Barack Obama says he was all for World War II:
I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
He doesn’t oppose all wars- just dumb Bush wars:
I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.
And he is opposed to wars which distract us from our terrible economy:
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
And he is opposed to a war in which there is no threat to the United States, because that would be a dumb war:
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
And we should fight with those who oppress their people- like the Saudi’s
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
Here’s Barack Obama making sure the Saudis don’t oppress their own people.
Barack Obama has done nothing to stop the Saudis from oppressing their own people but Barack Obama said we should fight them to stop the oppression.
Both Curt and I have observed how eerily similar Obama’s actions recent actions are to those just prior to the Iraq war. Now so has Drudge:
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…
The actions taken by Obama represent a complete reversal of his own administration. Not long ago the establishment of a no-fly zone was called “loose talk” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The Secretary of State said that the US was “a long way from making that decision.” In fact, Gates said, the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya would constitute “an act of war.”
“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya.”
Now I know for a fact that Congress has not authorized this action by the US military. I also know how someone else named Barack Obama opposed any such action:
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
So Barack Obama said that Barack Obama does not have the authority to initiate the military action that Barack Obama just ordered and Barack Obama is in violation of the legislation proposed by Barack Obama.
If you really want to read the words of a miserable lying hypocrite- just read the entire article at the link. For example:
Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional?
A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points:
* The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
* Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
* The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
* The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
Barack Obama has ordered military trials to continue at Gitmo, but Barack Obama said they were unlawful.
But that’s for another post.
And please remember Obama’s words here:
A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.
Facts.
Until Barack Obama became President, the media increasingly took to describing the Iraqi conflict as a “civil war.”
In 2006 the Alternet outright called Iraq a civil war and argued that its being a civil war was a reason to get out.
James Joyner said that you can’t win with civil wars.
Dick Durbin said We cannot police a civil war.
In The Democratic Strategist it is recommended that one way for Democrats to argue and win a debate about Iraq is to maintain that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and we not stay involved.
Libya is in the midst of a civil war.
“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power” said Barack Obama but Barack Obama said Gaddafi must leave Libya.
In Cairo in 2009 Barack Obama said
So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
Barack Obama also said
“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power.
The Obama sops at Politico said there was something behind these bombings;
Then there’s the feasibility of the larger underlying mission — ousting Qadhafi through the destruction of his military infrastructure, a kind of regime change on the cheap.
“The use-of-force resolution is focused on protecting civilians, not removing Qadhafi from power … but everything else we’re doing is aimed at pressuring him to give up power,” said a senior administration official.
So Barack Obama said that change in Libya will not be imposed by the United States or any foreign power but Barack Obama is using the US and foreign power to impose change in Libya.
In the Libyan civil war, rebels have engaged Gaddafi in an armed insurrection. It is NOT the peaceful protest Barack Obama has repeatedly described.
“The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable, so are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters,” Obama said in his first televised remarks on the situation in Libya. “These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.”
Obama has not once properly described the civil war sparked by armed rebels.
President Obama says it is imperative that the world speak “with one voice” to condemn the suppression of peaceful demonstrators in Libya and to support their universal rights, and adds that the administration is preparing “a full range of options” that the United States can take unilaterally and multilaterally in response to the ongoing violence.
He keeps calling them “protesters” and “demonstrators.” They are armed revolutionaries.
One need not go back very long in time to see Barack Obama feel differently:
When President George Bush said
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
Candidate Barack Obama said Bush was wrong and “dumb” to get into a war over that.
Now President Obama says of Gaddafi:
For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.
Surely candidate Obama would find this wrong and dumb to get into a war over.
President Barack Obama has committed an act of war against Libya without the permission of Congress. There is no imminent threat to the US from Libya. President Obama has repeatedly lied about situation in Libya. It has to be about oil, right?
Barack Obama the candidate would demand impeachment of Barack Obama the President.
See author page
See, this is perfect.
So many useful soundbites.
I hope the political ads against Obama (IF he runs for re-election) use all of them.
Obama is a Liar! Impeach the Impostor !
So the con artist that now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, doesn’t live up to his own standards. Is anyone really surprised? And has anyone noticed how Obama usually dumps information on a Friday when he is out of the reach of the American press?
Now, can anyone tell me why he is in Brazil complimenting the Brazilians on their aggressive drilling plans? Could it have anything to do with the fact that GulfNews.com reported in August, 2008 that Obama’s good buddy, and sugar daddy, purchased $811 million worth of Petrobas or that when Soros purchased all that stock in Petrobas, he paid $64.83 per share and has taken a 40% hit since Petrobas closed at $38.87 Friday?
Our biggest suppliers of crude is Canada, first, then Mexico. Brazil is waaaaaay down on the list, but yet, we (the taxpayers) are dumpin $$ billions into Brazil’s drilling. Is Obama hoping to make a tony little profit for Soros, who in turn, will dump millions via PACs into Obama’s campaign coffers?
Obama cannot be trusted. He does nothing that benefits this nation. Just a look at how he is preventing us from getting our own oil, while telling Brazil how thrilled we will be to buy theirs, should be your first clue.
Yep, he does not have the authority.
But… it is about oil, just look at the other thread from its 3AM.
@blast:
How does Obama have the authority to bomb Libya without any resolution from the Congress (you know, like the Authority to Use Military Force In Iraq bill)? Are you saying that the Constitutional scholar was wrong about Bush, buy hey, now he knows better so he can do whatever the hell he wants?
And just how much oil does Libya export into the U.S. If it’s all about oil, shouldn’t we be bombing Canada and Mexico?
But things are looking up; the American taxpayer is investing in Petrobas, George Soros is going to see the 40% loss from his $811 million investment recouped, Soros is going to donate millions to Obama’s campaign coffers, we will be fighting a war in THREE Islamic nations. What could go wrong?
Thank you for providing all of us some excellent flip-flop positioning of Obama. Linked back to your article.
[…] many more examples can we find of Senator Obama contradicting the actions of President […]
Barry’s buddies in Iran and the muslim brotherhood were being defeated. What did you expect him to do?
@retire05,
My comment was that Obama does not have the authority, and I will avoid providing my opinion about Bush…
(oh… it takes more than a resolution, the Constitution requires a declaration of war)
As so far as oil goes, Mr Irons (and others) burned me on another thread saying it was about oil. Check it out…
http://floppingaces.net/2011/03/19/its-3-a-m-do-you-know-where-your-president-is-reader-post/
Dr J- Do you think he uses tendorizer on his shoes?
Great article, Dr John. Reminds me of a post I did on Obama back in July of 2009. I called it Obama vs. Obama and highlighted the myriad positions he took on the stimulus bill.
Obama vs. Obama
An ideology is not a moral compass; he has become a man walking a long razor blade in his bare feet, he makes mistakes with every step, he has already walked over half way and it is too late to turn back.
The ineptness and incompetence is humorous, except that American service men are putting their lives on the line. Then the fact that we have allowed this to transpire becomes a sublime theater of the absurd and we bear the brunt of the joke, because he has made us the joke.
It was old Skook who said a week or two ago, that he would engage us in another war to help insure his reelection. Wartime presidents win reelection. If this one dies of a lack of interest, there are several more potentials that he can take on for dubious reasons.
two very interesting pictures on this page. barry soetoro is genuflecting, not bowing to the Saudi Arabian what-ever-he-is. note the right knee is partially bent at the knee. tells me a lot about his allegiances. also, barry soetoro is grasping quadafi’s hand in a two handed supplication hand shake, declaring his allegiance to this guy, too. what we have here is a muslim/communist/christian hating individual who just happens to be the faux president of the United States of America. he is the great pretender to the throne, if you like but, for him, and where he came from (dysfunctiona family life extraordinaire) he has learned that those who are against him are the enemy and if you’re a christian, you fall into the category. he needs to be impeached, for sedition and treason and the sooner the better. I believe he has logged more hours in AF #1 than any of his predecessors but, what the hell it’s only because he deserves it. this individual is totally void of anything resembling intestinal fortitude.
And may I repeat- Obama once said that genocide was not a good enough reason for US involvement:
But now it is?
What a stinking hypocrite. But I repeat myself.
@anticsrocks: Picking up a pattern, eh? 😉
For Obama not to be a hypocrite he MUST take full responsibility for the ”Obama Abu Ghraib” story that is breaking this week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians
Twelve men are on trial in Seattle for going rogue and “staging” fake enemy attacks in order to justify attacking Afghani civilians.
Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder.
All of the soldiers have denied the charges.
They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted.
The claim was made that Abu Ghraib was chargeable straight up to include Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush, that it was their mismanagement that caused it.
OK, then, what about this “kill team?”
America has very distracted president.
He plays golf and studies his brackets much more then he concerns himself with HIS troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
@Nan G:
Sneak peek on Obama’s comments regarding the charges in your post:
“I inherited this problem from the previous administration. – BHO”
Dr.J Would note a “potential genocide” is different than an in progress genocide.
@johngalt:
Good point, JohnGalt.
I looked around and most media reports don’t provide the basic information of WHEN these atrocities took place.
But, if you look you can find out.
It was in 2010.
Obama was president.
This is as much Obama’s fault as Abu Ghraib was Bush’s …..in other words it was not really either man’s fault.
So Obama should be blamed as much as Bush was….which was a lot.
I’m sure the media will be fair…..and apply this rule consistently…..NOT!
@rich wheeler:
Really?
QUITE an exemple to AMERICANS, from a PRESIDENT TO START A WAR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS,
@drjohn: richwheeler said –
I guess that depends on which side of the genocide you are on…
anticsrocks. that is a good line, as usual,
bye
Nan G, hi, I prefer to take the word of the MILITARYS against Abu Ghraib”,
if they say, they are innocent, on a stage of war, that means INNOCENT,
as we know the tTALIBANS have resorted to profanation on their own dead bye cutting limbs and more
while one took picture with them dress as an AMERICAN SOLDIER, and they spread those pictures around to get the public outrage, It’s been told before many times, and observed by our MILITARYS,FROM TELESCOPIC LENSES, THIS STORY COME FROM GERMANY, WHICH ARE NOT IN A GOOD POSITION TO ACCUSE THE AMERICANS TROUPS IN AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE OF
WHAT WE KNOW HOW THEY BEHAVE ON THE WARII, WITH PRISONERS. FURTHER MORE THERE IS
MANY MUSLIMS IN GERMANY ALSO LIKE IN EVERY COUNTRY AND AMERICA INCLUDED WHICH WOULD HELP ON THE SCAM BEING PERFECTED WITH THE TECHNOLOGY WE KNOW OF
JUST ASK RIDE A PALE HORSE TO CONFIRM THE JUXTAPOSE EFFECT ON A PICTURE
OF ANY KIND, BYE
[…] and former Harvard Law Review editor flaunting his claimed expertise in constitutional law, proclaimed that “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a […]
[…] it time and time again. In a previous post it was shown that Senator Obama would have sought the impeachment of President Obama. This could be called Part II but it’s more than that. It just keeps […]
The hits just keep on coming!
Howard Dean
Sadly Barry does have the right. May be not the political right.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262771/political-dispute-not-legal-one-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2
GW actually did have support from Congress on Iraq. And Saddam was way way way worse and more dangerous that Qaddafi (Khaddafi ? Gheddafi ?).
Aside from that, I have not made up my mind about intervention in Lybia yet. But then again, I’m Italian and living like 400 miles from Tripoli…
Howard Dean,Dr.John and Dennis Kucinich. Politics make strange bedfellows.
Vincenzo FIORENTINI, thank you for visiting, why do I think that you are to close for comfort in there,
be carefull , and keep in touch if you will, you are close enough to give us your opinion,
bye
@Vincenzo Fiorentini: You said:
How do you figure that?
From the article you cited:
Obama’s incompetence shows more and more with each passing day.
[…] find in Bush’s way. In November 2007, Senator Obama introduced S.J.Res.23, requiring that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” Then, […]
In the United States the word “treaty” refers to a procedure defined in the Constitution. The president, the Constitution states, “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Accordingly, regardless of how they are described in ordinary language (the “Covenant” of the League of Nations, the “Charter” of the United Nations, or the Atlantic “Pact”), all international accords concluded according to this procedure are “treaties,” and all others are “agreements.” For the first half century after independence, all treaties, once ratified by Congress, were regarded as, in the words of the Constitution, the (supreme) Law of the Land, super-added to the laws of the land and creating individual rights and duties in all states and upheld by federal courts. Today not all treaties are so highly regarded. (West’s encyclopedia)
The above paragraph explains why President Obama did not violate the constitutionality of the law when he helped set up a no-fly zone in Libya, after consulting with the United Nations.
Contrary to what some members of congress think President Obama acted within the intent and purpose of the United Nations charter (treaty) which congress themselves had already approved. However, if President Obama had signed a declaration of war against Libya he would have violated the constitutionality of the law, due to the fact a declaration of war would have to be constitutionally approved by congress first.
Now, if any one can provide a document signed by the President declaring war against Libya, then and only then will I agree that the president violated the constitutionality of the law pertaining to the above situation.
This is due to the fact, I do not base my opinion on what the president does according to the BS of the media and/or any one else. I base my opinion on whether or not the president abides by the laws of this nation and/or the constitutionality of the law when making his decisions.
@Bill: That’s a stretch, Bill. But I will agree that every President since Nixon has considered the War Powers Act to NOT supersede the Constitution.
I was merely pointing out that Vincenzo’s comments contradicted what he cited.
[…] the Hypocrite-in-Chief Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless […]
@ anticsrocks I agree with what you said.
Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution
The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the glob lists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.
The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.
Here is something you may want to consider, the agenda of the World federalist movement and the agenda of the United Nations. Their agenda is (one and the same) the creation of a World Constitution created by them, rather than a Constitution created by the people and for the people.
CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Adopted in London on 16 November 1945 and amended by the General Conference at its second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, twelfth, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth sessions.
(To review a copy of said constitution copying the first paragraph listed above to the inter.)
Note the date in which the federalist movement met in order to frame a World Constitution.
In 1945, the Committee to Frame a World Constitution convened at the University of Chicago and drafted a Constitution for the World.
Now, note the date the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO) was adopted. .
(Adopted in London on 16 November 1945)
***The Constitution of UNESCO, a specialized agency of the United Nations, was signed on 16 November 1945 in London and came into force on 4 November 1946 . ***
The United Nations works to support a rule of law framework at the national level: a Constitution or its equivalent, as the highest law of the land; clear and consistent legal framework, and implementation thereof; strong institutions of justice, governance, security and human rights that are well structured, financed, trained and equipped; transitional justice processes and mechanisms; and a public and civil society that contributes to strengthening the rule of law and holding public officials and institutions accountable. These are the norms, policies, institutions and processes that form the core of a society in which individuals feel safe and secure, where disputes are settled peacefully and effective redress is available for harm suffered, and where all who violate the law, including the State itself, are held to account.
Think about it, where did the federalist movement and/or the united nations get their lawful authority to undermine the U.S. Constitution in order to replace it with a World Constitution instead.
Bill, then how come they supersede the law of the LAND anyway,
I would say,IT’s because it seem that the president find it eazyer to call on the UN, than to call on CONGRESS when it fits his agenda, yes the more you allow the UN to be ask to make your agenda com trough, the more you as a PRESIDENT OF A SUPERPOWER COUNTRY, DIMINISH THE POWER OF IT, AND THEREFOR GIVE THE UN THAT EXTRA POWER A BIT EVERY TIME TO A POINT WHERE THEY START TO PUSH IT ON YOUR COUNTRY LIKE A MANIFEST TO OBEY THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION AS OPPOSE TO THIS AMERICA UNIQUE CONSTITUTION BEING BROKEN DOWN AND DISRESPECT BY A NEW GENERATION AS ONLY A PAPER TO MEDLE WITH BY A GUILTY GOVERNMENT WHICH FORGET THAT THEY ARE THE SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE
Bill, how do you define a declaration of war?, is it when you bomb the vecinity of a country’s leader to get him to go, bombarded his tanks which are deployed to suppress a revolution coming from neighbordly radicals that you sympathise with, at home, there for is commiting an act of war,
After President Obama got elected, I began comparing what he said on the campaign trail and what he’s done as president. In 2009, I was invited to the White House to meet with members of Obama’s National Security Team with a few other milbloggers. Unlike the invite to the White House under Bush, President Obama never stepped foot out of the office literally 15 feet away from us. I made it clear how I felt the administration wasn’t keeping its campaign promises and named several examples of the time: the idea to charge troops for medical care, DHS Secretary calling returning combat veterans a domestic terrorism threat, and a few other examples. Within 30 days of that visit, an IG complaint came down from DOD against my blogging activities. It was the beginning of a long year of fighting IG for my freedom of speech. They tried to pin an article 88 on me:
The problem was that I’m not a commissioned officer, so refused any article 15. It was a long battle and ended with me getting an official letter of reprimand. I was also fighting the Huntsville City School Board at the same time for my freedom of speech.
This administration doesn’t like having their hypocrisy publicized.
That’s when you know you’re doing something right, and are making headway, CJ. They don’t waste time with those with no influence. You should consider it the ultimate compliment, if not one major PITA event and hurdle in your life. Anyone of lesser import and voice would have been simply dismissed as inconsequential, guy.
CJ, good that there is people like you, unafraid to use the FREEDOM OF SPEECH for a good positive
resolved of a wrong from THE GOVERNMENT, it show the young where to judge the right and the wrong, even if it demolish what they have learned in school as a propaganda to love AND SERVE OBAMA ON TOP OF ALL,
even the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHT
@<a@ILOVEBEESWARZONE you raised an interesting question, how come they superseded the law of the LAND anyway.
Believe it or I can answer that question.
The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is attempting to bring together (NGOs) non governmental organizations and individuals which support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies. . . . .
In other words, the World Federalist Movement (WFM) is attempting to circumvent the U.S. constitution in order to allow (NGOs) to create Federal laws, instead of allowing the legislative power to create Federal Laws to remain with congress it self. (as constitutionally defined.)
Organizations are categorized as either Member or Associate Member. Both Members and Associate Members are entitled to appoint delegates to the Movement's quadrennial Congresses; Members are further entitled to appoint one or more members to the Movement governing Council, which meets annually. (All such appointments are based on the membership size of the organization.) Currently, the annual dues are set at a flat rate for Associate Members and on a sliding scale for Members based on the size of their membership.
(Quadrennial congresses by the way is making reference to non-governmental organizations becoming the new world congressional governing council which has plenary constitutional powers equal to -or- superior to that of the U.S. Congress itself, pertaining to the authority to create and enforce the laws of this nation and/or the world. Thus, eliminating the constitutional need for U.S. congressional authority to approve any -or- all laws they feel that need to be enacted and/or enforced on behalf of the world.
In other words it is the view of the world federalist movement as well as some members of our governmental bodies, that a World Constitution would supersede the U.S. Constitution and/or any other countries Constitutions.
CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN, REVEALED AT ONE TIME TO HAVE WORK FOR THE ENNEMIES, TO PUT EIDS IN THE GROUND TO GET A FEW DOLLARDS TO FEED HIS 7 CHILDREN, AND THAT THEY HAVE TO
FIND WORK WHERE EVER THEY CAN, SO THAT CIVILIEN AND OTHERS LIKE HIM ARE ENNEMIES TO BE ELIMINATE DURING A WAR, THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE OF THE WORD ENNEMIES, NO CATEGORYS , LIKE SMALL MEDIUM OR LARGE, EXCEPT ONE WORD THAT IS ENNEMIES.
TO CHANGE THAT RULE IS TO HURT OUR MILITARYS POTENTIAL TO WIN THE WAR,
OR GET THEM OUTOF THERE AND BRING THEM BACK,
BECAUSE SOMEDAY, WE WILL NEED THEM HERE TO PROTECT AMERICANS, FROM ENNEMIES WITHIN
Bill we kind of suspect it existed, they where keeping a low key, and was it last year that MATA WAS HAVING A POST ON THE BASIC OF THAT ORGANISATION, THERE WAS ALSO WARNING FROM A NEWLY CANADIAN POLITIC MOVEMENT ACTUALY BEGGING TO BE BELEIVED, ACTUALY IT WAS BEFORE LAST NOVEMBER AS I RECALLED THAT REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT NEW PARTY THAT NOVEMBER WAS THE CRITICAL TIMING TO NEGATE THAT WORLD POWER, IT HAD LEFT ME PERSONALY, TROUBLED TO THINK THAT A WORLD POWER WOULD TAKE OVER, OUR COUNTRYS
THAT AMERICA ON HIS NORTH AND SOUTH, COULD BE A MELTING POT, YES VERY TROUBLESOME ENOUGH TO WANT TO FIGHT FOR PREVENTING THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT HOW DO YOU FIGHT WHEN THE LEADERS AGREED ON IT BEHIND YOUR BACK AS A SECRET THAT ONLY THEM WILL DECIDE WHEN TO REVEAL IT, AND WHEN DO YOU DECIDE TO BEGIN THE FIGHT, AND WHO WILL YOU FIGHT,
WHICH LEADER,YOURS OR THE UN TOP GUY, OR ALL OF THEM WHO WHERE COMPLACANT ON THAT WILL TO INSTALL THAT WORLD GOVERNMENT,
@ilovebeeswarzone: All caps is really hard to read.
CJ so sorry, I get carried away and forget to click on it, your remark will help me to not forget it,
as a non pro on computer I need more of it to learn the do’s and don’t’s,
thank you
CJ, as a matter of fact, i could not figure out what you meant at first with ” your caps”
I thought “cap, caps, aptain, no, cap what’s that, then I came back and look at my comment and THE LIGHT bulb came on, oh yes that ” CAP” thats how good I am,
but getting better
Bill, would it have a connection with THE BILDENBERG, GROUP ORGANISATION.
THEY where suspected to advocate a WORLD ORDER and meet from time to time in well guard high profile resorts or CASTLES IN EUROPE, and the groups are made of top world influencials, like kings and queens top writer bankers ,and so on,to discuss the world affairs,
bye
CJ, I must add that I even tought of the word ” capucino” it came because we have TIM’S HORTON best capucino coffee, my favorite
Ilovebeeswarzone The answer to your question would it have a connection with THE BILDENBERG, GROUP ORGANISATION. Is yes
Obama, Hillery Clinton, a member of the department of justice,(DOJ), some court justices, as well as some of our elected officials as well as some individuals who were hoping to be elected, have attended the BILDENBERG, GROUP meetings at one time or another to discuss the future of this nation and the world.
The BILDENBERG, GROUP ORGANISATION is just a front for the elite few super wealthy individuals, who are attempting to create a one word order. They, have already succeed in creating a corporation to control the economics of the world. (the money supply) You may have heard of this corporation, it is the private international banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
“…[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations…”
However, the following also states.
“The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974). . . .
State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S. Ct. 705, 708, 79 L. Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal’s ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . .”
It now appears there is two conflicting laws.
1. Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities of the government for
purposes of immunity from State taxation.
2. Reserve Banks are not deemed to be federal instrumentalities of the government, for
purposes of Federal tort Liability.
________________________________________________________________________
The two aforementioned laws make it very clear that Congress can create independent agencies which can be declared as federal instrumentalities of the government, which act as agents on the governments behalf. These said laws also makes it very clear that Congress has granted the government “immunity” from all liability pertaining to actions of the independent agencies, which were created to aid them in the conducting of their business.
The creation of these laws clearly show how Congress can manipulate the laws to mean whatever they want them to mean whenever they deem it necessary to do so. Congress needs to revise these laws. Reserve Banks are either independent agencies which act as agents on the government’s behalf -or- Reserve Banks are not independent agencies which act as agents on the government’s behalf.
In other words, Reserve Banks are either part of the executive branch of government, which has the lawful authority to act on the government’s behalf -or- Reserve Banks are privately owned and locally controlled independent corporations (agencies) acting unconstitutionally on behalf of the government.
Several recent Supreme Court separations of powers decisions have noted that there are three, and only three, distinct branches of government; ‘independent’ agencies, therefore, either are in one of the three branches or they are unconstitutional. See Symposium on Administrative Law, The Uneasy Constitutional Status of Administrative Agencies, 36 AM. U.L. REV. 276 (forthcoming 1987). . .
Beez, no problem at all. I like your comments. I’m Texan, so I tend to write weird myself. But, I can shoot straight so I think makes up for it! Heh.