell Issa (R- California) have consistently and loudly criticized the president for overstepping the political mark and bypassing Congress’s approval on a whole range of dubious policies and issues: and the recent Obama attack on the Supreme Court of Justice and the Russian ” Open Mic ” gaffe on National Security, leads to one question… Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment? Obama did not become the Democratic nominee for President without the help of several leaders of the Democratic Party who knew that he was not eligible for office Listed below are the One Hundred Articles of Impeachment. FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Impeach Obama NOW! There is a growing groundswell within American Republican and Tea Party ranks that impeachment proceedings should be initiated against President Obama on a whole list of violations of the Constitution and the War Powers Act. ~ Peter Paton 1. Appointment of a “shadow government” of some 35+ individuals termed “czars” who are not confirmed by the Senate and respond only to the president, yet have overarching regulatory powers – a clear violation of the separation of powers concept. Obama bypassed the Senate with many of his appointments of over 35 “czars.” 2. No congressional support for Libyan action (violation of the War Powers Act ). Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only “logistical troops.” Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization. 3. Betraying of allies ( Israel and Great Britain. Obama has placed the security of our most trusted ally in the Middle East, Israel, in danger while increasing funding to the Palestinian Authority (Fatah, just another Islamic terrorist group) whilst they have enjoined a reconciliation pact with long-standing terrorist group Hamas and the disclosure of British nuclear secrets to the Russians in the Start Treaty. Obama gave missile codes to British Trident missiles to Russia. 4. Backdoor implementation of the DREAM Act which would grant 22 million illegals amnesty. Obama passed the Dream Act through an executive order, bypassing Congress again. DREAM is: Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors 5. Telegraphing troop reductions to enemies – against the consult of his experienced field commanders – while embracing negotiations with our enemy, the Taliban, and recognizing another, the Muslim Brotherhood. 6. Betrayal of Arizona. Obama brought a federal lawsuit against a sovereign state, Arizona, seeking to protect its citizens from this threat of mass illegal immigration 7. Obama’s Failure to enforce U.S. law, the Defense of Marriage Act. He’s stripped America of its moral base by his support for homosexuality and the attack on marriage between a man and a women Obama allows the DOJ to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. 8. Support of an inept and incompetent attorney general who has failed to prosecute voter intimidation cases (New Black Panther Party), initiated a dangerous gun-smuggling program (Operation Fast and Furious) – which resulted in deaths to one of our own law enforcement agents. Obama allowed Operation Fast and Furious to occur, which allowed hundreds of Mexican nationals and Border Agent Brian Terry to be murdered with illegal arms given out by the ATF and DOJ. 9. Increasing the regulatory burden on American business through bypassing the legislative process with his executive branch agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. 10. Failure to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, termed as “repel invasions” in our United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 4. Obama has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. 11. Inappropriately commanding the release of strategic oil reserves and providing Brazil $2 billion for its offshore oil exploration. 12. Illegally soliciting funds from within the White House ($5 dinner video fundraiser). The unalienable rights endowed to us by the Creator; life, liberty, and the pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness – are being threatened by the Obama administration. This current government has abridged the consent of the governed and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends. It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. 13. Taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare. 14. ”Open Mic ” gaffe in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election 15. Occidental College Transcripts Reveals Obama Claimed Foreign Citizenship to Get Scholarship? http://tinyurl.com/czldzx8 16. Obama’s secret back channel Nuclear deal with Iran, a sworn enemy of America and our Allies 17. Obama’s offer of a seat at the table for our avowed enemy the Taliban 18. Barack Hussein Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS because he was born in Kenya 19. Obama and his Administration leaking previously classified information about our intelligence communities’ efforts to slow down Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry. 20. Obama destabilized Western Ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and allowedthe Militant and Anti West Muslim Brotherhood to take over the Egyptian Regime, posing a mortal threat to our Ally Israel and our own Western assets and interests in the region. Obama instigated a revolution in Egypt against an ally in the War on Terror. 21. Obama has appointed Muslim Brotherhood advisers, enemies of the State, to the White House. Aid and comfort to the Muslim Brotherhood is TREASON per Article 3 Sec III of the US Constitution.. http://tinyurl.com/3x88l2s 22. Obama bypassing Congress again by Executive Decree to allow Illegal Immigrants to remain and vote in America for partisan electoral purposes and reasons. 23. Obama selling citizenship to criminals in direct opposition to Federal Law. 24. Obama admin assisted Egypt in remilitarizing the Sinai, “something forbidden by the Camp David Accords” http://is.gd/nDwdbl 25. Obama has attempted to compel religious institutions to pay for abortion services — a clear violation of First Amendment rights 26. Obama apologizing on 9/11 day to our sworn Islamist enemies, the Salafists, the same day these terrorists massacred the American Ambassador and three other American officials in the Benghazi Embassy, Libya. and ramsacked and looted the Cairo Embassy in Egypt. 27. Obama spending billions in aid on America´s enemies, while disregarding the needs of the US. 28. Obama is directly responsible for the many wars and murders of Christians in the Middle East 29. Obama has financially ruined this country, and his actions are leading to the demise of the dollar. President Obama is either an idiot or he is purposely trying to destroy the American economy. 30. Obama is hollowing out our military, and destroying our intelligence gathering capability. 31. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro deliberately concealed his true illegal background to be POTUS, TRUTH out: why #Obama records sealed FOREIGN student ID http://twitpic.com/aufduf Can we trust Pres. who games system – lies 32. Criminal cover up by the White House over BengaziGate, where four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens were murdered by Islamic Extremists. 33. #CANDYGATE Collusion with CNN Moderator Candy Crowley at the 2nd Debate to cover up BengaziGate The Candy-Obama Controversy : Get the Transcript’ http://amsp.ec/1P1Dyy 34. Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign money. 35. Obama Administration defining the Fort Hood Terrorist Act as a Workplace Accident, which gave succour and comfort to our enemies. 36. The Border-gate arms deal offense that resulted in the death of a border patrol agent as well as numerous innocent Mexican civilians. 37. Suspected organized and widespread election fraud engineered by Agents of the Obama Regime at the November 6th Presidential Election. 38. Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers misappropriated over 300 million dollars in donations meant for the education of Chicago’s minority students. They routed the money to Obama’s community activist buddies who then tried to turn the students in radicals. The program was a total failure. 39. Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, redirected tens of millions in Illinois tax dollars to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko, to provide housing for low income families. They returned the favor with political donations. The housing units were built with cheap materials and labor and are uninhabitable after a mere 10 years of use. 40. Obama accepted millions in illegal campaign contributions from foreign credit cards after the credit card filters used to screen out foreign money, was switched off. This also allowed domestic donors, who were over the legal limit, to contribute more. 41. Obama attempted to move control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the White House, to be managed by then Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. 42. Obama had provided under the radar amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing ICE Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws. 43. Obama allowed USAG Holder to ignore the violation of US immigration laws in the sanctuary cities, i.e.,San Francisco, etc. 44. Obama illegally fired the IG Walpin for investigating Obama’s buddy, Mayor Kevin Johnson (Sacramento), for fraud (850K) with AmeriCorps. 45. Obama is in contempt of Federal court for his illegal oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf… 46. Obama spent a month as the UN Security Council Chair in 2009, which raises the question of his conflict of interest between the US and the UN. This is also likely a violation of his Oath of Office as the UN conflicts with our Constitution on many levels, i.e., LOST, UN Small Arms ban, etc. 47. Obama signed an EO in December 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in the US without oversight by Congress, courts, FBI, or local law enforcement. 48. Obama and SecState Clinton misappropriated, er, used $23 million in US taxpayer funds to help Obama’s homeland of Kenya move to a communist nation where the freedom of speech, private property rights, and other rights are subservient to “social justice”. This includes the fact that the Kenyan constitution adopted Sharia Law, which violates the basic human rights of women. 49. Obama was likely involved with then Governor Rod Blagojevich to try and sell his Illinois Senate seat, i.e., pay to play. Jesse Jackson Jr is under investigation for it and it appears that Valerie Jarrett might also have been involved. 50. Obama ran a website that asked Americans to report on other Americans, in the area of ObamaKare, using whitehouse.gov and taxpayer money to do so. He repeated this with AttackWatch. 51. Obama got onto the Indiana ballot through voter fraud in 2008. 52. Obama sealed all of his records that would show that he is possibly an illegal president, that he is feloniously using a false SSN, that his draft registration number is false, that his Fulbright award was falsely awarded as Obama claimed foreign student status, and that his student aid was falsely obtained. 53. Obama violated the Constitution by firing the GM CEO. 54. Obama violated bankruptcy laws by forcing GM bondholders to accept millions of dollars in losses of money that they were legally entitled to. 55. Obama violated bankruptcy laws by awarding the UAW with a share of GM and Chrysler during their bankruptcy proceedings. 56. Obama bought votes for ObamaKare with acts like, “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and the DoI increasing water allocations toCalifornia’sCentral Valley. This brought in the votes of Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, both Democrat holdouts. 57. Obama lied about Americans being able to keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to. ObamaKare is already forcing them out of their current coverage. 58. Obama attempted to bribe Joe Sestak with a job offer in order to get him to drop out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter. 59. Obama bypassed Congress and told the EPA to set carbon emission standards. 60. Obama forced BP to pony up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the BP oil spill. It was administered by one of Obama’s political appointees and there is NO Congressional oversight. (Article continues on next page.) 61. Obama did nothing to Holder (abetted a felony) when Holder refused to prosecute two New Black Panther Party members for brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Filthadelphia. A direct violation of the voters Civil Rights. 62. Obama bypassed the Senate with a recess appointment of Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Violates policy. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766 63. Obama illegally fired Sherry Sherrod from the USDA over remarks she made at an NAACP meeting in March 2010. He violated her due process. 64. Obama violated contractual law when his regime cancelled 77 oil field development contracts previously approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, under Bush 43’s administration. This keeps us from extracting from 2-3 TRILLION barrels of oil. 65. Obama used the DHS to determine the political affiliation of Americans making FOIA requests about the Regime. This led to requests being stalled, lost, etc. 66. Obama acted in April 2009, at the G20 meeting, to expand the Special Drawing Rights, that now gives the IMF more control over the US economy. 67. Obama issued an EO on July 12, 2011, attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of US citizens in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. 68. Obama’s allowed the FCC to assume authority over the internet, in direct violation of a federal appeals court that DENIED the commission that authority. In December, the FCC voted and passed the first federal regulations on internet traffic. 69. Obama allows the DHS/TSA to routinely violate the 4th/5th Amendment rights of Americans at airports, train stations, and VIPER checkpoints. 70. Obama allows the DOJ in 2009 to stop enforcing federal drug laws in regards to marijuana. 71. Obama attempted to bypass Congress and raise the Debt Ceiling by “reinterpreting” the 14th Amendment. 72. Obama just bypassed the Senate AGAIN by appointing Richard Cordray to a new unconstitutional agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Violates policy. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766 73. Obama deprived the due process of two U.S.citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, by assassinating them via a CIA drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011. This also raises the question of an act of war against Yemen for firing into a sovereign nation. Obama said in 2008: “No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution to detainU.S.citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.” 74. Obama allowed Education Secretary Arne Duncan to grant waivers to No Child Left Behind however, this is a law enacted by Congress and neither Obama nor Duncan have the authority to authorize that. 75. Obama allowed the bailouts to grant money without the authority to do so.“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7U.S.Constitution 76. Obama allowed Operation Castaway to occur, which allowed firearms laws to be broken through coercion of legal gun dealers. 77. Obama bypassed the Senate to appoint three people to the National Labor Relations Board. (Naturally, they’ll all be Obomobots) Violates policy. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766 (Article continues on next page.) 78. Obama twenty three illegal Executive Orders to impose a Gun Grab, which is a direct violation of the Second Amendment. 79. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy by announcing the date for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thereby providing the impetus for the escalation of the green on blue attacks 80. Obama by announcing the date for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby triggered the disintegration of the green respect that had been a goal of the training mission. 81. Obama deliberately interfering in the elections of our chief ally in the Middle East, Israel to try and influence the result. 82. Obama supplying the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt with F16 Jets and 220 Abram Tanks, sworn enemies of the USA and our Chief Ally Israel. 83. Obama nominating a Muslim John Brennan to be Director of the CIA,when America is at War with Radical Islamic Terrorists. 84. Obama nominating Chuck Hagel, a sworn enemy of our Chief Ally Israel, to be Secretary of Defense 85. Obama and Holder breaking Constitutional Law, by introducing Drone attacks on Americans. 86. Obama is using his Executive Decree to allow 80,000 Muslims to enter America next year, and 100,000 Muslims for the next five years. 87. The Obama administration failed to enforce a century-old law meant to prevent immigrants from taking root in the U.S. only to live on the government dole 88. The Obama administration’s release of hundreds and potentially thousands of illegal-alien criminals from U.S. detention centers 89. The sequester is actually a plot by Obama to cut defense spending and transfer money to “ACORN-like” groups that would help elect Democratic candidates. 90. The Obama administration’s allegedly revealing his political opponents’ private tax information to the media. 91. Obama allowing the third Saudi Bomber in Boston be deported to Saudi Arabia – Arch Terrorist Osama Bin Laden’s son 92. Obama Will Not Charge Boston Jihad Bombers as Enemy Combatants 93. White House Link to Illegal Taping of Sen. McConnell 94. Allowing Islamic Terror Group the Taliban to flourish and operate on American soil. 95. The Obama Government has been caught promoting the delivery of taxpayer-funded welfare benefits to foreigners – “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible,” 96. Agents of the Obama Regime conspired in 2008 to get Obama’s name illegally put on the Indiana Primary Ballot. 97. Obama Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Involved In Massive Vote Fraud Scandal? http://j.mp/15QrBsb 98. TREASON…Obama Government Hired Al Qaeda to Defend the Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi? 99. Obama Military Considers Stopping Christians from Proselytizing 100. Obama and SecState Clinton’s efforts to bring the US under the UN’s Small Arms Treaty are direct violations of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UNKNOWN: How many exact other violations of his Oath of Office. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
  4. Oh, wait, I just saw one more thing of yours that's even MORE RIDICULOUS, AND IDIOTIC, VOMIT-INDUCING! : GATOR, FROM ABOVE: "All anyone has to do is look at religious leaders here like extremist conservative Pat Robertson to see how many use their own form of christianity to call for violence against islamics and even liberals. Christ's message is of brotherly love, not killing for religious or political reasons so don't even try and go there by using the Bible because I am a Christian who reads Scripture daily. REALLY, GATOR? Pat Robertson is chanting "Death to Iran!...Death to Iran"!...Death to All Christians, who will not submit!...We must KILL ALL MUSLIMS! Funny, I've heard most evangelicals, even the phony TV preachers, talk about God's LOVE, and how to get to Heaven, the Ten Commandments (one of which, is "Thou Shalt NOT kill", gator, you imbecile), before they start asking you for money! You must get THE SPECIAL PAT ROBERTSON SHOW!
  5. Really, gator? First, I was just going to say you were cowardly, after your first post, where you just bashed conservatives, who "ran us into the ground" Like when George W. Bush had MASSIVE GROWTH AND JOBS, AFTER 9-11, AND REAGAN, WHO GAVE US 6 YEARS OF INCREDIBLE GROWTH, WEALTH, INNOVATION, AND THE LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACETIME GROWTH IN AMERICA...Graphs and NUMBERS DON'T LIE, GATOR, would you like me to embarrass you further, by putting up those graphs, comparing Bush's record with Obama's?...I'll save that for another time. THEN, I was going to commend you, for at least ADDRESSING the OVER-100- DIRECTIVES TO KILL, MAIM, OTHERWISE DESTROY NON-MUSLIMS, in the Qu'or'an, the Hadiths, and directived from Moahammed himself. BUT, sadly, instead of acknowledging the VIOLENCE, OF ISLAM'S "Holy Books", YOU TRIED THE TYPICAL TERRORIST-APOLOGIST METHOD, "Oh, well, Christainity and Jews have violence in their books, too." REALLY, GATOR? PLEASE "CUT-AND-PASTE", AS YOU SAY, THE OVER 100- (and there's really a LOT MORE THAN THAT) INSTANCES OF THE BIBLE, ORDERING US CHRISTIANS, OR JEWS, TO GO OUT AND KILL ALL "NON-BELIEVERS" (Muslims, Buddhists, Shinto, Rastafarians, or Zoroastrianists?) But "Conservatives ran us into the ground"...I guess that's what you tell yourself, because of your incredibly foolish and dangerous choice to vote for Obama, The Disaster-Golfer in the White House, who can't take responsibility for pouring milk on his cereal. Oh, and uh, by the way, you never DID get around to explaining how "if we would just listen, to those nice Islamists, that want a Worldwide caliphate, Sharia Law worldwide, and want to chop off all your family's heads, because they are part of "The Great Satan", America,........ you never explained, "if we would just listen to them, everyone would be playing hopskotch, picking daisies, and sharing their skittles," like Trayvon was trying to do with George Zimmerman, the "White Hispanic" (after he turned his skull into hamburger, on the sidewalk, that is.....)
  6. No, silurian, it's just nice, to have a little color in life. By the way, is English your 2nd language? "posting red mean(sic) more serious"?....."take note lesser peoples" (sic)? You need to PAY MORE ATTENTION, when you're sitting in that English-as-a-2nd-Language Class, and stop picking your nose!.. Or drawing fantasy cartoons, about how you used to sneak up on the sheep, from behind, back in East Lithuania....... NOW, as far as the RED...... SOME people, who are very boring, have a monochromatic view of life - (that means, silurian, that they only see things ONE WAY, IN ONE COLOR) Like for example, they see a President...... Whose FIRST ACT, JUST DAYS AFTER HIS ELECTION, is to tell the HIGHEST LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE NATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, to IGNORE the Five ParaMilitary-Outfitted, Black-Uniformed, Black Combat-booted and Black leather-Gloved Black Panthers, standing outside the Philadelphia Voting Stations, AND THREATENING OLD WHITE LADIES, SCARING THEM AWAY FROM VOTING FOR MITT ROMNEY, "Yo, you Old Crakka's betta get yo asses home, betta get the f uck outta here", ACCORDING TO WITNESSES THERE, WHILE POUNDING THEIR FISTS INTO THEIR LEATHER-GLOVED-PALMS. EVEN THOUGH, POLICE ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, AND SEEING THESE THUGS ACTING TOUGH FOR HOBBLING OLD WHITE LADIES WITH THEIR WALKETS AND CANES, AND ARRESTED THEM FOR VOTER-INTIMIDATION (that's against the LAW, silurian, in case you didn't know, one of our MOST SACRED LAWS WE HOLD DEAR, THE PRIVACY, AND RIGHT, TO GO INTO A VOTING BOOTH, AND DECIDE WHO WILL REPRESENT US (EVEN IF MOST OF THEM ARE SCUMM, WHORING THEMSELVES TO UNIONS, WELFARE RECIPENTS, INVADING FOREIGNERS, OR CORPORATIONS) , Well, actually, I misspoke......Obama didn't tell Holder to IGNORE those Voter-Intimidating Black Panthers.... BECAUSE OBAMA JUST TOLD THAT PIECE OF WORTHLESS, RACIST, ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMM, ERIC HOLDER, TO "LET THOSE VOTER-INTIMIDATING BLACK PANTHERS GO, DON'T CHARGE THEM WITH ANY CRIMES, FEDERAL OR OTHERWISE, AND HAVE A LITTLE CHAT WITH THE LOCAL D.A., SO THEY GET NO MORE THAN A WRIST-SLAP, FOR PREVENTING THOSE OLD WHITE LADIES FROM VOTING." And there's SOME PEOPLE, like you, silurian, that STILL see obama as "A Nice Guy, who's doing his best, and he's a "real good president". THAT'S what you call a "monochromatic view. There now!...Wasn't that a Colorful, and Informative post?
  7. It almost STILL amazes me, the LENGTHS people will GO TO, TO DEFEND OBAMA, TO PROCLAIM THE "DEMOCRAT WISDOM" ..... Basically, ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW DAMAGING TO AMERICA, OR THE WORLD- AS LONG AS DEMOCRATS GET MORE POWER. I have a question, for all the far-Leftist kooks: Let's say you get your wish, and DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS, CONTROL ALL FORMS OF GOVT - THE COURTS, CONGRESS, WHITE HOUSE. AND WE GO GO THROUGH ANOTHER LONG, SUSTAINED PERIOD, LIKE THE LAST 6 YEARS, OR, GOD FORBID, ARE INVADED, OR BADLY ATTACKED. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LEFT IN AMERICA- HOW DO YOU THINK THEY WILL FEEL ABOUT YOU, AND YOUR POLITICAL RESULTS YOU CAUSED??
  8. gator's comment, to a previous post of mine: Gator: One last point, the people in the middle east are as sick and tired of the killing exactly like we are and the sooner people wake up and actually listen to what they're really saying and we respond accordingly then much of that insanity will end. ******************************************************** jonstewart: Gator, until PEOPLE LIKE YOU WAKE UP, and REALIZE WE ARE IN A STRUGGLE FOR OUR VERY SURVIVAL, we don't have much of a chance. especailly with the people in washington today...........) ***************************************** The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history. The Quran: Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse). Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end." Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..." Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..." Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians). Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith. Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam). Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).) Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?" Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse. Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations. Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost." Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell. Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16. Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning war. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad. Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. From the Hadith: Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings. Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror' Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist) Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes." Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..." Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!" Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'" Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)." Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim. Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam. Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’” Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid. Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.
  9. To gator (and TxRanger) - Thank you, Tx Ranger- Oh, if only we could have more states like Texas........ Gator- I hear what you were saying, you're sick and tired, same old crap, etc-, etc... Ultra-Conservatives are bad (which I guess is ANYBODY, now, who tells the truth about Obama , what a DISASTER this nation has become.) A DISASTER - Domestically, Economically, Jobs, Morally, Psychologically, RACIALLY(MUCH worse, than PRE- 2008, before "The First Black President-Healer", who gave Black Panthers a PASS, FORTHREATENING OLD WHITE LADIES WITH VOTER INTIMIDATION IN PHILLY, picking the Biggest Scumm bag RACIST in Washington, Eric Holder, for the TOP LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER), and ESPECIALLY, in FOREIGN POLICY- THE BOLDNESS OF OUR ENEMIES, THEIR LACK OF ANY FEAR, OR HESITATION TO DO WHATEVER EVIL THEY CHOOSE, BECAUSE AMERICA, WITH OBAMA AT THE TILLER, IS A RUDDERLESS SHIP, SPINNING AROUND A WHIRLPOOL(or a toilet drain), and after EVERY CRISIS, EVERY SCANDAL, THE EXCUSE FROM OBAMA IS: "What?..I'm new here!..We're trying to CHANGE the "Old Bush Ways", those "Evil Republican Ways", that caused you so much trouble in the past....(He will be saying this UNTIL HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE, AND IF HE WAS THERE TWELVE YEARS, it would be the same thing!...NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OF HIS MISTAKES, NOTHING IS EVER HIS FAULT. And with a SLAVISH, ASS-SUCKING MEDIA, SINGING HIS PRAISES NO MATTER HOW BADLY HE FUCKS UP, THE MORONS WHO SIT BY THEIR NPR AND MESS-NBC STATIONS JUST SUCK IT RIGHT UP, LIKE SNAKE-OIL OUT OF AN 1885 COVERED WAGON. So I'm sorry, if you don't like long, informative pieces...I'll try to follow the example of YOUR Media. Obama is Great. He's trying his best, leave him alone. Don't criticize, it shows you're a racist! Bush messed it up, and after 6 years, all the Jobs gone, all the Employers laying off, with MUCH WORSE TO COME, WITH FULL OBAMA-CRAP-CARE IMPLEMENTATION, THE 900 BILLION HE GAVE AWAY, TO THE RICHEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA ON WALL STREET WAS JUST "Good Policy"!...... It was NECCESARY! All through America's history, All the hundreds of companies that restructured, grew leaner and stronger, or fired lousy chief executives in the PAST, THE AMERICAN WAY, well, THAT WAS ALL WRONG ! See, the NEW WAY, THE OBAMA WAY, is to give ALL OUR TAX DOLLARS TO THE RICH FRIENDS OF DEMOCRATS, AND $20 A WEEK MORE TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS! ALL THE REST OF US IN THE MIDDLE, WHO ACTUALLY WORK, SUPPORT THIS COUNTRY, well, we're just STUPID. WE'RE FUCKED, BECAUSE WE DON'T DO IT "THE OBAMA WAY"!
  10. Last week, Obama reverses himself and says that he's not gonna go into Syria. Remember, they're using nerve gas. John Kerry goes out there, 1,500 people, 2,400 people, a lot of kids, nerve gas, sarin gas, got the proof. Look, I'm gonna get into all the hypocrisy. Yes, Kerry dining with Bashar back in 2009 and talking about what a great guy Bashar was. The bottom line is this administration is as incompetent as Jimmy Carter. There's only one difference. If there were anybody else running this administration right now, this would be reported as incompetent and as buffoonish and as frightening at Jimmy Carter's. This is Jimmy Carter's second term here. This is absolutely frightening what's happening here. Obama with this inadvertent, trying to make himself look like a tough guy, red line comment this past summer. Well, the Syrians crossed the red line, so Obama's obligated. And late in the week last week, he said, "You know what? I'm gonna go get congressional authority," after maintaining he didn't need it, maintaining he didn't want it, maintaining he's gonna be a tough guy, gonna act alone. He's gonna save the people of Syria. He's gonna make sure this Bashar guy gets what's coming to him. Then all of a sudden he switches gears we're told after a walk Friday night on the White House grounds. Yes. He decided he's gonna use congressional authority. He's gonna go to Congress. Now, when this announcement was made -- 'cause this had been discussed. I mean, the idea of congressional authority for use-of-force authorization had been discussed. There had been test votes taken by virtue of interview. At the time, there was no way Congress was gonna authorize it. Didn't stand a prayer, which Obama knew, which the point was to blame Republicans. It was the Limbaugh Theorem in play. Obama forget about it essentially. The plan was change direction, reverse field, announce that he's gonna go to Congress to get a use-of-force authorization, and then when the Republicans don't give it to him, blame them for dead Syrians. That was the plan. It still may be the plan. Blame the Republicans, the Limbaugh Theorem, a new strain of it. I get into arguments with people about this who still do not understand that no matter what the issue, no matter what day of the week, the either number one or number two objective in the world of Barack Obama is the elimination of any opposition. You cannot take the 2014 midterm elections out of this equation. You cannot remove from this equation just how desperate the Democrats are to win the House in 2014. Anything that can be done to blame the Republicans. When you have a slavish media on your side, you've huffed and you've puffed and you announce the red line and you draw the red line and you talk about how horrible it is that anybody would use nerve gas on their own people, except Saddam. When Saddam does it, it isn't a big deal. John Kerry goes out there on Friday, cites intelligence sources, telling what happened. Well, we can't believe intelligence sources. These guys told us back in 2002, 2003, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, they all told us, intel lies, Cheney made it up. So now we're being asked to believe the very institutions these people have destroyed. They did their best to destroy the CIA's reputation and MI6 in the UK, and any other group that did intel, any other nation around the world. Anyway, the change of direction. I don't know, cowardly, politics. Blame the Republicans for it. Roll the dice that they won't grant you the use-of-force authorization. Okay, what happens if they do? If they do then you're home free. You can't lose either way here, politically. It's not about the people of Syria. It's about Barack Obama. Everything's always about Barack Obama. I got another media montage that I have coming up for you in due course here. Washington media spent the Labor Day weekend wringing their hands, a little bit upset. The elitists spending their last weekend of the summer in the Hamptons were worried, Obama looked like an idiot here. Pull quote from Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal. I hope you're sitting down here. It's the Wall Street Journal, not the New York Times. Ahem. "The challenge for Republicans is to do just that, to remember (no matter how painful) that this is not a vote about the president or his machinations. The only question before Republicans is this: Will they send a message to the world's despots that America will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction? If they will not send that message, they risk complicity in this president's failed foreign policy." So the urge here from the Wall Street Journal is (summarized), "Look, you Republicans, let Obama snooker you. Let him snake you. Let him make you look like a fool. You gotta be bigger than that. The country's reputation is at stake! We cannot allow this guy, Bashar al-Assad, to nerve gas his own people with impunity, otherwise we don't stand for anything. You may think that you are screwing Obama by not granting him the use-of-force authorization, but all you'd be doing is sabotaging your own country." So, once again, a piece of advice to the Republicans is, "Bite the bullet! Bend over. Be bigger and give the president what he wants for the sake of America," and Boehner and McCain are eager to do just that. Now in all of the headcount polls and this kind of thing right now, the use-of-force authorization would not pass. There's another thing, folks. (interruption) No, I still haven't gotten the main point. It's all leading up there. Just sit tight. You have here, ostensibly, Bashar al-Assad nerve gassing his own people. Sarin gas. Lurch told us. John Kerry. He told us this Friday. Obama's got the red line drawn out there. They crossed the red line. Obama's manhood is on the line. Oh, my God, he's a gotta huff and puff! He's been huffing and puffing. All of a sudden, "You know what? To hell with it! I'm gonna wait awhile. I'm gonna wait on Congress." Wait a minute. People are dying, I thought. He's nerve gassing people! He's nerve gassing his own people, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and we're gonna wait for Congress to get back? We gotta wait a few days, rather than strike now? 'Cause all we're gonna do is we're gonna have a, what, three-minute to five-hour strike, whatever it takes to show that... (interruption) Yeah, the assets are already in place and we're gonna launch 'em for three minutes to five hours. That's the length of time we're talking about here. Get in, get it, and get out. Why wait? I thought time was of the essence here! I mean, he's nerve gassing his own people. Anyway, here's the point, folks: Four different people now, and the third one was just this morning, are asking, "What if Bashar didn't do it? What if Bashar is being framed? "What if Al-Qaeda is setting off their own chemical weapons on their own people, if the rebels are nerve gassing their own people to create exactly what is happening, us mobilizing to get rid of Bashar because they can't for some reason." So they use chemical weapons on their people, it gets blamed on Bashar, we go in and take Bashar out or do something and end up on the same side as "the rebels," in this case Al-Qaeda. What if Bashar is being framed? What if Bashar didn't do it? My friends, do you remember when the Syrian rebels overran and controlled a government base that had chemical weapons last summer? Even Leon Panetta admitted that chemical weapons may have fallen into their hands. This was last summer. I doubt that you remembered this. I doubt that anybody remembers it. Even people who keep up with the news every day, I doubt that anybody remembers that, so I want to remind you. Syrian rebels -- the same rebels that we're talking about today -- overran and controlled a government base, a Bashar Assad base, admittedly, that had chemical weapons last summer. And even Leon Panetta admitted that chemical weapons may have fallen into the hands of the opposition last summer. Now meanwhile, John Kerry and the regime and the media have used as their main argument the rebels have never had access to these chemical weapons . The idea that Bashar didn't do this... I mean, I'm not the first one to float it nor are the people who sent me their thoughts on it, nor is Yossef Bodansky the first. It's been talked about in Washington. There hasn't been a lot of news reported about it. But in dissecting events in Syria, people have posed the possibility in a rhetorical way. John Kerry and the Obama administration and the media have all used as their main argument that the rebels have never had access to the chemical weapons that the Syrian regime holds. That's why I want to remind you of the news story last summer that Syrian rebels overran and controlled a government base that had chemical weapons last summer, and Panetta admitted that those weapons may have fallen into the hands of the rebels. Kerry and the regime say that that didn't happen, that the US government has kept track. Which, folks, is simply not true. Furthermore, didn't a lot of the same people who say that Congress now must back Obama to maintain US credibility... "Oh, yes. Congress must back the president! They must, must, for the purposes of the credibility of the United States of America." Didn't a lot of the same people try to stop funding our troops while they were on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't some of these same people now demanding a united front actually engage in behavior that hampered the US military effort, particularly in Iraq? John Kerry two times, in Vietnam and Iraq, agreed that US soldiers are reprobates, rapists, terrorists. Now all of a sudden they're angels. You know, it's Foreign Policy magazine, a flashback: "Panetta: We’ve Lost Track of Some Syrian Chemical Weapons." That's September 28, 2012. This is after Benghazi. That's what Benghazi was all about in many ways. It was not last summer; it was last September in Foreign Policy magazine. Panetta said, we have lost track of some Syrian chemical weapons. This is after Benghazi. So I'll give you some thinking on this notion that Bashar is being framed, that he didn't do it. AP just last week: "AP Sources: Intelligence on Weapons No 'Slam Dunk' -- The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no 'slam dunk,' with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say." That was August 29th. That's four days ago. Folks, I don't know how many of you have seen those stories. You in this audience, you're pretty informed. I imagine some of you have noted them or come across them. But I'm gonna tell you the conventional wisdom on television throughout the Drive-By Media is that Bashar conducted the chemical weapons. The rebels don't have any. Bashar did it. Bashar crossed the red line. The Syrian regime's a bunch of reprobates, and Obama said if you cross the red line you're gonna pay a price. He crossed the red line and now Obama's gonna make him pay a price. He wants Congress to join him in it. The conventional wisdom is that it's Bashar, it's a fait accompli, but I'm telling you, since last September, for anybody keeping track, wanting to remain open-minded about this, it's an open question whether the rebels got their hands on some chemical weapons, and then, while in the process of getting the heck kicked out of 'em, which Bashar was doing, they launched chemical weapons on their own people, framing Bashar. I got a note from a friend of mine, and it was the first of two, turned out, and these two guys don't know each other. The things that this friend of mine is telling me, things about him I didn't know, but I believe to be true. Anyway, he says that he spent a lot of time in the Middle East. His business, by the way, would have required that or certainly would have necessitated it. He just never talked about it. Anyway, I'm not gonna read the whole thing to you, but basically he says he's traveled around a lot over there and doesn't believe Bashar would do this. There's nothing in it for him, he's not this kind of guy. It was almost a personal reference for Bashar Assad, which really had me scratching my head. I said, "Come on. Everybody wants to do my job. Everybody wants to influence what I say." And I set it aside and I filed it away. I thought it was interesting, but, you know, anybody can write me anything and say anything. I've gotta be very careful. I just can't accept what somebody sends me in an e-mail and run with it. So I ran the theory by a couple of people whose opinion on these things I've respected over the years, and they both said, "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, that's a little crazy." I said, "Okay." So I set it aside. Then another one came on Saturday afternoon, and I set it aside. So powerful is the idea, the media gets into this convention wisdom mode and starts pounding things and it doesn't take long for everybody to start believing the story. And the story is that Bashar used sarin gas, chemical weapons on his own people, even though it's John Kerry out there making the case. And then late last night, early this morning, I run across this piece by Yossef Bodansky. And I look him up, find out who he is, just shared his resume with you, and his story, his article here is that there is evidence, mounting evidence that the rebels in Syria did indeed frame Assad for the chemical attack. But not only that, that Obama, the regime, may have been complicit in it. Mounting evidence that the White House knew and possibly helped plan this Syrian chemical weapon attack by the opposition. So this is a double whammy. So then I said, wait a minute now. I just rejected these two e-mails from friends of mine thinking, quite frankly, that it was quackery. I said, wait a minute now, I've got to start thinking this seriously. One of the learned people in this field that I ran the theory by who initially rejected it is now rethinking the whole thing based on the Bodansky piece. Look, I don't want to overdramatize this. I'm just saying, with this administration, one thing I've learned, with the Democrat Party, the American leftists, their objectives are not always as stated, and they do lie, and they will lie to further their cause. And we know that, as far as these people are concerned, everything is about Obama. It's not about the people of Syria. It's not about anything but Obama and the elimination of opposition and winning the House in 2014 because everything with these people is political. "There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East -- mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters -- which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition. The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the 'horror' of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light." This guy is not a kook, folks. He's not a nut. He's not an Internet Looney Toon, the guy writing this, Yossef Bodansky. In fact, in reading further about this guy, Yossef Bodansky argued that the deception playing out right now in Syria is a deception similar to one used in Sarajevo in 1995 to provoke air strikes against the Serbs for the benefit of the Bosnian Muslims. Now, if this is right -- and I say "IF" in capital letters -- if this is right, this is the setup of all time. This thing prints out to four pages and I'm sure Koko and the boys have found it and are getting ready to put a link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. Defense and Foreign Affairs. If they don't have it I'll send 'em the link. At any rate, it looks like there was US intel involvement dating a week before the alleged chemical weapons attack in meetings that were anticipating a war-changing event. So we could be looking here at a frame job, a pretty big setup. "The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the 'horror' of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light." The way that's written, what it means is Obama is describing what happened in Syria as a horror, and it's something we as a freedom loving, decent, good-hearted people cannot tolerate. It's a horror. Well, what Mr. Bodansky is saying is that "available data puts the 'horror' of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light," meaning it's not Bashar doing the horrible things. It's the rebels nerve gassing themselves, framing Bashar, setting him up so as to engineer a response that takes Bashar out; so that the Al-Qaeda guys win, and then we end up on the side of Al-Qaeda, and you've heard that being speculated about. "On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence ['Mukhabarat Amriki'] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. "Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to 'a war-changing development' which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria. The opposition forces," meaning the rebels in Syria, "had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad government, the senior commanders explained. "The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive." What this guy is saying is that representatives of the Syrian rebels met with simpatico groups in Turkey and planned a joint move against Bashar after a US-led attack on him, which would follow what these people are determining or calling "a war-changing development." That would be the nerve gassing of their own people. Now, again, it remains a big "if," but if... Look at the world right now. Look at this country. If indeed this is a frame job, look at how well it's being run. I mean, everybody thinks that Bashar did it, and everybody thinks Obama's gotta do something, and everybody thinks Congress has gotta join Obama in doing something, and everybody thinks the United States has gotta do something. Two possibilities- The Muslims are suckering the U.S., like they did Clinton in 1995, we found out later it was PRO-MUSLIM FORCES, ATTACKING THEIR OWN PEOPLE, TO GET U.S. INVOLVED, or, it's just Obama trying DESPERATELY NOT TO LOOK LIKE A WIMP, WHO WAS HIDING HIS HEAD IN BIN LADEN OPERATION, AND CAN ONLY PLAY GOLF, BADLY. "We gotta go in there! We've gotta save the Syrian people! This Bashar guy is an absolute reprobate. He's no different than Saddam; he's nerve gassing his own people." That whole narrative, that whole template quickly came to life. It has all the energy in the world behind it. Now, just so you know, the two e-mails I got from my friends who cite anecdotal evidence, I'm not attaching any weight in this to what they have said. It just, to me, is coincidental. On Saturday, I got these two notes from friends of mine who have done business in the Middle East and in Syria. They know Assad; they cannot believe that he would do this. "He's not that kind of guy, number one," they said. "Number two, there's nothing in it for him. There nothing in it for him. He was already cleaning their clocks with conventional opposition tactics to a rebel civil war force. He was already cleaning their clocks so badly, the US had to get involved to even it up because Bashar was winning so good. What in the world did he need to do this for? " Both my friends distrust Obama tremendously, so I must put that in there. So it was out of clear blue I run into Yossef Bodansky and his piece which is four pages of what he says is "growing volume of new evidence" from numerous sources in the Middle East, that not only did the Syrian rebels use the nerve gas on their own people and frame Bashar, but that we knew and possibly helped plan it. Now, that's gonna make people ask, "Why do we want to get rid of Bashar? Kerry, Hillary, and Obama have all called him a great reformer. What could this possibly be about?" READ the Yossef Bodansky piece at Defense and Foreign Affairs you will be able to go to the link and read the whole thing yourself, which I'd urge you to do. I'm not gonna read four pages here. It's really detailed. It'd be tough to follow over four pages, but it's convincing. I just want to make one thing very clear here. I am simply being honest with you. I get two e-mails on Saturday from two different friends, ostensibly (you talk about over the transom, talk about out of the blue) that they don't believe it. Because they've worked on in the region, lived there, done business there, and they don't believe Bashar's capable of doing it, and there's no upside for it. In fact, that Bashar's probably paranoid, 'cause what is Obama doing in the Middle East? The regime's agenda appears to be eliminating dictators in favor of Muslim radicals. He got rid of Mubarak. He's a dictator. He might have been a horrible guy, but he was stable. Khadafy may have been a horrible guy, but he was stable. We're getting rid of all of these dictators -- which, of course, sounds great -- but they're being replaced with Muslim radicals, i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al-Qaeda is basically who's in Syria. If they get rid of Bashar in Syria, it will be Al-Qaeda. Muslim radicals. Sharia is on the march in the Middle East is what's taking place here. The point is that Bashar may be looking at this, seeing this, and of course wouldn't smile upon it. He'd be considered one of these dictators that the US is targeting and taking out. I'm not asserting any of this to be true. I just found it now in a very credible place, and you know me. I don't go with the flow of conventional wisdom -- and I'm not a conspiracy kook, either. This makes perfect sense to me that Bashar could be set up. So I'm just putting this out as a possibility, because it's already out there. I didn't put it out there. I'm just reminding you and sharing with you what's there. It's up to you. You know the old, "We report, you decide" thing here. This has been done before, as I mentioned. It's been done before in Sarajevo in 1995. But aren't we preparing in our country for Al-Qaeda to possibly use chemical/biological weapons on us? What's so hard to believe that they could do it in Syria?
  11. Remember how, when 5 other nations Intelligence Agencies, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Israel,'s PLUS our OWN CIA, said "SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE'S ALREADY USED NERVE GAS, ON IRAQI CITIZENS, KURDS IN THE NORTH", Democraps said, "WE don't care!...We don't want those evil warmongering Republicans staring any more wars!..They just want to fatten their war-machine buddies!" "And why is Saddam a bad guy today? Ten years ago, he was fighting Iran (a WORSE enemy), and he was our FRIEND! Republicans are hypocrites!" Right? ************************************************************** BUT, it's OK, that Kerry's cosy dinner, 3 short years ago, with HIS WIFE, BASHIR ASSAD, BASHIR'S WIFE, the man he TODAY calls "Syria's Hitler" : BELOW, Secretary of State John "Hangnail Purple Heart" Kerry, and the man he likened to German dictator are pictured dining with their wives at Damascus restaurant before civil war broke out - HE CAME BACK SINGING THE PRAISES, OF "SYRIA'S HITLER", JUST A FEW YEARS AGO!.... CAN YOU SAY "DEMOCRAP HYPOCRITE"? Kerry pictured around a small table with his wife and the Assads in 2009 Assad and Kerry lean in towards each other, deep in conversation Picture taken in February 2009 when Kerry led a delegation to Syria. Kerry returned, with shining compliments about Our Future, with the Great Statesman Bashir Assad Kerry yesterday compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein By ANTHONY BOND and DAVID MARTOSKO PUBLISHED: 07:53 EST, 2 September 2013 | UPDATED: 06:04 EST, 3 September 2013 An astonishing photograph of John Kerry having a cozy and intimate dinner with Bashar al-Assad has emerged at the moment the U.S Secretary of State is making the case to bomb the Syrian dictator's country and remove him from power. Kerry, who compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein yesterday, is pictured around a small table with his wife Teresa Heinz and the Assads in 2009. Assad and Kerry, then a Massachusetts senator, lean in towards each other and appear deep in conversation as their spouses look on. A waiter is pictured at their side with a tray of green drinks, believed to be lemon and crushed mint. Cosy: This astonishing photograph shows the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife having an intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his wife in 2009 Cosy: This astonishing photograph shows the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife having an intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his wife in 2009 The picture was likely taken in February 2009 in the Naranj restaurant in Damascus, when Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss finding a way forward for peace in the region. While President Barack Obama has softened his military threat against Syria by putting the question to Congress and guaranteeing at least a week's delay, Kerry remains outspoken about the dangers posed by the Syrian regime. More...'Another Syria vote? Never say never': Chaos as Foreign Office minister raises prospect of a debate ruled out by No. 10 Assad will be 'euphoric' about Obama's decision to wait for Congress over Syria, says McCain as the President continues to beg for support The starving victims of Syria: Children dying in war torn country as conflict cuts off vital supply routes He said that Assad 'has now joined the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein' in deploying chemical weapons against his own people. Kerry said Sunday that the U.S. now has evidence that sarin nerve gas was used in Syria and that 'the case gets stronger by the day' for a military attack. Speaking out: US Secretary of State John Kerry last week said the U.S. knows 'with high confidence' the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in an attack *********************************************************************** jonstewart sez: CAN YOU SAY "HYPOCRITES"? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408805/John-Kerrys-cosy-dinner-Syrias-Hitler-Secretary-State-Assad-pictured-dining-Damascus.html#ixzz2dr6rOArM Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  12. What? The truth hurts, when it shows what hypocritical assholes you elected?
  13. Biden Said He Will Impeach The President For War Not Approved By Congress … In 2007 August 28, 2013 by Sam Rolley If President Barack Obama launches an attack on Syria without full Congressional approval, do you think Vice President Joe Biden will attempt to have him impeached? In 2007, Senator Biden said that he would absolutely do everything possible to impeach the President if he attacked Iran or Syria without first gaining Congressional approval. Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach the President, if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval. Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office. “The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience. Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president. On Tuesday, we brought you Constitution-friendly Obama, circa 2007; today, we will revisit a Biden of the same vintage. Biden spent a great deal of time talking about illegal wars and impeaching President Bush around that time. Here he is appearing on MSNBC in 2007: Chris Matthews, Anus-Sucking Wannabe-Obama Head-Giver: “You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?” Biden: “Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. (Well, Chris, I really don't "teach" it, I TRY to read it out of OTHER people's books, which I THEN plagiarize , then LIE, and call it "my own work".) This is something I know. (after I plagiarize it) ....So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.” Obama and his team contradict past statements on war powers, Syria 5:29 PM 08/27/2013 As Barack Obama is hand-wringing and trying to act Presidential, over military action in Syria, it remains unclear whether he will first seek congressional authorization. It's clear, he has a history of appeasement and lack of courage, when it comes to taking action, toward terrorists, especially Muslim terrorists, even when it is clear they are enemies of America. His supporters, who still will not face the truth, even after all his failures, and assistance in the growth of Islamist Enemies of America, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a disaster,..............Libya, a disaster,..............his signal to the Islamist-Sharia-Terrorist world, by the 6 years of snubbing Israel, that he is a friend of the enemies of Israel, which also happen to be OUR enemies- a disaster . These supporters who will blindly march over the edge of a cliff, if he tells them to, sadly try to point to Osama bin Laden, when it is CLEAR Obama did NOT want to go after him, he HAD to, or would have lost ALL support except the mentally unbalanced. It's come out last week, we played TWELVE GAMES OF "HEARTS", while the mission to get bin-Laden was going down, he DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE IN THE MISSION OPS ROOM WITH THE GENERALS, HE WAS SITING OFF TO THE SIDE, LOOKING DOWN, WHEN OBAMA SAID: "I can't watch that....." (WHAT A PUSSS - SY, Haaaahahahaha!) Many believe the ONLY reason he is contemplating launching a few missles at Syria and Assad is because he made a stupid "red line in the sand" comment one day, when he was trying to sound "tough"! But through all this, as usual, he gives NO CLEAR STATEMENTS, on what his beliefs are, what his principles or standards are, for behavior of civilized countries and their leaders. It's as if he carefully crafted, since before he was ever elected in 2008, a persona that takes NO CLEAR POSITIONS, NO CLEAR MORALS, STANDARDS, OR POLICIES, SO THAT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION, IN THIS NATION, OR IN THE WORLD, HE CAN ALWAYS SAY "I'm not FOR or AGAINST that....I've never given ANY INDICATION, what I stand for, in that area." Except, of course, ALL HIS RENEGED PROMISES, LIES, FLIP-FLOPS AND BACKTRACKS, ON HIS "ObamaCare Nightmare". It is clear, however, that Obama once thought such authorization was necessary. OBAMA: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”“It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” Obama continued. President Obama did not seek congressional approval for his military strikes against Libya in 2011. That bombing campaign led to longtime dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s ouster. Vice President Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, agreed with Obama. “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden said in 2007. Biden, then a Democratic senator from Delaware, suggested presidential war-making was an impeachable offense. This was not a new position for Biden. He delivered a speech before the Senate outlining Congress’ powers to declare war back in 1998. “Given this,” Biden said at the time, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.” Obama and Biden aren’t the only administration officials whose past comments will be parsed if strikes are ordered on Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the Syrian government would have to answer for the “moral obscenity” of chemical weapons use, while Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said troops are “ready to go” to Syria at the president’s command. But in 2008, Kerry and Hagel, then U.S. senators, co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “It’s Time to Talk to Syria.”
  14. Obama and his team contradict past statements on war powers, Syria 5:29 PM 08/27/2013 As Barack Obama is hand-wringing and trying to act Presidential, over military action in Syria, it remains unclear whether he will first seek congressional authorization. It's clear, he has a history of appeasement and lack of courage, when it comes to taking action, toward terrorists, especially Muslim terrorists, even when it is clear they are enemies of America. His supporters, who still will not face the truth, even after all his failures, and assistance in the growth of Islamist Enemies of America, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a disaster,..............Libya, a disaster,..............his signal to the Islamist-Sharia-Terrorist world, by the 6 years of snubbing Israel, that he is a friend of the enemies of Israel, which also happen to be OUR enemies- a disaster . These supporters who will blindly march over the edge of a cliff, if he tells them to, sadly try to point to Osama bin Laden, when it is CLEAR Obama did NOT want to go after him, he HAD to, or would have lost ALL support except the mentally unbalanced. It's come out last week, we played TWELVE GAMES OF "HEARTS", while the mission to get bin-Laden was going down, he DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE IN THE MISSION OPS ROOM WITH THE GENERALS, HE WAS SITING OFF TO THE SIDE, LOOKING DOWN, WHEN OBAMA SAID: "I can't watch that....." (WHAT A PUSSS - SY, Haaaahahahaha!) Many believe the ONLY reason he is contemplating launching a few missles at Syria and Assad is because he made a stupid "red line in the sand" comment one day, when he was trying to sound "tough"! But through all this, as usual, he gives NO CLEAR STATEMENTS, on what his beliefs are, what his principles or standards are, for behavior of civilized countries and their leaders. It's as if he carefully crafted, since before he was ever elected in 2008, a persona that takes NO CLEAR POSITIONS, NO CLEAR MORALS, STANDARDS, OR POLICIES, SO THAT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION, IN THIS NATION, OR IN THE WORLD, HE CAN ALWAYS SAY "I'm not FOR or AGAINST that....I've never given ANY INDICATION, what I stand for, in that area." Except, of course, ALL HIS RENEGED PROMISES, LIES, FLIP-FLOPS AND BACKTRACKS, ON HIS "ObamaCare Nightmare". It is clear, however, that Obama once thought such authorization was necessary. “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”“It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” Obama continued. President Obama did not seek congressional approval for his military strikes against Libya in 2011. That bombing campaign led to longtime dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s ouster. Vice President Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, agreed with Obama. “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden said in 2007. Biden, then a Democratic senator from Delaware, suggested presidential war-making was an impeachable offense. This was not a new position for Biden. He delivered a speech before the Senate outlining Congress’ powers to declare war back in 1998. “Given this,” Biden said at the time, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.” Obama and Biden aren’t the only administration officials whose past comments will be parsed if strikes are ordered on Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the Syrian government would have to answer for the “moral obscenity” of chemical weapons use, while Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said troops are “ready to go” to Syria at the president’s command. But in 2008, Kerry and Hagel, then U.S. senators, co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “It’s Time to Talk to Syria.” Biden Said He Will Impeach The President For War Not Approved By Congress… In 2007 August 28, 2013 by Sam Rolley If President Barack Obama launches an attack on Syria without full Congressional approval, do you think Vice President Joe Biden will attempt to have him impeached? On Tuesday, we brought you Constitution-friendly Obama, circa 2007; today, we will revisit a Biden of the same vintage. In 2007, Senator Biden said that he would absolutely do everything possible to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without first gaining Congressional approval. Via Seacoast Online, November 29, 2007: Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval. Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office. “The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience. Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president. Biden spent a great deal of time talking about illegal wars and impeaching President Bush around that time. Here he is appearing on MSNBC in 2007: Chris Matthews, Anus-Sucking Wannabe-Obama Head-Giver: “You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?” Biden: “Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. (wWell, Chris, I really don't "teach" it, I TRY to read it out of OTHER people's books, which I THEN plagiarize , then LIE, and call it "my own work".) This is something I know. (after I plagiarize it) So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.”
  15. Seeing there is a sychophantic, ass-sucking Main Media in America, crooked and corrupt as any Chicago hack politician, there is only ONE HOPE, for an America who has ALREADY WELFARE-AND-BENEFIT-BRIBED TOO MUCH OF ITS DUMB, STUPID VOTERS to save us... The Presidential Elections every 4 years are a JOKE. When you see SUCH A FAILURE AND ANTI-AMERICAN-VALUE SOCIALIST such as OBAMA get RE-ELECTED, it's hard to HOPE for the intelligence of the voting public, to save us. IT'S TIME TO TAKE ACTION. A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS CALLED FOR! ************************************* A Constitutional convention? August 26, 2013 By Gene Veith Leave a Comment Conservative genius Mark Levin, President of Landmark Legal Foundation, who has brought briefs before the Supreme Court, and Presidential Advisor to Ronald Reagan, Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Mark Levin has written a book entitled The Liberty Amendments (which debuted at #1 on Amazon) which calls for a Constitutional convention to propose amendments that would rein in the power of the federal government. (Under Article V of the Constitution, 2/3 of the states could call such a convention. That would mean 34. It would take 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendments that were proposed.) The idea is picking up supporters from Rush Limbaugh to Senator Tom Coburn, from Tea Party activists to Conservative think tankers. And efforts are being organized to sell the notion to state legislators. After the jump: A list of Levin’s proposed amendments, an excerpt from a review discussing them, and thoughts from me. What do you think of this idea? Would it work? Should it? Could it get the support of enough states? What do you think of the individual amendments he is proposing? ~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress ~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment) ~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override ~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation ~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy ~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause) ~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause). ~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution ~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress ~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID) From John Hayward, Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” | Human Events: One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree. Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision. That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power. As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now. The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets. There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order. Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it. This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate. Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George. Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation. I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters. Levin says that the enabling legislation he is proposing from the states would limit the convention’s purpose to just considering amendments that would limit the powers of the federal government and increase those of the states.
×
×
  • Create New...