Quote of the Day
Once again, Penn Jillette:
When I disagree with Obama, people always say, “Well, you’re a big Bush guy then.” And I’m like no, I didn’t like Bush either. I disagree with Bush and Obama on all the stuff they agree on, which is pretty much everything. They both want to kill people, they both want the government to be bigger, and they both want less freedom for individuals.
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
A favorite past-time of mine has been comparing Obama to Bush in conversations with liberal friends. As each day passes, they get more and more complacent over the comparison…mainly because they now see it’s true.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Hail to the new boss……………..
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I’m in favor of Presidents wanting to kill people, at least so long as those in question are active and self-declared enemies of the United States.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I’m in favor of the President wanting to kill enemies as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces after a Congressional Declaration of War or the issuance of a Letter of Marque and Reprisal (Article I, Section 8) AND for “repelling invasions”, a Constitutional duty by which teh U.S. SHALL protect the States against invasion” (Article IV, Section 4) which this President and at least the last 4 Amdministrations have refused to do. That refusal seems to fit treason according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
That’s Article I, Section 8….I don’t know how that smiley face got there!!!
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:42 pm
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/why-military-code-demands-mcchrystal-s-resignation.html?GT1=43002
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Maybe the President will fire the General and appear decisive while an armed illegal invasion takes and occupies part of our country.
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Blake,
You’re correct. Obama is like Bush, both globalists who act in craven appeasement while we suffer the invasion of our own country. During Bush, the National Guard was sent to the border and our Tennessee contingent retreated, ACCORDING TO ORDERS, when faced with an armed incursion.
And now this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/22/mexican-gangs-permanent-lookouts-parkland/
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Ah, yes, the noblest work of God is an honest man. What’s funny is that Jillette does not believe in God.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 am
Hey, Ron?
The Supreme Court already ruled that a Congressional action allowing the Presidnet to send the military out to go break things and hurt people (i.e., an authorization for the use of military force) is legally the same as a Declaration of War.
Over 200 years ago. Cases arising from the 1798-1800 Quasi-War with France. While the French had been merrily committing regular acts of war against the US since 1796, Congress didn’t pass and act remarkeably similar to the AUMFs of 1990 and 2002.
Even Ron Paul recognized that the AUMFs were declarations of war — which is why he OPPOSED the Iraq AUMF of 2002.
The first two foreign wars this country fought were “undeclared”, but at least the 18th Century Quasi-War had an AUMF, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. The 19th Century Barbary Pirate War did not.
As for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, that’s a neat idea, except. . .
The US agreed that they were violation of the Laws of War about 150 years ago, and has held fast to that standard. Given that the other nations of the world with sea access pretty much universally signed the 1856 treaty banning them altogether (the only reason the US didn’t sign was that we considered the 1856 treaty as not going far ENOUGH banning privateering!), the principle that Letters of Marque are firmly bedded in “customary international law”. Since the US has specifically NOT exempted itself from this provision of international law, we’re bound by it under Geneva and UN provisions we DID sign, just as firmly as if we had ratified the original 1856 Paris Declaration.
In other words, even if Congress DID issue Letters of Marque, ANY NATION catching someone with one of these letters can execute them for piracy.
But, hey, it always sounds cool to whip it out as a talking point at the Ron Paul rallies.
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:40 am
Second paragraph should end:
“. . . Congress didn’t pass an act (remarkeably similar to the AUMFs of 1990 and 2002) until 1798.”
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:17 pm
JustThisGuy… do you actually know educated adults who DO believe in god? That’s astonishing.