Yep, that's what Ron Paul states in this second part of the what does Ron Paul think about Syrias' civil war. You might rememeber yesterday that I had written a post about how Ron Paul thinks that the Kosovo Genocide didn't really happen and how he thinks it was just propaganda. So, here's the other part. Ron Paul enititles this one as "When Will We Attack Syria?" Propably never, if Russia and China doesn't stop sticking up for a dictator that is killing his own people because he's own people don't like him.
----------
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.
-------------
What "war propaganda" are you talking about? What, the Homs shelling? No, that was real.
----------
This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
---------------
WHAT? Holy Damn! So, Ron Paul thinks the US going into Iraq on actual false pretense of "WMD's in Iraq" is just like going into Libya, with the UN and NATO, intervening in a Civil War, under the real life pretenses, to stop Col. Gaddaffi from killing more of his own people. Wow, that's a hell of a leap you made!
--------
The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.
---------------
Libya didn't cost that much because we didn't put troops on the ground, kind of like what the Republicans wanted to do to get Libyan oil. And there was no occupation of Libya, though they did thank the "Fantastic 4" for helping them take down Col. Gaddaffi.
---------
There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.
-----------------
Yeah, why would we want to go into Syria? Could it be because the dictator is killing thier own people? Well, if it is, we should really take notice of what Ron Paul had to say about WW2 and the Jews that were being killed in Nazi Germany. From the Daily Kos:
---
Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."
"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."
----
So, to Ron Paul's own ideas, we shouldn't help the Jews during WW2. We propabaly shouldn't have even faught in WW2 with England and the Soviet Union to stop the Fascist. We should have just let them take over the world and killed whom ever they wanted, as long as they don't do anything to us, what should we care? Let's get back to Ron Paul.
-----------
We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent.
-----------------
"Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent."
Yeah, because the Arab Spring didn't pop up because of the opperesion people were under and those opperesed people wanting freedom, it was totally because of the US. Just like with Libya, Eqypt and Algeria and the starting country Tunisia. Wait, we weren't in Algeria, nor were we in Eqypt, and nor were we in Tunisia where the Arab Spring started. How does Ron Paul explain this?
----------
Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority?
------------
" (...) occupying it and setting up a new regime (...)"
I'm sorry, did we set up a new regime in Egypt? How about Algeria or Tunisia? Oh wait, we didn't play any part in that, execpt that we condeming the actions to put down the protestors by the Governments of those countries.
---------
Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.
----------------
Really? Because the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (starting up the Vietnam War) was passed by Congress on Augest 7, 1964 and was repealed in January 1971.
--------
Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval.
-----------
I guess you forget, Ron Paul, that it was not the US who started the Korean War, it was North Korea, who stated the war, by over running the DMZ zone and attacking South Korea. The South Korean Army put itself under the UN. That's possibly the reason why we had a UN resolution instead of passing something through the Congress.
-------
And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.
------------
" (...) we are about to engage in military action against Syria (...)"
If Russia and China would stop vetoing the resolutions, we might actually do something...
"(...) and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia."
What? I'm sorry...what? You know, Gramps, the Soviet Union fell in 1991. The "Cold War" hasn't been effective since then. So, what the hell are you talking about?
"We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria."
Um...not anymore.(?) When did the Cold War come back into play? So, how is Russia vetoing resolutions so they can make more money by giving Al-Assads Army more weapons, a greater threat then Syria killing it's own people be using weapons that come from Russia. Hey, Ron Paul, you forgot China.
--------
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
-------------
"How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border?"
Well, first of all, most of the violence is in Mexico, even if the news states that it's "along the US-Mexico border", it's mostly in Mexico. Second, the US Government overrules the UN. How do you think that "small guns ban", or whatever it was, never became law here? So, there's your answer.
--------
We are hypocritical when we condemn Russian for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.
-------------
"There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria."
Who said we were picking sides? We are with the people who want to overthrow Al-Assad. How is that too hard for you to understand?
---------
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
-----------
Yeah, who cares about reality, just keep living in your own little world that isn't real.
"Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda."
What the fuck is this? What, you think the opposition people have all the Syrian tanks? What a bunch of bullshit! So, who killed al those people in Homs, Ron? Who killed those 30,000 people in Homs bakc in the 1980's Ron? Can you tell me? Let me guess. It's the people who rose up in opposition to Al-Assads father like it is no, right Ron? What a dumbass!
-------
Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.
-------------
Ok, Ron Paul is right about the neo-con thing, but the neo-cons aren't in charge and everytime that the Obama Adminastration does something (passing resolutions and helping the people of Libya and Syria), some douch, like you, screams out that we're taking over their country, yet we don't do that at all. This is not the Bush Adminastration!
---------
"(...) just as we have done in Saudi Arabia (...)"
Um...we don't "control" the Saudi Arabian oil, the Saudis do (Yes we have companies over there but that doesn't mean we steal the oil). They give us oil in exchange for money. You know this, right? We're not taking it from them, we're paying them.
----------
War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.
-----------------
"Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled."
Why? Wouldn't this be a good thing? Then we can get the military down to the size that we need instead of the bloated size it is now.
"Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Oh, execpt for the Democrats who already got us out of Iraq...did you forget that Ron?
----------
This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.
---------------
"This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation (...)"
Yeah, like Libya...oh wait!
-------
It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.
-----------
"It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship."
Because we never tried this before...
"We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire."
Tell that to Mitt Romeny.
-------------
Besides, we're broke, we can't afford it, and worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
------------------
Yeah, we're broke, but the rich aren't Tax the rich fat cats already. Of course, Ron Paul would stop all taxes so that no one will need to pay taxes. Have fun fixing the roads and all the other stuff that the Government does for you, with tax money, for free!
----------
It's time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity
-------------
Well, Ron Paul better have a really good jobs and educational bill for this nation if everyone is coming home from all the bases that we have. These guys will really want to get a job and a good education. Too bad that Ron Paul wants to cut things out of this Government that would be handy to do just that. Do you know how many people that would be? According to the number of military personel in 1998, that would be 519,742 people. I'm pretty sure there is more then that, but that was back in '98, so that will give you some what of a reference to how many will be coming home if Ron Paul wins.
-----------
This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the Administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting – directly or indirectly – any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
-------------
Yeah, he said this on the House Floor. Don't worry, I don't really think anyone was listening.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Ron Paul: Kosovo Genocide and Syria Massacre Are Propaganda For War.
I thought it would be a good idea to do two posts in one day. So, here's the second post in one day.
So, Ron Paul went crazy yet again while I wasn't reporting on him for a month or two. This time Ron Paul states that the massacre in Syria is propaganda and perpertrated by the rebels that are fighting against the Army of Syria and Al-Assad. And, in the first article we're going to go through, that Ron Paul acutally says that the Kosvo Genocide was propaganda and that it didn't happen. I wonder what he thinks about the holocaust. Yes, as you might have noticed, I'm doing two articles on Ron Paul, mostly on the same thing which is Syria. The next one will be up tomorrow. So, let's get started with the first one known as "War Drums For Syria?"
----------
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.
---------------
Yeah...what? We don't look for UN approval? What a bunch of bullshit. Look at this article from the Washington Post:
---
"(...) the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval."
The U.N. Security Council opened negotiations Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions aimed at breaking the diplomatic gridlock over Syria as violence continued to rack the country.
----
"(...) Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions (...)"
Look, we didn't look for UN Approv...oh, wait!
And if you think this was a once and a lifetime thing we did, guess again. From the UN Website S(ecuirty)C(ouncil)/10403 on Oct. 4th 2011.
---
The Security Council this afternoon failed to adopt a resolution that would have condemned "grave and systematic human rights violations" in Syria, and would have warned of options for action to be considered against the Government of President Bashar al-Assad if the unfolding situation warranted, including measures under the section of the United Nations Charter that allowed sanctions.
The text, which was defeated due to the negative votes of two permanent Council members (China, Russian Federation), drew 9 votes in favour with 4 abstentions (Brazil, India, Lebanon, South Africa). It would have demanded an immediate end to violence and urged all sides to reject extremism, expressing "profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children"
(...)
The representative of the United States expressed outrage over the Council’s failure to take minimum steps to protect civilians in Syria after long, hard negotiations. She warned that, after today’s veto, the people of Syria could see who supported their aspirations for freedom and democracy and who chose to prop up "desperate, cruel dictators".
----
Yeah, guess we didn't do anything, eh, Ron Paul? More from Ron Paul:
-----------
It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.
------------------
"With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation (...)"
This part of the sentence makes me so pissed off. It's like saying if your friend was doing hard drugs, and you knew he/she was, would you step in right after the 'full investagtion' of your friends body finds that your friend died of (hard drug here) OD? Because, according to Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
-----------
There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
-----------------
"There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas?" Ok, fine. How about the United Kingdoms media. Wait, that's from the BBC (It's a corperation after all). How about The Guardian, the newspaper that uncovered Rupert Murdoch's scandle. There you go, read that.
"It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false (...)"
Execuse me!
---
In a statement, the council demanded an immediate end to the violence and said Libya's rulers had to "address the legitimate demands of the population".
At least 300 people have been killed so far in the uprising.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi urged his supporters to attack the "cockroaches" and "rats" protesting against his rule.
Anyone who took up arms against Libya would be executed, he warned.
(...)
Standing outside the Bab al-Aziza barracks in Tripoli, damaged by a US air strike in 1986, he vowed: "I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. I shall remain here defiant."
He also called on his supporters to "cleanse Libya house by house" until the protesters surrendered.
"All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi, go out on the streets, secure the streets, don't be afraid of them. Chase them, arrest them, hand them over," he said.
He portrayed the protesters as misguided youths who had been given drugs and money by a "small, sick group", and blamed "bearded men" - a reference to Islamists - and Libyans living abroad for fomenting the violence.
"The hour of work is here, the hour of onslaught is here, the hour of victory is here. No retreat, forward, forward, forward. Revolution, revolution," he shouted at the end of the speech, pumping both fists in the air.
(...)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Col Gaddafi's speech was "very, very appalling" and "amounted to him declaring war on his own people".
In New York, Mr Dabbashi said he had received information that the Libyan leader's supporters had started attacking people in all western cities.
"The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago. I hope the information I get is not accurate but if it is, it will be a real genocide," he told reporters.
-----
Gaddaffi did this to himself, we didn't do it for him. Gaddaffi made that speech, not the US Gov. Back to Ron Paul.
----------------
Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
---------------------
"(...) for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs."
Um...Iraq had drones!?
----------------
Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.
-----------------------
"Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo (...)"
You better be joking motherfucker. Just in case if you're not...
Here is the US State Department account of the Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo.
And here's the report of the Atrocities (on April 2, 1999) of the Ethinic Cleansing of Albainans in Kosovo by the Serbs.
And here's your photograpic evidence ( Please Note: Clicking on the "photograpic evidence" link will take you to a site with links to the photos).
What does genocide mean? The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Looks like Serbs killing Albaians in Kosovo is a genocide. So, no, it was not a lie.
" (...) that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there."
Not really. The killings stopped so, that's good. Back to Ron Paul.
------------------
The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
---------------------------
"First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives."
Looks like Ron Paul can't put it together, doesn't it? Ok, so there is shelling first, and then the group of Al-Assads' military come in there and killed people who didn't die in the shelling. You get it now?
"No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details."
Yeah, because that couldn't be taken as, like, a warning to the others if they keep protesting and going after the military people of Al-Assads regime that that will happen to them, could it?
"No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories."
I think the people that benifits from these real life horror stories that is happening in Syria are the people that are against Al-Assad's violent regime, because if it was up to you, Ron Paul, we would just listen to Al-Assad, not giving one thought to those people on the ground that are dieing for their on freedom from Al-Assad.
-----------------
We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
-------------------------
"Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals."
Um...this wouldn't be considered a war in the first place. It would be known as an intervention, which we don't need Congress's approval, but the UN's approval to go and help out the people of Syria, kind of like what we did with Libya. And you want to know something...we didn't lose one guy in the intervention in Libya.
" (...) fast track to war against Syria."
No. It's an Intervetion.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
So, Ron Paul went crazy yet again while I wasn't reporting on him for a month or two. This time Ron Paul states that the massacre in Syria is propaganda and perpertrated by the rebels that are fighting against the Army of Syria and Al-Assad. And, in the first article we're going to go through, that Ron Paul acutally says that the Kosvo Genocide was propaganda and that it didn't happen. I wonder what he thinks about the holocaust. Yes, as you might have noticed, I'm doing two articles on Ron Paul, mostly on the same thing which is Syria. The next one will be up tomorrow. So, let's get started with the first one known as "War Drums For Syria?"
----------
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.
---------------
Yeah...what? We don't look for UN approval? What a bunch of bullshit. Look at this article from the Washington Post:
---
"(...) the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval."
The U.N. Security Council opened negotiations Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions aimed at breaking the diplomatic gridlock over Syria as violence continued to rack the country.
----
"(...) Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions (...)"
Look, we didn't look for UN Approv...oh, wait!
And if you think this was a once and a lifetime thing we did, guess again. From the UN Website S(ecuirty)C(ouncil)/10403 on Oct. 4th 2011.
---
The Security Council this afternoon failed to adopt a resolution that would have condemned "grave and systematic human rights violations" in Syria, and would have warned of options for action to be considered against the Government of President Bashar al-Assad if the unfolding situation warranted, including measures under the section of the United Nations Charter that allowed sanctions.
The text, which was defeated due to the negative votes of two permanent Council members (China, Russian Federation), drew 9 votes in favour with 4 abstentions (Brazil, India, Lebanon, South Africa). It would have demanded an immediate end to violence and urged all sides to reject extremism, expressing "profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children"
(...)
The representative of the United States expressed outrage over the Council’s failure to take minimum steps to protect civilians in Syria after long, hard negotiations. She warned that, after today’s veto, the people of Syria could see who supported their aspirations for freedom and democracy and who chose to prop up "desperate, cruel dictators".
----
Yeah, guess we didn't do anything, eh, Ron Paul? More from Ron Paul:
-----------
It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.
------------------
"With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation (...)"
This part of the sentence makes me so pissed off. It's like saying if your friend was doing hard drugs, and you knew he/she was, would you step in right after the 'full investagtion' of your friends body finds that your friend died of (hard drug here) OD? Because, according to Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
-----------
There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
-----------------
"There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas?" Ok, fine. How about the United Kingdoms media. Wait, that's from the BBC (It's a corperation after all). How about The Guardian, the newspaper that uncovered Rupert Murdoch's scandle. There you go, read that.
"It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false (...)"
Execuse me!
---
In a statement, the council demanded an immediate end to the violence and said Libya's rulers had to "address the legitimate demands of the population".
At least 300 people have been killed so far in the uprising.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi urged his supporters to attack the "cockroaches" and "rats" protesting against his rule.
Anyone who took up arms against Libya would be executed, he warned.
(...)
Standing outside the Bab al-Aziza barracks in Tripoli, damaged by a US air strike in 1986, he vowed: "I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. I shall remain here defiant."
He also called on his supporters to "cleanse Libya house by house" until the protesters surrendered.
"All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi, go out on the streets, secure the streets, don't be afraid of them. Chase them, arrest them, hand them over," he said.
He portrayed the protesters as misguided youths who had been given drugs and money by a "small, sick group", and blamed "bearded men" - a reference to Islamists - and Libyans living abroad for fomenting the violence.
"The hour of work is here, the hour of onslaught is here, the hour of victory is here. No retreat, forward, forward, forward. Revolution, revolution," he shouted at the end of the speech, pumping both fists in the air.
(...)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Col Gaddafi's speech was "very, very appalling" and "amounted to him declaring war on his own people".
In New York, Mr Dabbashi said he had received information that the Libyan leader's supporters had started attacking people in all western cities.
"The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago. I hope the information I get is not accurate but if it is, it will be a real genocide," he told reporters.
-----
Gaddaffi did this to himself, we didn't do it for him. Gaddaffi made that speech, not the US Gov. Back to Ron Paul.
----------------
Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
---------------------
"(...) for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs."
Um...Iraq had drones!?
----------------
Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.
-----------------------
"Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo (...)"
You better be joking motherfucker. Just in case if you're not...
Here is the US State Department account of the Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo.
And here's the report of the Atrocities (on April 2, 1999) of the Ethinic Cleansing of Albainans in Kosovo by the Serbs.
And here's your photograpic evidence ( Please Note: Clicking on the "photograpic evidence" link will take you to a site with links to the photos).
What does genocide mean? The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Looks like Serbs killing Albaians in Kosovo is a genocide. So, no, it was not a lie.
" (...) that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there."
Not really. The killings stopped so, that's good. Back to Ron Paul.
------------------
The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
---------------------------
"First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives."
Looks like Ron Paul can't put it together, doesn't it? Ok, so there is shelling first, and then the group of Al-Assads' military come in there and killed people who didn't die in the shelling. You get it now?
"No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details."
Yeah, because that couldn't be taken as, like, a warning to the others if they keep protesting and going after the military people of Al-Assads regime that that will happen to them, could it?
"No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories."
I think the people that benifits from these real life horror stories that is happening in Syria are the people that are against Al-Assad's violent regime, because if it was up to you, Ron Paul, we would just listen to Al-Assad, not giving one thought to those people on the ground that are dieing for their on freedom from Al-Assad.
-----------------
We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
-------------------------
"Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals."
Um...this wouldn't be considered a war in the first place. It would be known as an intervention, which we don't need Congress's approval, but the UN's approval to go and help out the people of Syria, kind of like what we did with Libya. And you want to know something...we didn't lose one guy in the intervention in Libya.
" (...) fast track to war against Syria."
No. It's an Intervetion.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Alex Jones thinks that the U.S shouldn't help out NATO.
Well, I'm back because...I am. Let's get right to this crap. It's going to be a short one but more will be coming. It seems that Alex Jones doesn't like Defense Secretary Panetta says that we need the UN (United Nations) to ok wars instead of just using our U.S Constitution to go to war...this is why it's going to be short. Here's the website for Alex Jones and his nut-job of a rant: http://www.infowars.com/panetta-authority-of-un-trumps-congress-in-getting-approval-for-war-on-syria/ Let's get it on...
-----------
1st paragraph - Following controversy over his assertion that seeking "international permission" from the UN to launch wars trumps the authority of Congress, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta re-affirmed this premise during recent testimony in which he again stated that Congress would play second fiddle to the international community.
------
Yeah, it's not like we're going to go to war with another nation. Wait...Syria isn't a part of the US? Damn it!
-----------
2nd paragraph - Asked by Congressman Walter Jones, who has launched a resolution re-affirming the limits to Presidential power by making the launching of war without Congressional approval an impeachable offense, whether President Obama would seek authorization from Congress before attacking Iran or Syria, Panetta stopped short of answering in the affirmative.
-------
Ok, to be fair, I do think that Congress should have an up or down vote, or whatever, to start up a war if we are attacked, but Syria has been killing their own people in a Civil War since, what, 2010. So, this isn't a war, this would be considered an humanitarian mission to save the people of Syria from death of the Al - Assad regime.
-----------
3rd paragraph - "We will clearly work with Congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force," said Panetta, backing away from comments made in March when he told a Senate Armed Services Committee, "Our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
------
Ok...and?
------------
4th paragraph - However, Panetta later told Congressman Randy Forbes during the House Armed Services Committee meeting, "The commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country," adding that the President would have to "take steps" to get Congressional approval under the War Powers Act.
"Would the approval be required before you could take military action against Syria?" asked Forbes.
"The President could in fact deploy forces if he had to if our vital interests were at stake," said Panetta.
"So you get the support of Congress after you began military operations?" asked Forbes.
"In that particular situation, yes," said Panetta, re-affirming that Congressional authorization would not be needed.
-----
I guess we're just choosing to not ask what "vital interest" would be at stake to take that drastic move...kind of like Reagan getting the troops to take back control of Granada for no reason execpt to stop the sperad of (bum bum bummmm) COMMUNISM!
---------
5th paragraph - Asked by Forbes if the Obama administration’s position was that a consensus of opinion from the international community would be required before military action was taken, but that no such permission would be required from Congress, Panetta responded in the affirmative.
"In that situation if the international action is taken pursuant to a Security Council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regard to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community," said Panetta, adding that Congress would only have an influence later when it came to questions about funding the effort.
----
So, what Panetta is saying here is if other UN / NATO forces are already engaging whoever they are going after, we would then help out if we can. That's it. I have no idea how Alex Jones took so much stuff out of context...it's amazing.
------------
6th paragraph - Although not as brazenly as in the first instance, Panetta’s testimony once again highlights the Obama administration’s unconstitutional position in believing it has the power to launch foreign military interventions without Congressional approval.
-----
See what I mean? It's only after the UN / NATO would go after someone that we would then help out anyway we could.
------------
7th paragraph - In June of last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, "I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question."
-----
Yeah, forget about the Civil War that was started by Col.Gaddaffi and all the bloodshed and violence towards peaceful protesters in the Captial of Libya. I bet if Roanld Reagan did something like that, he'd be hailed as a hero, but wait...what's this. OH SNAP! (Click on the words What's this...it's a hell of a surprise for you. No, it's not anything scary.)
------------
8th paragraph - Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was "authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council."
----
Well, it probably was. Now if we started going over there while the UN was still trying to tell Gaddiffi to step down, then we'd have a small problem, but the UN was all ready to go into Libya and ready to fight for the people to stop Gaddiffi killing his own people, so it looks like President Obama is in the green on this.
And that's it for right now. I'll have another one up tomorrow.
See ya later.
-----------
1st paragraph - Following controversy over his assertion that seeking "international permission" from the UN to launch wars trumps the authority of Congress, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta re-affirmed this premise during recent testimony in which he again stated that Congress would play second fiddle to the international community.
------
Yeah, it's not like we're going to go to war with another nation. Wait...Syria isn't a part of the US? Damn it!
-----------
2nd paragraph - Asked by Congressman Walter Jones, who has launched a resolution re-affirming the limits to Presidential power by making the launching of war without Congressional approval an impeachable offense, whether President Obama would seek authorization from Congress before attacking Iran or Syria, Panetta stopped short of answering in the affirmative.
-------
Ok, to be fair, I do think that Congress should have an up or down vote, or whatever, to start up a war if we are attacked, but Syria has been killing their own people in a Civil War since, what, 2010. So, this isn't a war, this would be considered an humanitarian mission to save the people of Syria from death of the Al - Assad regime.
-----------
3rd paragraph - "We will clearly work with Congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force," said Panetta, backing away from comments made in March when he told a Senate Armed Services Committee, "Our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
------
Ok...and?
------------
4th paragraph - However, Panetta later told Congressman Randy Forbes during the House Armed Services Committee meeting, "The commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country," adding that the President would have to "take steps" to get Congressional approval under the War Powers Act.
"Would the approval be required before you could take military action against Syria?" asked Forbes.
"The President could in fact deploy forces if he had to if our vital interests were at stake," said Panetta.
"So you get the support of Congress after you began military operations?" asked Forbes.
"In that particular situation, yes," said Panetta, re-affirming that Congressional authorization would not be needed.
-----
I guess we're just choosing to not ask what "vital interest" would be at stake to take that drastic move...kind of like Reagan getting the troops to take back control of Granada for no reason execpt to stop the sperad of (bum bum bummmm) COMMUNISM!
---------
5th paragraph - Asked by Forbes if the Obama administration’s position was that a consensus of opinion from the international community would be required before military action was taken, but that no such permission would be required from Congress, Panetta responded in the affirmative.
"In that situation if the international action is taken pursuant to a Security Council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regard to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community," said Panetta, adding that Congress would only have an influence later when it came to questions about funding the effort.
----
So, what Panetta is saying here is if other UN / NATO forces are already engaging whoever they are going after, we would then help out if we can. That's it. I have no idea how Alex Jones took so much stuff out of context...it's amazing.
------------
6th paragraph - Although not as brazenly as in the first instance, Panetta’s testimony once again highlights the Obama administration’s unconstitutional position in believing it has the power to launch foreign military interventions without Congressional approval.
-----
See what I mean? It's only after the UN / NATO would go after someone that we would then help out anyway we could.
------------
7th paragraph - In June of last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, "I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question."
-----
Yeah, forget about the Civil War that was started by Col.Gaddaffi and all the bloodshed and violence towards peaceful protesters in the Captial of Libya. I bet if Roanld Reagan did something like that, he'd be hailed as a hero, but wait...what's this. OH SNAP! (Click on the words What's this...it's a hell of a surprise for you. No, it's not anything scary.)
------------
8th paragraph - Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was "authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council."
----
Well, it probably was. Now if we started going over there while the UN was still trying to tell Gaddiffi to step down, then we'd have a small problem, but the UN was all ready to go into Libya and ready to fight for the people to stop Gaddiffi killing his own people, so it looks like President Obama is in the green on this.
And that's it for right now. I'll have another one up tomorrow.
See ya later.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Alex Jones Will Win America By Making Idiotic Movie About President Obama.
You might be wondering what Alex Jones was up to this whole time I was away (or not). If you didn't, I'm goign to tell you anyway. He's too busy making a stupid movie known as Obama Impeachment 2012. It's jammed packed with bullshit and so is the article we will be going over today (the same as the "Obama Impeachmet 2012" link). You might be wondering why he's making this movie. Alex explains beacuse President Obama committed some type of "war crimes"...beacuse George Bush never did. /rolleyes/ (Please Note: Three minus symbols (---) means the start of a paragraph(s) and two (--) of them means the end of the paragraph(s) in the article.)
---
"We can only win by launching Impeach Obama 2012. Whether or not we fully impeach him, we are committed to rebuking these unconstitutional and criminal power grabs and are determined to take the case to the court of public opinion.
–Alex Jones"
--
When I saw that second part I thought they were talking about George Bush...why wasn't there a movie to impeach Bush at the end of 2004? He committed war crimes ( launching illegal offensive on Iraq and oking torture), so where is the Bush movie?
---
Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.
--
Ok, two question. Why do we need a resolution if it's already in the Constitution (the Republicans really are stupid aren't they)? And what "war" did the President Obama start?
---
"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature," Madison wrote.
In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
--
Wait...President Obama waged a "war" on Libya? Uh, no. The UN Security Council had voted, which we are a part of, to help out the Libyan people, rebeling against Colonel Gaddiffi, with a No Fly Zone. Other countries had help out (France, and England) taking the lead into Libya to set up a No Fly Zone for Colonel Gaddiffi's Airforce. We didn't even lead into Libya. And a side note; We didn't need Congress to say yes to a "war" because it wasn't a "war". It's was a humanitarian crisis. The Libyan people needed International help from Colonel Gaddiffi killing them and we gave it to them by putting up a No Fly Zone.
Oh, forgot one thing...
"(...)unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
One word: Iraq. Now where is the film about getting George Bush impeached?
---
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.
The Obama administration "does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war," Stone notes, and "accordingly the president should be impeached."
--
One thing should be said of this paragraph about Leon Panetta. He said that, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress." about the intervention in Libya. While I think it would be a good thing to go throug the Congress, it could mean trouble for the Libyan people who are needing our help (you know that the Congress would never pass the resolution bill and let people die at the hands of Colonel / Dictator Gaddiffi).
---
Stone also mentions Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached. Obama’s efforts worked in favor of the "consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe."
--
Well, this sentence tell me that this Mr. Stone is really retarted. Why, you may be asking? Let's see if I can point it out for you:
" (...) Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" (...).
2008? Didn't President Obama get in office on January 20, 2009? So, how is the banker bailout of 2008 Obama's fault? Like I said, Mr. Stone is retarted.
---
"There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people," Sean explains. "Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue."
He rightly notes that Obama’s actions "represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States."
--
So, we're blaming President Obama for what President Bush, in 2008, did? Grand! Once again I ask, where is the movie for Impeaching President Bush at?
---
In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.
Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
--
Um...isn't that suppose to say, "Bush has committed a number of other egregious violations(...)" because Bush did. For example, Bush ok'ed the use of torture. And yet you rednecks are yelling about helping out the Libyan people.
"In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people(...)"
Oh, you mean the Bush Tax Cuts that the Republicans really like because it helps out the rich people by taking from the poor that was installed by the Bush Administration. Hoe nice of you to blame that on President Obama too...
"(...)when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar (...)"
GM...don't forget about GM. You're talking about the Auto Bailout that helped out a bunch of people that could have been fired from their job. Yeah...that was such a bad thing.../rolleyes/.
---
In addition, the Dodd-Fran "reform" bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster's preferred teatment, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).
--
Well, I'm just glad that Alex hasn't went all the way to declare that the Dodd-Frank reform bill was the reason why the the economy collasped...yet.
"(...) the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years)."
Here's the funny thing. Alex cries about how President Obama didn't go though Congress took the No Fly Zone for Libya, but doesn't notice that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (that put up the Federal Reserve) was passed by Congress and the Senate in 1913, and states that it's "unconstitutional" because he doesn't like it. Just keep on throwing out you're hypocrisy, Alex...we all love it.
---
The Obamacare mandate is the most obvious violation. "No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine.
The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term," writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
--
Do you know that there are states that have mandates for car insurance. Yes, you have to have car insurance in most states in the US. Click on the words "mandates for car insurance" and scroll down the page that comes up for an extra laugh at Alex Jones, because he's too much of an idiot to look at where he lives. Once again, it's a need to have car insurance but not health insurance. Oh, and if you don't have car insurance, you'll get fined by the police, like you would with this health care mandate.
---
Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. "He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romeo.
--
Yeah, because George Bush isn't real. It's was only your imagination...I don't like the idea of the NDAA because it's just more money to the military that we could be spending on things that this country needs.
---
Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation – do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.
--
Once again, George Bush isn't real.
---
"Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness tocontinue the George Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by ‘executive fiat.’ Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon," writes Aaron Dykes
--
"Obama’s use of signing statements (...)"
Like George Bush did...
"(...) not only of torture(...)"
Yeah...what? Not even near it. The torture was stopped on January 22, 2009 by President Obama.
"(...)and illegal detainment(...)"
Hey, you got something...finally...
---
Obama is definitely a renegade president in violation of the law. He is guilty of treason and must be brought up on formal charges. The House must introduce a resolution for impeachment and a trial must be held in the Senate.
It can be argued that Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior. If we continue to allow the executive to flagrantly violate the Constitution, we will eventually end up with a full-blown dictatorship run out of the White House. Congress will become ceremonial and the will of the American people will be null and void once and for all.
--
Yeah, because all of George Bushes "war crimes" was not war crimes at all and when George lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD's (WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BY THE WAY!), he didn't do anything wrong...somehow. Wait...what the hell...?
"(...) Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior."
Did Alex just call Abraham Lincoln (and all the other presidents from President Lincoln up to President Obama) a traitor? What the hell dude?
Thank you for reading and looking. Hope you enjoyed my first post back.
Shydude89.
---
"We can only win by launching Impeach Obama 2012. Whether or not we fully impeach him, we are committed to rebuking these unconstitutional and criminal power grabs and are determined to take the case to the court of public opinion.
–Alex Jones"
--
When I saw that second part I thought they were talking about George Bush...why wasn't there a movie to impeach Bush at the end of 2004? He committed war crimes ( launching illegal offensive on Iraq and oking torture), so where is the Bush movie?
---
Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.
--
Ok, two question. Why do we need a resolution if it's already in the Constitution (the Republicans really are stupid aren't they)? And what "war" did the President Obama start?
---
"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature," Madison wrote.
In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
--
Wait...President Obama waged a "war" on Libya? Uh, no. The UN Security Council had voted, which we are a part of, to help out the Libyan people, rebeling against Colonel Gaddiffi, with a No Fly Zone. Other countries had help out (France, and England) taking the lead into Libya to set up a No Fly Zone for Colonel Gaddiffi's Airforce. We didn't even lead into Libya. And a side note; We didn't need Congress to say yes to a "war" because it wasn't a "war". It's was a humanitarian crisis. The Libyan people needed International help from Colonel Gaddiffi killing them and we gave it to them by putting up a No Fly Zone.
Oh, forgot one thing...
"(...)unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."
One word: Iraq. Now where is the film about getting George Bush impeached?
---
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.
The Obama administration "does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war," Stone notes, and "accordingly the president should be impeached."
--
One thing should be said of this paragraph about Leon Panetta. He said that, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress." about the intervention in Libya. While I think it would be a good thing to go throug the Congress, it could mean trouble for the Libyan people who are needing our help (you know that the Congress would never pass the resolution bill and let people die at the hands of Colonel / Dictator Gaddiffi).
---
Stone also mentions Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached. Obama’s efforts worked in favor of the "consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe."
--
Well, this sentence tell me that this Mr. Stone is really retarted. Why, you may be asking? Let's see if I can point it out for you:
" (...) Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" (...).
2008? Didn't President Obama get in office on January 20, 2009? So, how is the banker bailout of 2008 Obama's fault? Like I said, Mr. Stone is retarted.
---
"There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people," Sean explains. "Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue."
He rightly notes that Obama’s actions "represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States."
--
So, we're blaming President Obama for what President Bush, in 2008, did? Grand! Once again I ask, where is the movie for Impeaching President Bush at?
---
In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.
Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
--
Um...isn't that suppose to say, "Bush has committed a number of other egregious violations(...)" because Bush did. For example, Bush ok'ed the use of torture. And yet you rednecks are yelling about helping out the Libyan people.
"In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people(...)"
Oh, you mean the Bush Tax Cuts that the Republicans really like because it helps out the rich people by taking from the poor that was installed by the Bush Administration. Hoe nice of you to blame that on President Obama too...
"(...)when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chystler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar (...)"
GM...don't forget about GM. You're talking about the Auto Bailout that helped out a bunch of people that could have been fired from their job. Yeah...that was such a bad thing.../rolleyes/.
---
In addition, the Dodd-Fran "reform" bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster's preferred teatment, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).
--
Well, I'm just glad that Alex hasn't went all the way to declare that the Dodd-Frank reform bill was the reason why the the economy collasped...yet.
"(...) the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years)."
Here's the funny thing. Alex cries about how President Obama didn't go though Congress took the No Fly Zone for Libya, but doesn't notice that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (that put up the Federal Reserve) was passed by Congress and the Senate in 1913, and states that it's "unconstitutional" because he doesn't like it. Just keep on throwing out you're hypocrisy, Alex...we all love it.
---
The Obamacare mandate is the most obvious violation. "No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine.
The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term," writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
--
Do you know that there are states that have mandates for car insurance. Yes, you have to have car insurance in most states in the US. Click on the words "mandates for car insurance" and scroll down the page that comes up for an extra laugh at Alex Jones, because he's too much of an idiot to look at where he lives. Once again, it's a need to have car insurance but not health insurance. Oh, and if you don't have car insurance, you'll get fined by the police, like you would with this health care mandate.
---
Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. "He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romeo.
--
Yeah, because George Bush isn't real. It's was only your imagination...I don't like the idea of the NDAA because it's just more money to the military that we could be spending on things that this country needs.
---
Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation – do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.
--
Once again, George Bush isn't real.
---
"Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness tocontinue the George Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by ‘executive fiat.’ Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon," writes Aaron Dykes
--
"Obama’s use of signing statements (...)"
Like George Bush did...
"(...) not only of torture(...)"
Yeah...what? Not even near it. The torture was stopped on January 22, 2009 by President Obama.
"(...)and illegal detainment(...)"
Hey, you got something...finally...
---
Obama is definitely a renegade president in violation of the law. He is guilty of treason and must be brought up on formal charges. The House must introduce a resolution for impeachment and a trial must be held in the Senate.
It can be argued that Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior. If we continue to allow the executive to flagrantly violate the Constitution, we will eventually end up with a full-blown dictatorship run out of the White House. Congress will become ceremonial and the will of the American people will be null and void once and for all.
--
Yeah, because all of George Bushes "war crimes" was not war crimes at all and when George lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD's (WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BY THE WAY!), he didn't do anything wrong...somehow. Wait...what the hell...?
"(...) Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior."
Did Alex just call Abraham Lincoln (and all the other presidents from President Lincoln up to President Obama) a traitor? What the hell dude?
Thank you for reading and looking. Hope you enjoyed my first post back.
Shydude89.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)