Obama's Motto: 'Bush Started This'
President Obama is calling for dramatic defense cuts that could threaten our national survival while obstructing structural reforms to our entitlement programs that are essential for our national financial survival. It just doesn't get much worse than this.
President George W. Bush attempted in good faith to reform Social Security, and Democrats savaged him. Rep. Paul Ryan proposed a comprehensive financial plan that would, as painlessly as possible, restore national fiscal sanity, and Obama and his Democrats have misrepresented the plan (saying it would end Medicare) and used class warfare and fear-mongering to kill it in the cradle.
Indeed, Republicans have repeatedly submitted and passed comprehensive and detailed budget plans to restore our financial solvency, and Senate Democrats have blocked every one of them. Meanwhile, the Democratic Senate hasn't produced a budget in almost three years. Three years!
It is undeniable, undebatable, irrefutable, inarguable and certain that the United States is spending at a level that will destroy it. It is equally indisputable that Democrats have shown no willingness to join Americans in tackling the problem.
Every time you confront a liberal with these incontrovertible facts, his response is not: "You are simply wrong." It is, "Bush started this." Well, Bush did spend too much, but he was a piker compared with Obama. But it doesn't much matter who caused it anymore, does it?
If your family is facing a serious problem, is your first instinct to blame the culprit — other than to identify it for purposes of devising a solution — or to address the problem?
If Democrats truly believe Bush spent too much, then shouldn't they cooperate to bring spending under control rather than use Bush's spending as an excuse to up the ante? While Bush spent too much, including on education and his prescription drug entitlement, Democrats thought he didn't spend nearly enough on education (Ted Kennedy constantly derided Bush over it), and part of the reason Bush advanced prescription drugs was to prevent Democrats from implementing a far costlier package.
If Democrats had any concern about spending, they wouldn't have crammed through Obamacare, which will increase the federal health care budget obscenely. If they had the slightest concern about our upside-down national balance sheet, they wouldn't have spent $900 billion in a worthless, corrupt, ineffectual "stimulus" program and be clamoring for another one. They wouldn't urinate federal money into dead-end green projects, such as Solyndra. They wouldn't have desperately tried to pass a monumentally wasteful cap-and-trade bill that wouldn't have made a dent in global temperature in a hundred years, even if you blindly accept all the superstitious nonsense the environmentalists propagate.
Seriously, people, let Democrats and Obama defenders obfuscate all they want, but have you seen the charts? Have you noticed the dramatic acceleration in spending and deficits since Obama took office? Have you seen the side-by-side comparisons of America's financial future under the Ryan plan and Obama's current spending trajectory? Democrats cannot make Obama's financial path sustainable simply by blaming Bush for what happened before. We have to get about the business of cutting spending and reforming entitlements now because every year we wait, our problems are compounded and become that much more difficult to reverse.
We must come to terms with the fact that Democrats are trying not to control domestic spending — and growth-stifling tax hikes won't substantially reduce the deficit, much less the debt. Everything they are about depends on continually increasing spending, and you see it in their every budget. The only plans that even hint at spending cuts (actually reductions in spending increases using baseline budgeting) are the unspecified ones Obama outlines in his speeches. His actual budgets show no appreciable cuts in the deficits as far as the eye can see. Why aren't people, even Democrats, freaking out over this? I'll never understand this.
Obama is now proposing drastic cuts in our defense budget at a time when global terrorism is on the rise and other nations — from China to Russia to Iran to North Korea, most of whom mean us harm — are aggressively increasing their defense budgets. We are sharing nuclear secrets with Russia and sending technology to China that can be used for military purposes. Our war game projections show we might lose a conventional war against China over a disputed Taiwan Strait. We have killed our F-22 Raptor, while China and Russia are ramping up their next-generation fighters.
Obama's motto seems to be this: If spending is called for by the Constitution, bleed it dry; if the Constitution forbids it, no holds barred. Gut nation-saving defense spending; increase nation-destroying domestic spending.
When will the whole nation wake up to this madness?
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- David Limbaugh's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"When will the whole nation wake up to this madness?"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:30am.
Apparently not anytime soon!
If we can afford to give everyone a free cell phone, and free minutes, why would anyone think that we are broke, yo?
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/Home.aspx
The national MSM started this - not President Bush
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 3:53pm.
And, I would add that in both cases, our national MSM led the savaging.
On Bush's SS efforts -- First, the late NY Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democrat) chaired Bush's SS Reform Commission. Note: Hillary Clinton was Moynihan's successor.
The Commission, if I remember correctly, unanimously agreed on three models for shoring up/reforming Social Security. The Democrats and the national media flatly rejected all three.
Polls consistently showed that a clear majority of Americans supported serious SS reform in the moment, and polls further showed that most Americans, and a strong majority amongst younger Americans, supported the general outline of allowing, for younger workers, voluntary contributions for a portion of one's SS contribution to be self directed. The media did not like sharing the poll results with the voters, however, as the MSM continued to rip the effort to shreds.
On Paul Ryan's budget, CNN polled during the heat of the moment, finding that 67% of voters, nationally, supported the Ryan budget. As NewsBusters covered in the moment, the American people - by and large - didn't find out about how they felt. They were told by the MSM that they - the majority of Americans - wanted to throw Granny off a cliff.
On most any issue out there which carries strong majority support (which implies that the MSM has a different agenda on any such issue), the national MSM conspires to change that view.
On Immigration reform, here again, it's the national MSM leading the savaging - against the Republicans and the people. The liberal org, the Pew Center, polled and found that only 25% of voters support President Obama's agenda on Immigration reform. Now, that is a fact which our media will never publicly report on, nor question this White House or any Democrat about.
The national MSM started this - not President Bush.
(;~/ gary
This newsbuster article hit my google search terms
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:36pm.
"Bush" and "war crimes", bringing Newsbusters to my attention again. I reckon I comment here about once every two years. I suppose its useful to see if its possible to talk to Americans that would self identify with the American right or with the label "conservative" from time to time.
I am not an American (I'm Australian). I didn't consider myself a leftie until the western world's media and commentary lurched insanely to what seems to me to be the right during what I regard as the Bush maladministration. I fix the precise time I ceased to be pro-American and became, I believe, rationally anti-American as being when George W Bush was re-elected by popular vote after the illegal invasion of Iraq which occassioned the illegal killing of tens (if not hundreds of) thousands of Iraqis as well as the deaths of more American servicemen and women than there were Americans killed on 911.
I see now that my Google search terms only drew me here because Limbaugh's descriptive trailer has him as the author of a book "Crimes against Liberty" (well heck haven't they been happening in the US against citizens too and by the US against the fabric of the rule of law worldwide), and because Limbaugh's article brings us Bush as well, because it seems American lefties, in Limbaugh's estimation defend Obama on the dubious, in fact invalid grounds that, "Bush did it first".
Limbaugh argues that the threat of global terror is great, and that now is not the time to be cutting US spending on military, well, that's a crock, its the obscene opportunistic and illegal use of the US military that is seeding and engendering the desire to deal with lawless America by any means necessary and making terrorism look like the lesser evil in comparison with acquiescence to a submission to a rising totalitarian state.
Limbaugh uses an example of a family to ask if when there is a problem with the family budget the problem is best addressed by finding who is to blame. But when did individidual Americans last feel like the body politic of the United States of America was like a family to them? Class warfare is not a fabrication of the left, though it may be at present an exaggeration as to the war bit.
What mystifies me is where the American right gets its votes for right wing Presidential candidates that look frankly crazy or intellectually or religiously retarded. (I agree btw with criticisms of Obama by left and right that the man is an unprincipled opportunist, its true that much that Bush did wrong and clumsily Obama does also wrong if less clumsily. But under Obama Americas slide towards totalitarianism continues).
Why aren't ordinary American "conservatives" taking to the bloody streets and defending their own rights, their own prospects for rising on merit in a system where the rule of law should, but clearly doesn't, apply equally to currently wealthy and currently privileged as well as to the still aspiring?
Why have ordinary Americans allowed it to become impossible to impeach Presidents or to bring the formerly politically powerful to lawful account for high crimes?
Why isn't Ron Paul's brand of follow-the-constitution republicanism more attractive to more American conservatives?
What the heck are unwealthy, unprivileged American conservatives actually trying to conserve (their illusions?, the intellectual effort?) because its clear as it could be to those paying attention that unwealthy, unprivileged Americans, the still aspirational Americans, as a group are being diddled and manipulated out of their own rights and prospects for improvement under the US Constitution. Habeas corpus is not an invention of the left. "Too big to fail" isn't leftist rationalisation.
Its clear the wealthy and privileged are trying to conserve wealth and privilege but not for ordinary Americans or for the aspirational but for themselves. And this is not just in the economic arena it is also evident in the stupid miss spending on military means that are then used not for peace and security but for the projection of American power in ways that are recognized and resented internationally much as is the projection of mafia power into local communities and peoples that don't want to have to submit to tyranny.
Good thing, Paatsch, that you clarified your ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:36pm.
country of residence; otherwise I would have thought you were another U.S. military hating liberal here in America.
If the U.S. military were as pacifistic in the early 1940's as you seem to desire them to be now - chances are you would currently be wearing a kimono.
MD
Bingo Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:44pm.
And have you noticed, that they( outsiders) always forget to say "thank you"...
Bingo Matthew, if you fought in world war 2 then I do thank
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:02pm.
you.
In that circumstance you really might be part of what really may have been an American great generation.
That generation not only won a righteous war they had the wisdom and strength of character to try and establish a global set of rules against aggressive invasion and to sign onto that compact as a sovereign nation themselves. That generation of Americans led by good example.
Notice,
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:24pm.
Paatsch completely ignores the point of the post to turn it completely into yet another anti-American rant. I'm shocked........really.
So what MD?
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:55pm.
My father and probably my grandfather had good cause to be appreciative of the United States military, defeating the Nazi's and the Japanese in world war 2 was in my opinion winning a righteous war. But that was then and this is now.
After world war 2, the victors including the United States formed a United Nations with a Charter that its members including the United States ratified after the US senate with a supermajority backed the UN Charter President Trumen had set before them.
Just as Germans weren't always in history Nazi's American aren't always necessarily the good guys. What determines whether a nation's people (and foreign policy) are good or bad at a given time in history I submit is determinable on the facts. Its against the promises that Americans have made since WW2 in treaties such as the UN Charter that I hold Americans wanting.
The US military should have countermanded the illegal invasion of Iraq order with a bullit to the brain of the commander in chief if no other lesser means of avoiding a violation of US law was available. The world would have been down one US President too stupid to be in the office and almost certainly also one US military person also as a consequence of them taking their duties as a citizen, to the constitution above the commander in chief seriously.
George W Bush was no Adolf Hitler. But contemporary America is very close to being 1930's Germany mass deluded on patriotism and propaganda.
Godwins Law proven true
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:25pm.
Godwins law proven true yet again.....
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
An excerpt from Wikipedia's article on Godwin's Law
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:17pm.
"The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact"
Free Stinker, I reckon this use is appropriate. I said, truthfully, that I am a former pro-American. That, consistent with Godwin's law, some invoke Nazi and Hitler comparisons frivolously or ignorantly, doesn't mean all do. The Nazi regime was the last time a powerful western country was totalitarian. The Nazi regime used the propaganda of external threats and dire domestic economic circumstances to curtain domestic freedoms, to launch expansionist wars, and to gain and hold power. Though 30's Germany probably had better cause to blame outsiders for their economic troubles than do present day Americans.
The historical analogy of 1930's Germany with the contemporary United States works. It works if one's idea is to communicate to the decent people of contemporary America that the greater threat both to themselves and to others in the world is not terrorism (to be opposed with a large military) but totalitarianism rising under the cover of protection from terrorism, with the new centre of totalitarian power being in the United States.
You appear, Paatsch, to be conflating the---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:27pm.
"decent people of contemporary America" with the miscreant politicians currently in power.
Decent people didn't elect Obama, or his ilk; fools did.
MD
Ultimately what choice do non-Americans have but to
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:12pm.
hold the entire US body politic to account for the Presidents and foreign policy they inflict upon the world?
When all lawful avenues are removed from the table only blunt instruments are left.
If you "we the people, people" ain't responsible, if they ain't representing you, then feel free to take the trash out, or at least acknowledge that your failure to do so gives rise to others having a right to do what you want do. Indecent Americans use decent Americans as shields.
Any US citizen has at least the option of revoking citizenship, saying their government does not reflect their values and leaving for somewhere else. Or better still of staying put but using the remedy in the Declaration of Independence if they feel "a long train of abuses" has already triggered the right to throw off such government.
Only US citizens get to vote in US Presidential and Congressional elections. You in the US collectively probably do get the governments you deserve, though individually some of you doubtless want and deserve better, but we in the rest of the world don't deserve any of the scoundrel Presidents and opportunistic foreign policy you inflict on us and who can continue to presume to act in your collective name only whilst you as a people do not repudiate them or whilst you allow others who have taken oaths to your constitution and laws to grant them political immunity rather than uphold their oaths and do their duty and bring them to lawful account even for completely closed public record cases like ordering torture.
Obama and Holder are both on record as saying water boarding is torture and Bush is on record by his own hand in his own book saying he waterboarded. So where is the prosecution?
The stupid is strong in this one.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:31pm.
Those would be opinions of Obama and Holder, not settled law.
I know people who've been water-boarded, they serve in the military. Each and every one of them said it was uncomfortable and not pleasant. None of them said it was torture.
"Any US citizen has at least the option of revoking citizenship". Have you renounced your Australian citizenship, after all, your MoD has allowed the U. S. Marines to train in Australia. If you weren't the four star hypocrite you are, you would have already renounced your citizenship and lit out for Indonesia, or North Korea or China. Maybe you'd like to move to the Spratly Islands?
Because as we all know....
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:18pm.
If Obama and Holder say it, it must be true!
Where did this troll come from? Geez.....
Obama is President, Holder Attorney General
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:30pm.
That it is their opinion that waterboarding is torture should be enough when coupled with their oaths to the constitution to at least make them try to prosecute.
That they won't even try, given that that is their opinion on the record, is that point.
It might be possible for Bush to be tried and found not guilty, I don't see how, but that's a separate matter to that, it is the ordinary people that are getting screwed when on the face of it, those most empowered to uphold US law and who are on record as saying that they think waterboarding is torture won't back their own oaths and own opinions.
How the hell could any American in contemporary America hope that a jury of their peers would produce anything like justice should they ever need to rely on them when this stuff goes on in full public view?
Yep, Cop, opinions are settled law.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:37pm.
This maroon doesn't realize that if there was any way, any way at all, to drag President Bush into court, that Obama and Holder would have jumped on it. He just can't get over the fact that no crime, Federal or International has been committed.
I'd ask, again, when he was going to renounce his citizenship, as his country is facilitating the training of U. S. Marines, but I don't think he's got the stones to address it.
Nonsense...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:02pm.
It wouldn't have been frivolous litigation--far more viable than most of the crap lawsuits filed by Judicial Watch against Clinton [and some against Bush]--but the administration correctly concluded it would be both legally problematic and politically counterproductive, and satisfy few but the hardest core of its base and a coterie of constitutional scholars and civil libertarians.
Jer
And there is the rub. What is politically counterproductive
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:06am.
when considered only from the standpoint of a politician looking to be elected only by domestic constituents for only a four year or so terms can be damning to the nation interest when considered with a wider frame of reference and with the longer term in mind.
Obama and Pelosi made political calculations when they decided to give political immunity but those calculations, I submit was not in the broader human interest which has a bedrock and pressing need for a rule of law applying to all (including Presidents) or to come to terms with the alternative which is that there is no rule of law applying to all because their is no existant government even the US government that can be trusted to uphold even the founding values of life and liberty as unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence.
US politicians treat the unalienable rights of foreigners and increasingly of US citizens as alienable and expendable to their own careers and personal ambititions. And they do this because US citizens let them do this.
Jer, eh? you aren't
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:07pm.
Jer,
eh? you aren't serious, are you? Always defending your god Clinton. :-)
Of course it would have been frivolous. The second any idiot attempted to and in a miracle was able to have President Bush arrested, charged and brought to trial for alleged torture, waterboarding. All Bush's defense team would have to do is line up the countless current American military and ex-military who are waterboarded for their training. Then ask, why didn't the Left in the USA, why didn't the Democratic party in the USA call waterboarding when it is used as part of the training of the United States military.
This Assuie guy is but a mere buffoon spousing ridiculous crazy Code Pink stupidity. It is fun to read his cartoonish writing, but hardly worth taking seriously.
I reckon not
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:46am.
Wow. Sourcing from Wikipedia?
That didn't take long.
Since you gate the USA so much you would really fit in better at HuffPoo, or Duh-lyKos.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
So what, indeed, Paatsch,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:54pm.
as it appears you are much more interested in Bush bashing, denigrating the U.S. military, and poor-mouthing Americans through the malignancy of your personal opinion.
As far as "But that was then, this is now" - what happened regarding Iraq, happened. Try and deal with it without pretending it affects your very existence.
The United States has its share of shortcomings, to be sure, but on a comparative international scale, none are either big enough or bad enough to warrant a dressing down from a piss ant like you.
Buzz off.
MD
The world is still trying to deal with what happened in Iraq
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:34pm.
and as part of the world so am I.
Just as there can only be one US Constitution as the bedrock of US domestic law there can only be one treaty or agreement or compact in existence at any time as the basis for inter-national law. And because there is nothing more important or fundamental to freedom for groups of people than not having other groups of people invade their sovereign nation against their solemn promise contemporary America its politics and its people are everybodies problem.
To your buzz off, I reply up your sideways, brownshirt. There are Patrick Henry's and John Brown's in every large group of people and if its necessary to take contemporary America down to bring humankind forward again under a rule of law and common standards of decency because the majority of Americans behave like 1930's German's then lets get started sooner rather than later.
I'll see your brownshirt, and raise you one---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:42pm.
ignorant leftist tool searching for a way to denigrate the U.S.A. because it doesn't measure up to his version of Utopia.
If you don't like America, get out.
Oh.
Never mind.
MD
Oh look, a jihadi troll*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:50pm.
"if it's necessary to take contemporary America down"
Thanks for revealing who and what you are.
The US is 239 years old. Your liberal/socialist beliefs brought failure to every country in history that tried it resulting in those countries calling for help from the US. Even though we are suffering the economic damage by a socialist we now have in office, we are still bailing out the failed progressive ideals in Europe.
And you really need to review the true "brown shirts" because your ignorance is showing. Conservatives here in this country are not brown shirts following hitlers path. On the contrary, we are trying to protect our constitution so that we do not go down the road to tyranny as others have before us.
Your post above is being forwarded to the admins.
Begone troll!
Caj:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:03pm.
This one is not exactly what you'd call a chronic overachiever.
Darn SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:24pm.
You just made me viewer #84..hahaha
Dang it
Submitted by QMCS on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:09pm.
Yep he just suckered me into #85
Unless you are 239 years old you get no credit or blame
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:37pm.
for whatever America has done or failed to do except for what has occurred on your watch as an adult citizen.
The US constitition is right. Taints of the blood don't apply. And no blood is blue because of claimed pedigrees either. If your father and grandfather were heros that doesn't make you one. Ditto if there were villains.
If contemporary Americans don't hold the values expressed in the US Declaration of Independence, if they don't agree with the US Constitution or understand it, then they can make no claim to those creditable human achievements.
Contemporary America is what contemporary America does.
wrong again patch*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:07pm.
You missed the snark in my post. My reference to 239 years was to make fun of societies that are 5000 years old and still fighting, forcing their citizens to live in poverty, to live under tyranny. The US citizens are free and have the greatest liberties of any country because our learned founders who wrote the constitution were aware of the history of the world. They wrote our constitution for the purpose of avoiding the path of other socialist/communist countries.
We have a current threat in office to take away those liberties and willingly violate the sovereignty of other nations and we will remove him from office. But we will do it according to our laws, our election process. We will not be influenced by your wishes, your ideology, for one world order. Come back in say, 5000 years.
Go wash a camel, Akhmed troll
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:04pm.
And if anyone is behaving like the Germans in the 1930s, it is the Dear Ruler and his hideous administration.
My guess is your entire knowledge of that period could be recorded on a matchbook with a fat Sharpie.
You probably believe Hitler was a right-winger, too.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
"if its necessary to take
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:40pm.
"if its necessary to take contemporary America down to bring humankind forward again under a rule of law and common standards of decency because the majority of Americans behave like 1930's German's then lets get started sooner rather than later."
LOL!!!!! Another keyboard commando. Come on, tough guy, come over here and get it started and see what happens.......
Aussie Girl, Paatsch, Yes,
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:16pm.
Aussie Girl, Paatsch,
Yes, and 100s of thousands, if not millions of dead Iraqi women, men and children are still trying to deal with being buried in mass graves all around Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power. But like a good tool, spousing anti-American sillines, you care NOTHING about the millions that Saddam Hussein tortured and mass murdered.
If you truly cared about freedom you would be screaming at the top of your longs against the UN's oil for food program which was corrupt and making Hussein a millionare while nations who knew he was stealing food ment for the poor turned the other way. You would be asking for French government officials to be arrested and tried, along with German officials for selling to Saddam Hussein military technology that allowed him to build and army and a secret army much like the German SS, which terrorized, tortured and mass murdered millions of Iraqis.
If you truly cared about freedom you would be demanding that French banks, Germans banks, Russian banks, etc be investigated by interpol, international law so they could find all the money these governments and banks made from the blood of Iraqis murdered by Saddam Hussein.
You are truly but a sad, sad tool.
Just...wow!!
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:28pm.
"Why isn't Ron Paul's brand of follow-the-constitution republicanism more attractive"? Because, unlike asshats like you, most of us have done the minimum of homework on Ronpaul. We've seen his links to Stormfront, IVAW, and the other whackjobs he associates himself with, we've researched his papers, where he, at the least, condones racism.
Got news for you, Paatsch, it wasn't an illegal war, and it wasn't a violation of U.S. law, no matter how much you wish it were so. And, please, don't cite the UN. No organization that allows China, Russia, Libya, before it's "revolution" and Pakistan to sit on it's UN Human Rights Council is credible. You sound like any other whiny, anti-American lefty, you really ought to get a grip, and do just a tad of background research before you post things that beclown yourself.
Troll season has begun...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:10pm.
What else can you say about someone who advocates the assassination of an elected president because that poster doesn't like the policies of that president? Even though the policies were all lawfully enacted.
I advocate mutual human accountability under a system
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:23pm.
where the rule of law applies to all.
But when a series of Presidents use the office of the President of the United States to usurps to that office a right to kill foreigners and citizens alike without recourse to any court then it is time for tyrannicide to again become part of the political discussion. This is not because tyrannicide is a good thing. It is because mutual human accountability is a good thing and the best way to preserve political freedoms against tyranny is to exercise free political speech.
All systems of civilized law recognize a right to self defence and to come to the defence of an innocent with proportional violence when there are no lesser, better recourses available. The conversation about tyrannicide is healthy when it is coupled with a recognition that it would not have needed to arise if Presidents weren't claiming and using a power to execute that is un-Constittional.
Don't agree with what I say, you can fault my argument if you can, and you might even change my mind. But censor or don't engage and I'll assume I've won the argument.
So brown patch*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:40pm.
You must then be a huge fan of Obama. He has already begun his promise of ONE WORLD ORDER, A GLOBAL SOCIETY, or have you not been paying attention. You criticize the US voters for not being able to stop the very thing you are calling for. As responsible Americans who believe in the Sovereignty of Nations, we defend ourselves when a nation attacks.
Most Americans are not pleased with the death of citizens of other countries by assassination. Obama is not only a threat to other nations but to this one as well. He now has the power to detain American citizens with no charges filed. We do not want a revolution again in our country. We will elect a better POTUS at the next election but it will be done according to OUR laws and OUR wishes. NOT yours troll.
I was anti-Obama when he was still a candidate for President
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:57pm.
Specifically I became anti-Obama, like I am anti-Pelosi, because Obama as a candidate said "on the one hand the law must be upheld, on the other we must move forward".
Obama is, in my opinion, intelligent and educated. He is supposed to understand the US Constitution. Yet when asked if he'd appoint a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of the Bush administration the above was the blow off he gave.
Obama Presidency was born dead as far as I was concerned because he'd demonstrated a willingness to put "we must move forward", ie, get his own sorry butt elected at any cost, over the maintainence of the rule of law applying to all.
Pelosi similarly did not have the authority to take impeachment off the table when the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold says Presidents SHALL BE impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The people that get screwed when this sort of placing career over upholding of the law are ordinary Americans of both liberal and conservative varieties.
So in a nutshell,
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:32pm.
And judging from your posts, a nutshell is where you belong, you became anti-Obama when he wouldn't prosecute Bush.
Gosh, that's original.
Both Bush and Obama are now mere symptoms of a broader
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:06pm.
more general American malaise in which ordinary people dis-enfrancise themselves from the protections of a rule of law applying to all by watching stupidly or complacently as one elected representative after another arrogates unto themselves the discretion to set aside their constitutional oath to uphold the law.
That my dopey correspondent is the point. That you who are not part of any elite are by refusing to see the need for a rule of law applying to all, and seeing things only in terms of your teams guy versus their teams guy, you are in fact getting double timed by both teams neither who give a fig for you. And if you begat any future America citizens they will inherit a worse world because of how you've failed to understand and to carry out you duties as a citizen on your shift.
You know, Patch, we get your
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:32pm.
You know, Patch, we get your kind in here several times a week. You're a left wing, misinformed, ignorant elite who thinks he knows everything about everything. You're very impressed with yourself and it shows. Spare me your self righteous, left wing talking points, they've been tried here a thousand times over, especially the "Impeach Bush" garbage.
Get a new act, this one is tiresome.................
Tyrannicide, justified because of unConstitutionality?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:56pm.
I think not. Bush got a Congressional declaration of war, so no illegality there...
You can assume whatever you want. We know what you are.
Ive tried to...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 3:32pm.
Ive tried to read your posts with some degree of objectivity. However, objectivity be damned. I don't give one damn what some Assie from Down Under thinks! Concentrate on your own country's shortcomings and keep your mouth shut about ours. How many times has your "Land Down Under" come to the aid of the rest of the world during natural or man made disaster? How much aid has your country "Down Under" received from us eeeeeeeeeevil Yanks? How many of your countymen have put their lives on the line for the rest of the world? Furthermore, when you reference the UN, you make me puke! The UN is nothing more than a sounding board for the extreme left in this world and if I had my way we would pull our money out and send this worthless crowd of perverts packing, preferably to Sidney where they would find good company. Go suck an egg, you assy Aussie!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Paatsch can speak for himself, General....
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:57pm.
but from World War I to World War II to Korea to Vietnam to the Gulf War to Iraqi Freedom, the Aussies have put their lives on the line to fight alongside the US against the anti-democratic forces of tyranny and oppression. They have been dependable allies deserving of our gratitude rather than scorn.
Jer
Agree Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 6:10pm.
But on only one point. This aussie has been blaming all these wars on the US. The US policy of aggression has "forced" other countries to get involved in our affairs. The Aussie's have been great allies of our country in all of the conflicts that you sited. Instead of attacking America for "causing" these wars, he should be asking why the leadership in Australia have chosen to fight along side Americans and vote out those leaders, as he has suggested for us.
When things are not going well, it is always easier to blame others. Its called immaturity.
Well, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:45pm.
Since I was only making one point, I am gratified we are in agreement.
Jer
~Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 3:54pm.
And WE have been dependable allies deserving of their gratitude rather than scorn.
Indeed...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:48pm.
Jer
Jer, It would be nice to see
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 4:05pm.
Jer,
It would be nice to see you jump up and defend the USA and Americans as quick as you are at defending anti-American Aussies who would not know what freedom is if it weren't for countless of Americans dying in their country while stopping a Japanese invation.
The USA has been a dependable ally of Australia deserving of their gratitude rather than the scorn of overzealous anti-American Aussie like the one above.
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 9:24pm.
I'm not defending Paatsch. I'm not defending anti-American Australians. I'm not criticizing Americans or the USA. I'm taking issue with General Al's negative implication regarding the Aussies putting their lives on the line for the rest of the world by pointing out that nation's record over the past century and being a reliable ally of the United States--not only talking the talk but walking the walk.
Jer
So, to boil down your comment
Submitted by 26CX on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:05pm.
you're sticking up for Australia by taking issue with General Al's comment, but not sticking up for the US by taking issue with Paatsch's comments?
Am I reading your comment right?
No, you are not reading it correctly, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:13am.
General AL: "I don't give one damn what some Assie from Down Under thinks! Concentrate on your own country's shortcomings and keep your mouth shut about ours....How many of your countymen have put their lives on the line for the rest of the world? "
My initial response was posted with that closing question from General Al in mind, although I framed it in terms of historical support for the US in particular rather than "the world" in general.
I thought that was pretty clear from my original reply, or, at the very least, after my subsequent explanation.
I wasn't addressing any other issue. In fact, I've expressed my views on Iraq and enhanced interrogation so frequently, I would have assumed you were well acquainted with them.
Jer
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:29am.
You're right, the Aussies are one of the few faithful allies we have left. I hope and pray that our present in the white house doesn't change that too.
Have a blessed year
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening, cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:39am.
Thanks.
I hope you have a blessed year, too.
Jer
No, I think I did read your comment correctly.
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 6:04pm.
You responded to a comment General Al made by pointing out that Australia had supported the US in the past (and, I would add, continues to do so).
And I agree that you didn't address any other issue, which was the basis for my question. Why correct General Al for an incorrect statement about Australia's support for the rest of the world but not respond to Paatsch's call for tyrannicide to stop what he perceives the US is doing to the world, or for his statement that (bold text mine),
The US military should have countermanded the illegal invasion of Iraq order with a bullit to the brain of the commander in chief if no other lesser means of avoiding a violation of US law was available. The world would have been down one US President too stupid to be in the office and almost certainly also one US military person also as a consequence of them taking their duties as a citizen, to the constitution above the commander in chief seriously.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-limbaugh/2012/01/09/obamas-motto-bush-started#new#ixzz1jHXvFsNr
Isn't calling for the US military to assassinate the President a lot more extreme than erroneously implying that Australians have never put their lives on the line for the rest of the world?
I'm just curious to know why you chose to correct General Al's statement but let Paatsch's far more egregious statements slide? I'm sincerely interested in knowing why you made that choice.
With regards to your views on Iraq and enhanced interrogation, I must confess that I haven't put in either the time or the effort to become sufficiently well acquainted with all your comments here on NB to be able to know where you stand on everything.
Thanks!
In that case, are you just trying to pick a fight?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 10:56pm.
I wasn't interested in diving into the middle of a debate over an issue which has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum over the years on the NewsBusters threads. Consequently, I had only briefly skimmed the comments, some of which I skipped entirely. But I did notice what I believed to be an unfair implication about the willingness of Australians in general to make sacrifices for worthy causes, and it prompted my objection. If I had read the reckless and inexcusable statement about the military putting a bullet in the brain of the CIC rather than violating US law, that most likely would have also elicited my objection. However, I had not seen it until you pointed it out...which raises the question: Why didn't YOU condemn it rather than waste your time and my time trying to whip up a controversy over a completely appropriate point I had made about our historical relationship with the Aussies?
Finally, I didn't suggest you should know where I stand on "everything"--but, rather on enhanced interrogation and Iraq in particular, due to the frequency of expression. However, it's very possible most of my posts on those topics were made prior to your arrival at NB.
Not all of them though:
On further review, it is what I meant to say, i.e.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/30/2011 - 4:19pm.
while I have always supported Cheney's position on Gitmo, enhanced interrogation, etc and believe that history has largely vindicated him in that respect, the soundness of the strategies employed in both Iraq and Afghanistan is debatable and the wisdom of Cheney--to the extent he was responsible for that strategy--questionable. In other words, less unimpeachable than was his judgment in the area of incarceration, interrogation and treatment of captured terrorists.
Jer
md...I've been consistently endorsing Cheney's anti-terrorist
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/30/2011 - 5:17pm.
policies for four years. This may be the first time I've singled out Cheney on war strategy, but I have criticized the Bush administration in general on both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm expressing my opinion. Do you have a problem with that?
Jer
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/30/tina-brown-dick-ch...
You ask 26CX about trying to pick a fight, and ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 1:49am.
it never occurs to you, Jer, that as a left leaner on this site, the majority of your posts could easily fit in that category?
You do make me laugh, and I thank you.
MD
On the contrary, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:22pm.
how can it NOT occur to me, when you are a constant reminder that my contrarian views are welcome here--just so long as I keep them to myself--and posting any comment, even a mild and eminently apolitical remark, is likely to provoke a cautionary rebuke.
Jer
True,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 11:45pm.
But he cant be around all the time, to remind you.
Admit it , Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 1:53am.
if it weren't for Boudin, upcountrywater, 26CX, and yours truly, you wouldn't even bother to come around NBs - you would be bored to tears.
MD
Consider the alternative, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 3:57am.
Without any libs to abuse, you would be forced to post serious comments, e.g...
I don't think---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 1/14/2012 - 3:45am.
Obama is a good president. I hope he is defeated in the next election, whenever that is.
MD
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
Au contraire, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 4:43am.
without any libs, there would be no need to be serious.
Life would be comparatively carefree; flow so much smoother; more money in my pocket because there would be no stupid assed entitlement programs that libs are so fond of setting up to make themselves feel good.
And like that.
MD
aaahh Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 9:01pm.
NO LIBERALS...
The stuff sweet dreams are made of.....
Really, Jer?
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 01/14/2012 - 8:59am.
You think these are the kinds of words a person uses when they're trying to pick a fight?
I'm just curious to know why you chose to correct General Al's statement but let Paatsch's far more egregious statements slide? I'm sincerely interested in knowing why you made that choice.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-limbaugh/2012/01/09/obamas-motto-bush-started#comment-1624679#ixzz1jR9ON5Gy
~Chances are
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:04pm.
he IS currently wearing a kimono. Rose pink, with apple green embroidery.
If it weren't for this nation's willingness to intervene...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:07pm.
...you would most likely be posting in Japanese - if you were actually allowed to be posting.
Moron.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
This is just nonsense Dave.
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:48pm.
It's like you are cherry picking parts of the past of an America that hasn't existed for half a century and claiming I ought treat contemporary America as if it were that America.
It was that generation of America that I learned about growing up in Australia. It was that and earlier generations of Americans going back to the Colonials that made me pro-American until Bush was re-elected and being pro-American would have required being anti-rule of law.
It didn't serve either US domestic interests or international interests to undermine the principle of not launching aggressive invasions to find WMDs that didn't exist. You should as a nation have repudiated Bush not because he merely made an error of judgement but because he broke the law he swore to uphold and thousands died as a consequence.
There is room in a global community of nations for principled intervention that doesn't violate agreements not to interfere in other nations sovereign domestic affairs. There is room for self defense. There isn't room for both the rule of law and the rule of force both to be the dominant paradigm role modelled to the world by the United States.
The old canard, "WMD's that didn't exist".
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:09pm.
As has been pointed out, hypocritical one, there were WMD's found in Iraq.
And, WMD's weren't the only justification for invasion. I won't do your homework for you, you seem fond of Google, go search for the truth, and not from sites like DU and Revleft, or dsausa.
But, I think your line in the third paragraph explains your "feelings". "You should as a nation have repudiated Bush". You're a fan of Jawn F'ing Kerry, and you just can't forgive Bush because he kicked the snot out of your guy.
UpNorth, it would appear that ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:01pm.
ol' Paatsch would like to pull a putsch on Bush 43.
He is running a bit behind the curve, time wise, though. :o)
MD
Yeah, well, Jawn F'ing Kerry
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:01pm.
was up the river, and I think his buddy, Putsch, is too.
Bush never said WMDs were the reason for the Iraq op
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:00pm.
Enforcing UN resolutions was.
Funny how you lefties continue to ignore the wishes of your precious UN.
And WMDs were found in Iraq, and they would have found a lot more if Saddam hadn't had all that time to move them out of the country.
But understanding that would require linear logic, which you are utterly devoid of.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
What laws did Bush
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:01pm.
Break, you freakin Bush haters are all the same, justify a truly lawless Admin by screeching Buuussshhh
As you are not American, your opinions are worthless here.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:10pm.
We really do not wish to engage in a discussion with an Australian state-programmed apparatchik who admits to being anti-American just for the sake of complying with whatever skewed version of history was taught to him from the state educational system.
Have you ever been to the United States? I have been to Australia and I would never say I am anti-Australian, even though your country has done some very awful things like the seizure of Aboriginal children and the massacre of Tasmanians. In other words, you have no room to talk.
Thank you for being an example of mediocre education so endemic to most of the Commonwealth.
Brett Paastch
Submitted by QMCS on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:45pm.
You claim the invasion of Iraq was illegal, I would remind you that the terms of the cease fire for the first Gulf War were repeatedly violated by Iraq over a ten year period and Iraq also violated the UN mandated no-fly zones as well as shooting at US and allied aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zones, so as flawed as Bush's reasoning was to go to war, it was based on ten years of violations and provocations, hopefully the rest of the tin-pot dictators in the world will take notice, mess with US long enough and sooner or later the piper will be paid.
As for the rest of your rambling about the rule of law, on my last deployment to the Gulf we we under the command of an Aussie Admiral, we recieved a distress call from a merchant tanker that was being attacked by pirates, the Aussie Admiral refused to let us intervine because it wasn't in his mandate to interdict pirates.....really? Needless to say our CO told the Admiral exactly what he could do with his Mandate and we went after the pirates.
The Admiral's attitude floored us because the last time we checked piracy had been illegal under international law for at least a few hundred years, so as an Aussie don't even think you have the right to lecture us on International Law.
and just so you know my handle on here stands for
Quartermaster Senior Chief, United States Navy
Bush himself made the terms of the cease fire irrelevant
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:52pm.
when he joined with all the other 14 members of the security council in Resolution 1441 of November 2002 which states amongst a bunch of other stuff, that Iraq was to be given a "final opportunity to disarm" and that the Security Council was "seized of the matter" and so, with the agreement of Bush, exercising its jurisdiction.
The UN Charter, itself US senate ratified "supreme" law, as per article VI of the US constitution, makes clear how security council decisions are to be made and it is not unilaterally.
Had Bush not agreed to give Iraq a "final opportunity to disarm" he might have had more wiggle room to use the nonsense Negroponte was trying to pull, but he did and once a "final opportunity" was given only the SC had the authorisation to terminate it under the UN Charter with an invasion order.
That Bush and Blair understood this is suggested by their attempted resolution of February 2003, shortly before the March 2003 invasion. That resolution, which never was resolved because it never was agreed because most of the SC including China, Russia and France wouldn't agree, stated simply that Iraq's final opportunity was over.
Bush's resolution of November 2002 bound him to not invade until the final opportunity was over in the opinion of the Security Council not just in his own opinion. His invasion order was illegal because the UN Charter makes unilateral aggressive invasions illegal under US law and international law both.
Naturally, once again, you
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:01pm.
Naturally, once again, you missed the point. Before Bush ever took office (understand that concept?), Iraq was violating the terms of the cease fire. Throughout Clinton's presidency, Iraq violated the cease fire time and time again.
"His invasion order was illegal because the UN Charter makes unilateral aggressive invasions illegal under US law and international law both."
Did you just say that a UN Charter made something illegal under U.S. law? Care to explain how the U.N. can make something illegal under United States law? I have no doubt that this is how you want the world to work, though.
Notice how libtards get all huffy
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:10pm.
When a Repub Admin invades someone, but when a fellow leftist does it, even without congressional approval, no problem. Heck they dont even care the WE are being invaded.
NC Cop
Submitted by QMCS on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:13pm.
Dang it, you beat me to it.
Yes I did say that and rightly so.
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:15pm.
Article VI of the US constitution says "treaties made" as the UN Charter was made, by a senate supermajority shall be the supreme law of the land. So the words of the UN Charter are, since the senate ratified them in 1945, before George W Bush was born, US supreme law, not because I say so but because the actions that the US constitution says needed to happen to make a treaty US supreme law and something which all the judges of the US are obliged to treat as such occurred and so made the UN Charter supreme law under article VI.
The UN Charter, AS SENATE RATIFIED TREATY, is US law, until, some action involving more than just a President acting unilaterally is taken by the US Senate to revoke the UN Charter out of US law.
Why would an Australian care about the US constitution?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:22pm.
It does not apply to you. It was not meant for you. And your gross misunderstanding of our constitution is glaring beyond belief.
The hierarchy is US law is simple: constitutional provisions and amendments ARE the supreme law of the United States. The framers of our constitution made that point very simple. Treaties are on a par with laws that flow from the authority of the constitution, but are NOT the "supreme law" of the United States. That is solely reserved to the provisions of our constitution.
Whatever Wikipedia article you are regurgitating is not only wrong, it's badly written.
Here is article Vi in its entirety
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:01am.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
--------
See paragraph two. I'm not going to spend ages exchanging noise with you with you claiming I'm ignorant whilst I can see you are.
I am asserting that the UN Charter is a "Treaty made" (I'm quoting article Vi para two there), "under the Authority of the United States".
Are you disputing that?
Because if you are I suspect a little googling of your own would resolve that for you. I can remember years ago seeing lists of treaties at the US State Department when Powell was Secretary of State. There are very reliable sources that put beyond dispute that the UN Charter is in fact a Treaty made as per Article Vi of the US constitution and much of the rest of what I'm saying flows from my recognition of that fact.
As for why am I an Australian interested in the US Constitution, the answer is that I am interested in the rule of law and in good government and I recognize that the US Constitution was written by smarter men then most I can ever hope to meet on internet forums today, those men understood that the nascent United States of America was coming into existence in a world that had other powers already in it, and that they would need to treat with those other powers, somehow and to have a workable way to incorporate treaties into law because trade and national security depended upon it. I recognize that a big part of the reason that America is leading the world to hell in a hurry is because a majority of American citizens are profoundly ignorant of civics.
That's your foreign intepretation, Cabbage Paatsch.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:42pm.
The constitution is still the supreme law of this land, no matter how badly you try to rant otherwise. The hierarchy has been established since the construction of the constitution, something which you are no position to tell a US citizen. Treaty law has no more effect than federal statutes if it is in direct conflict with the US constitution. We have never signed away our sovereignty and never will. If you really knew anything about the United States, you would know at least that basic fact. I'm directly disputing your ignorant observations concerning our constitution because you so blatantly disregarded the last part of that clause which very clearly states, "...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That means, New Zealander wannabe, that the US constitutional provisions still outweigh any treaty law agreed to by the Senate for the simple reason that the Senate alone is not empowered to change the constitution nor could any court in US jurisdiction agree to do that. The Senate could agree to a treaty that changed the name of the United States to Zongoland, but it would have no effect legally because the constitution is the sole document from which all authority and law flows and only a proper amendment can change that. We don't have a Queen or King to express royal displeasure. We kicked out you Brits and Wannabrits over 230 years ago for the precise reason that we didn't want those laws.
Your can be as interested in the US constitution as you want to, but don't come here and lecture US citizens about what our government is or should be. This is not 1975, and you are not John Kerr and we are not Gough Whitlam. Don't bother acting like the UN is the Privy Council in London and you are appealing to Her Majesty.
Until you are an American citizen and you pay taxes and vote, go post somewhere else about your petty, third-world complaints. Thank you for playing anyway, Botany Bay Boy.
Article 51 U.N. Charter
Submitted by QMCS on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:34pm.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The UN charter does not make war illegal it just tries to provide for a peaceful solution.
UN Charter
Submitted by QMCS on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:13pm.
You argument could be convincing except for one teensy little fact...
The UN nor any other foreign power has the authority to superceed the lawfully elected US Government in matters of national security, and yes shooting at our aircraft is a matter of national security.
We are not ruled by the UN or any other elitist europeans, not yet anyway, and when they try to impose that it will be a very bloody conflict.
The UN is made up of some of the most corrupt people on earth, I dare say they could probably give lessens in corruption to the DNC.
And furthermore before you start spouting all your pro-UN crap, think about this for a moment, who is sitting on the Human Rights Council? Where did all the money from the Iraqi food for oil program go? Why did you liberals keep quiet about Sierra Leone, you spout off about Iraqi and Afgan death tolls yet you condone rampant and blatant genocide in the name of leftist governments all over the world, and as far as your tyrannicide comments go, we have ways of getting rid of polititions we dont like, it's called "elections", look it up sometime.....
Paatsch, the Wikipedia commando strikes again.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:14pm.
If only we could go back to the good ole days of the League of Nations, where we let WWII get a rolling start, in of all places, Ethiopia, or the Rhineland, where nations could have stopped WWII but chose to do nothing.
The troll gives fresh meaning to the old phrase, "those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it".
He's a product of the Australian education system.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:16pm.
Not exactly brimming with original thought or analysis, is he?
No, DocSam, not at all.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:06pm.
Also points out the lack of critical thinking skills, rationality and original thought. Hey, we ought to introduce him to Incestmo and Dead Zippers.
Perhaps he is their Australian cousin?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 01/12/2012 - 11:53pm.
If he even is Australian. Maybe getting drunk on Fosters and watching Australian rules football on ESPN makes him think he is Australian.
The self-righteous third-world ranting is bad enough, but add in his citizen of the world mantra about educating US citizens is just over the top. Very definitely he is the product of poor education combined with overconfidence and acute intoxication.
On the off chance, Paatsch, that you aren't getting---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:15pm.
the message from other posters here ---
You are doing nothing more than dithering when voicing your opinions of George W. Bush, and while that is to be expected from one with terminal Bush Derangement Syndrome, you gain no points for erudition when whaling on a dead horse; chewing on an issue that has receded into history; or when pushing an opinion no one agrees with.
A Bush 43 jihad is pretty much
passe- a sign of nuttiness, a la tilting at windmills.MD