Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.the president doesn't even have the power to go after terrorists over there, without the war powers act by congress, giving him that ability. What part of "that" do you not understand?
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.the president doesn't even have the power to go after terrorists over there, without the war powers act by congress, giving him that ability. What part of "that" do you not understand?
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.the president doesn't even have the power to go after terrorists over there, without the war powers act by congress, giving him that ability. What part of "that" do you not understand?
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.the president doesn't even have the power to go after terrorists over there, without the war powers act by congress, giving him that ability. What part of "that" do you not understand?
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
Well I think your understanding is wrong. Not having a standard army was to prevent a tyrannical leader from using it against the citizens. There was no world police at the time nor any envision of it. The world police was a position that was developed throughout time. We didn't create it. But since it's there already, if we don't want it, think of the countries that would be capable to take that position.
No, all I asked you is why all this talk of a "war crime" because Trump took out a terrorist? He wasn't a "war criminal" last fall when he took out the head of ISIS, nor was Obama a "war criminal" when he ordered Bin Laden killed. So I'll ask you again to name the law Trump broke and when he goes on trial as a "war criminal?" I'm pretty sure the Feds know what a crime is better than you do and on top of that, Donald has Nancy whom I'm sure will make a point of warning him of any toe he puts over the line even though she was nowhere to be found the 13 times Obama exceeded his presidential authority over 8 years.Wow, I really hit a nerve with that one, didn't I?Name the law that Trump has broken?Name the law that Trump has broken?"Beautiful?" No, these things are beautiful, and irreplaceable. Thanks to the GOP's greed, our President has been allowed to break the law in our country with impunity.It's a beautiful thing. Trump has made clear a CREDIBLE threat that for the first time in Iran's 40 year fracas with us, that if they press our buttons again, keep dicking us off, that he is going to out "Muzzie" the muslims-- -- -- -- beat them at their own game. He has turned the game around against THEM. First a finger, now an arm, next: amputate at the waist line. He's DARING them to dick with him ONE MORE TIME.
Trump has gorilla balls.
The Ayatollah is now faced with keeping up his usual rhetoric, authorizing yet another retaliation, and then having every cultural site in Iran they value leveled, with HIM as the cause knowing there is a tipping point where his people turn against HIM for provoking it.
Brilliant.
For the first time in Iran's memory, they are now suddenly faced with provoking America coming at a far greater cost than it is worth.
News flash for you, OL, because of Barry Obama's reluctance on the JV team ISIS for over two years, ISIS destroyed about a trillion dollars worth or those very same irreplaceable ancient historic places all across Iraq and elsewhere that offended them while the democrats fiddled by not wanting to tick off their base whom he promised to pull out of Iraq. Trump has merely THREATENED to do as much. The difference here is that it would be for a good cause this time because it won't happen unless the Iranians cross the line that Donald has now made VERY CLEAR they do not want to cross.
If you tell a child not to put their hand in the fire you are cooking with and they still do, it's not YOUR fault they got burned. The beauty here is do the ayatollah dare call Trump to see if he is bluffing?
You end terrible conflicts by promising terrible things and NOT backing down from your word. That's why you and I listened to our fathers whereas today's kids do not. We knew our dads were NOT bluffing when they laid their belt on the table.
After an al-Qaeda affiliated group destroyed ancient religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012, the International Criminal Court took on a unique criminal case: prosecuting cultural destruction.
Though it generally focuses on human rights violations, the ICC charged the leader of the jihadist group, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, with a war crime for destroying cultural artifacts in Timbuktu.
The case was the first criminal charge of its kind. It "breaks new ground for the protection of humanity's shared cultural heritage and values," UNESCO Secretary-General Irina Bokova said at the time. Al-Mahdi eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years in prison.
Reminder for those born just yesterday:
Right, because McConnell is the first majority leader to feel that way. Nobody on the Democrat side ever did.
You people live in your own world.
I should have known better. What U.S. Law has Trump broken? The United States does not generally recognize laws outside the US Code unless agreed to by international treaty or pact. The International Criminal Court can go pound sand. How are they going to come here and enforce a law saying that Trump committed a war crime? Fly in from the Netherlands and arrest him? You seem to forget that the main power of enforcement within such bodies resides with the United States! I'd be willing to bet that every international organization, the UN, NATO, et al, not only are we the largest body member, but we are the main contributor financially keeping it afloat.
So you're saying since we are probably a member of these international organizations and the wealthiest, that we should not get in trouble for breaking international law?
How thuggish.
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.the president doesn't even have the power to go after terrorists over there, without the war powers act by congress, giving him that ability. What part of "that" do you not understand?
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
Well I think your understanding is wrong. Not having a standard army was to prevent a tyrannical leader from using it against the citizens. There was no world police at the time nor any envision of it. The world police was a position that was developed throughout time. We didn't create it. But since it's there already, if we don't want it, think of the countries that would be capable to take that position.
People have been debating this since 1973 every time a President wants to initiate a new war or might initiate a new war. Reagan heard it for a few hours during Grenada before it ended the same week. Clinton heard it on supporting the NATO mission in Kosovo. Bush & Company browbeat the country with patriotic duty till it was too late to stop it. Since start of the wars in the middle east after 9/11 it has been treated like "Hey, you let the last guy slide. Don't bitch at me. I'm golden."
What do you think of the report Pompao put out about accepting the withdrawal of status of troop agreement and getting the hell out of there? If Donnie does it, even I will vote for him. Seriously, Ray. Have you commented on it. I've been busy with that google eyed icon guy nipping my butt half the night and some kid trying litigate who got us in there.
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.the president doesn't even have the power to go after terrorists over there, without the war powers act by congress, giving him that ability. What part of "that" do you not understand?
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
Well I think your understanding is wrong. Not having a standard army was to prevent a tyrannical leader from using it against the citizens. There was no world police at the time nor any envision of it. The world police was a position that was developed throughout time. We didn't create it. But since it's there already, if we don't want it, think of the countries that would be capable to take that position.
People have been debating this since 1973 every time a President wants to initiate a new war or might initiate a new war. Reagan heard it for a few hours during Grenada before it ended the same week. Clinton heard it on supporting the NATO mission in Kosovo. Bush & Company browbeat the country with patriotic duty till it was too late to stop it. Since start of the wars in the middle east after 9/11 it has been treated like "Hey, you let the last guy slide. Don't bitch at me. I'm golden."
What do you think of the report Pompao put out about accepting the withdrawal of status of troop agreement and getting the hell out of there? If Donnie does it, even I will vote for him. Seriously, Ray. Have you commented on it. I've been busy with that google eyed icon guy nipping my butt half the night and some kid trying litigate who got us in there.
First of all, what we know about foreign conflicts is about 30% of what a President knows, I don't care who it is. The media is biased as we know, and the White House couldn't tell them everything even if they wanted to. So when we elect a President, we just have to trust them in exercising military force with the information we don't know about.
Secondly, this goes back and forth with each President. If a Democrat uses military action, the Republicans will cry foul. If a Republican uses military action, the Democrats cry foul. Bottom line is, most Americans don't like military conflict, but we also realize that sometimes it's unavoidable. If Clinton launched a war against Bin Laden, it ,might have prevented 911. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm saying that Bill foreseen the future and ignored it, but by not taking him and his gang out, we suffered the worst attack on American soil in history.
President Trump wants to get us out of the middle-east. However once he gathered the information privy to that position in our government, he probably soon realized that totally leaving the ME is impossible.
See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.Check out the Constitution some time.
1. Search for the string "Commander in Chief".
2. See if Pelosi, TDS sufferers, The Democrat Party, Fake News, or Speaker of the House is mentioned.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
Well I think your understanding is wrong. Not having a standard army was to prevent a tyrannical leader from using it against the citizens. There was no world police at the time nor any envision of it. The world police was a position that was developed throughout time. We didn't create it. But since it's there already, if we don't want it, think of the countries that would be capable to take that position.
People have been debating this since 1973 every time a President wants to initiate a new war or might initiate a new war. Reagan heard it for a few hours during Grenada before it ended the same week. Clinton heard it on supporting the NATO mission in Kosovo. Bush & Company browbeat the country with patriotic duty till it was too late to stop it. Since start of the wars in the middle east after 9/11 it has been treated like "Hey, you let the last guy slide. Don't bitch at me. I'm golden."
What do you think of the report Pompao put out about accepting the withdrawal of status of troop agreement and getting the hell out of there? If Donnie does it, even I will vote for him. Seriously, Ray. Have you commented on it. I've been busy with that google eyed icon guy nipping my butt half the night and some kid trying litigate who got us in there.
First of all, what we know about foreign conflicts is about 30% of what a President knows, I don't care who it is. The media is biased as we know, and the White House couldn't tell them everything even if they wanted to. So when we elect a President, we just have to trust them in exercising military force with the information we don't know about.
Secondly, this goes back and forth with each President. If a Democrat uses military action, the Republicans will cry foul. If a Republican uses military action, the Democrats cry foul. Bottom line is, most Americans don't like military conflict, but we also realize that sometimes it's unavoidable. If Clinton launched a war against Bin Laden, it ,might have prevented 911. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm saying that Bill foreseen the future and ignored it, but by not taking him and his gang out, we suffered the worst attack on American soil in history.
President Trump wants to get us out of the middle-east. However once he gathered the information privy to that position in our government, he probably soon realized that totally leaving the ME is impossible.
Caught up on the web and news service after the board. Now know the withdrawal letter has been trumped by Trump. It is unfortunate. As for how much he knows that we do not, I don't think he knows much more, this time. I think somebody on his campaign side got to him. It is not in our national interest to be there, unless somebody resold him on importance the strategic location BS. More troops are either more soft targets or window dressing and soft targets. When your strategic location has has enemies on all sides, it is called being surrounded. better to strategically withdraw and regroup even if you want to attack with bombardment from above. Being strategically surrounded on purpose is even worse strategic move than going there to be lost in mission creep. We have gained nothing there since Son-of-a-Bush declared victory, and the costs in human capital and treasure continues to rise. He actually could make a strategic withdrawal. Should have stuck to first instincts on this one. I'll be glad when he goes back to ripping of bankers,local politicians and contractors.
You've heard about never being drawn into a land war in Asia? Same goes for the middle east. Stand off at a distance and just keep breaking sh!t at random will work better, taking into account the tactics of the enemy. GW wasn't anymore correct than the supporters of the "domino" theory in Vietnam.See the Constitution, a permanent standing Army is prohibited, only Congress can call up an Army, and only for 2 years at a time.
The CIC' s job is to be their Commander, if and when Congress calls them up....
Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
Well I think your understanding is wrong. Not having a standard army was to prevent a tyrannical leader from using it against the citizens. There was no world police at the time nor any envision of it. The world police was a position that was developed throughout time. We didn't create it. But since it's there already, if we don't want it, think of the countries that would be capable to take that position.
People have been debating this since 1973 every time a President wants to initiate a new war or might initiate a new war. Reagan heard it for a few hours during Grenada before it ended the same week. Clinton heard it on supporting the NATO mission in Kosovo. Bush & Company browbeat the country with patriotic duty till it was too late to stop it. Since start of the wars in the middle east after 9/11 it has been treated like "Hey, you let the last guy slide. Don't bitch at me. I'm golden."
What do you think of the report Pompao put out about accepting the withdrawal of status of troop agreement and getting the hell out of there? If Donnie does it, even I will vote for him. Seriously, Ray. Have you commented on it. I've been busy with that google eyed icon guy nipping my butt half the night and some kid trying litigate who got us in there.
First of all, what we know about foreign conflicts is about 30% of what a President knows, I don't care who it is. The media is biased as we know, and the White House couldn't tell them everything even if they wanted to. So when we elect a President, we just have to trust them in exercising military force with the information we don't know about.
Secondly, this goes back and forth with each President. If a Democrat uses military action, the Republicans will cry foul. If a Republican uses military action, the Democrats cry foul. Bottom line is, most Americans don't like military conflict, but we also realize that sometimes it's unavoidable. If Clinton launched a war against Bin Laden, it ,might have prevented 911. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm saying that Bill foreseen the future and ignored it, but by not taking him and his gang out, we suffered the worst attack on American soil in history.
President Trump wants to get us out of the middle-east. However once he gathered the information privy to that position in our government, he probably soon realized that totally leaving the ME is impossible.
Caught up on the web and news service after the board. Now know the withdrawal letter has been trumped by Trump. It is unfortunate. As for how much he knows that we do not, I don't think he knows much more, this time. I think somebody on his campaign side got to him. It is not in our national interest to be there, unless somebody resold him on importance the strategic location BS. More troops are either more soft targets or window dressing and soft targets. When your strategic location has has enemies on all sides, it is called being surrounded. better to strategically withdraw and regroup even if you want to attack with bombardment from above. Being strategically surrounded on purpose is even worse strategic move than going there to be lost in mission creep. We have gained nothing there since Son-of-a-Bush declared victory, and the costs in human capital and treasure continues to rise. He actually could make a strategic withdrawal. Should have stuck to first instincts on this one. I'll be glad when he goes back to ripping of bankers,local politicians and contractors.
I would say Trump has been the largest proponent for getting out of the middle-east that we've had in decades. He heavily criticized GW for Iraq, and didn't let up right through his run for the Republican nomination. But it's not a basketball game. You can't just take your ball and go home. Look at our involvement there during the DumBama years. He's another one that was heavily critical of our middle-east military involvements.
What I can say about GW is he was correct in saying, we need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. So even if we pulled every last solder out of the middle-east, their radicals will still look at us as the evil Satin, and still have a religious obligation to kill each and every one of us.
It's completely rediculous and doesn't limit Trump's Article 2 authority in the least. That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Tehran Nancy can't arrogate Article 2 authority for Congress through legislation, but she has a lot of screws loose and has completely lost her mind.The camel is Pelosi.....no need to say more. Send her back to Frisco to shovel shit.
Pelosi announces war powers resolution as tensions with Iran escalate
Giving Trump and the US military 30-days leeway to deal with Iran is more than enough time. Thanks Nancy!
Nancy Pelosi Announces House will Vote on War Powers Resolution to Curtail Trump's Iranian Options | National Review
What I don't know is if Nancy's resolution matters without senate approval too?
Have you not been paying attention to the Deep State activities during the past three years?Trump needs to have the FBI keep close tabs on Pelosi and the entire democrat Iranian sleeper cell
But now it's become apparent we must be the world's police.Is h o w our founders created it.
It was created this way, so that we could not become the world's police, and to prevent foreign wars that we participated in, that did not directly involve ourselves, our own imminent threat at home.... is my understanding of it?
Wrong. Trump is the CIC, in our nation the CIC does not clear target lists with a committee.The camel is Pelosi.....no need to say more. Send her back to Frisco to shovel shit.
Pelosi announces war powers resolution as tensions with Iran escalate
A POTUS can strike an insurgence, such as violent protestors at an embassy.
But what Trump did, by killing a high level official of a sovereign country, is an act of war and must first be voted by Congress before performing.
Pelosi is doing the right thing.
Screw you if you think your "king" can do whatever the fuck he wants. You're part of the problem and deserve to be one of his serfs.
