This could be the straw that breaks the camels back...

[Care4all]

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?

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.

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Kosh]

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?

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.

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?

So much wrong with that, it would take to long to fix it.

But the far left often has no clue about the Constitution.

No the Congress creates taxes to fund the military, which is constitutional spending!

The Military along with the president decides how, where and when to use them. If there is to be war, then Congress must approve the war, unless you are far left!

Opinion | Obama's Illegal War in Libya

 

[White 6]

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?

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.

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 ***** 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.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

"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.

Name the law that Trump has broken?
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.

Name the law that Trump has broken?
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.

Wow, I really hit a nerve with that one, didn't I?

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

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.

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 ***** 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.

 

[White 6]

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?

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.

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 ***** 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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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 ***** 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.

 

[White 6]

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 ***** 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.

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.

 

[Hum Dinger]

What if we withdraw from Iraq?

My guess:

The Iraqi Sunni's will start a civil war against the Iraqi Shiites
ISIS will re -emerge
Iran will ally with the Iraqi Shiites, as will the Kurds
Saudi Arabia will ally with the Sunnis
The Syrian Government will ally with the Iranians, Shiites and Kurds
Russia will support whoever the Syrians ally with.
Turkey will expand it's control as much as possible.

Basically there'll be a huge war in Iraq, Iran & Syria - I doubt we'll stay out of it mainly because Saudi Arabia seems to own the the Republican party - especially Trump. Besides if we just sit back, Russia will become the BIG DOG in the ME.

Right now, we're the only stabilizing force in the region, if we leave...the shit will hit the fan - BIGTIME!

 

[LaDairis]

Congress is more likely to show us the videos of the "757" hitting the Pentagon on 911 than they are to do anything about Trump's hit in Baghdad.

Congress is bought and paid for by AIPAC.

If you want to see the video of what hit the Pentagon on 911, you won't get it from Congress or the "US" media, but it is out there....

 

[Zorro!]

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?

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.

A perfectly constitutional presidentially-ordered use of military force and the crazed Democrats in the House blather on mindlessly about how the commander-in-chief is supposedly violating the War Powers Act (WPA). The never too bright Senator Tim Kaine, D-Va., has introduced a resolution that would purport to direct President Trump to cease hostilities with Iran in the absence of a congressional authorization.

An exercise in pointlessness.

From the time of its passage until the Obama administration, all presidents regarded WPA as an unconstitutional infringement on the president’s Article II powers.

Even President Obama dodged the WPA – taking the absurd position that his unauthorized, unprovoked attacks on Libya were not actually “war” or a use of military force.

The president’s Article II powers as commander-in-chief include the power to use military force when the United States or its vital interests are threatened.

The Civil War, the Supreme Court held in the Prize Cases that, when the United States is under attack, the president has not merely the constitutional power but the duty to use whatever force is necessary to repel the attack, regardless of whether Congress has permitted the use of force.

WPA would enable Congress to direct the president to withdraw forces by a joint resolution; but the Supreme Court has held that such legislative vetoes are unconstitutional – law can only be enacted when the president signs legislation passed by both houses, unless there is a veto override.

No statute is needed to provide Congress with the power to frustrate unauthorized presidential war-making. The Constitution empowers the legislature to do so by simply refusing to appropriate funds for military action. To take that step, though, Congress would have to be willing to take responsibility for ending military operations that the president believes are in America’s interests. Congress characteristically resists accountability. Opposition members of congress generally publicly oppose military action even while it quietly funds any military operations it declines affirmatively to endorse.

Iran is prosecuting an actual war against us and Trump has a duty to respond as CIC. Trump did a great job with the the jihadist regime’s top combatant commander, General Qassem Soleimani, who had orchestrated the operations of anti-American terror networks and was responsible for killing hundreds of American troops.

Rather than engaging in the partisan preening of pointless WPA bickering, Democrats should be joining with Republicans to present a unified American front, in support of a president who is trying to prevent all-out war with Tehran.

Andrew McCarthy: War Powers Resolution vote against Trump is pointless – He has right to strike bad guys

 

[lennypartiv]

Trump needs to have the FBI keep close tabs on Pelosi and the entire democrat Iranian sleeper cell

Have you not been paying attention to the Deep State activities during the past three years?

 

[lennypartiv]

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?

But now it's become apparent we must be the world's police.

 

[Zorro!]

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 **** he wants. You're part of the problem and deserve to be one of his serfs.

Wrong. Trump is the CIC, in our nation the CIC does not clear target lists with a committee.

IRAN: Iran Opens Fire On Demonstrators. Protesters Chant: ‘Our Enemy Is Right Here; They Lie To Us That It’s America.’

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is designated terrorist organization.

Lying Scum Terrorists That Fool No One, Not Even The Fake News New York Times:

“For the first three days after the crash, Iran denied growing international accusations that it had shot the plane down, and looked as if it was engaged in a cover-up,” The New York Times reported. “The Iranian authorities insisted that the jetliner had gone down for mechanical reasons, and refused to cooperate with investigators. They also began to remove some evidence from the scene.”​

The Monsters you engage in apologetics for:



Lisa Daftari

✔@LisaDaftari
Warning- Graphic Video: Regime forces shoot at female protester in Tehran. Man who sent me this video was crying so hysterically, he could not speak. #IranProtests


12:30 PM - Jan 12, 2020

All those Iranians died in that plane. How these vile monsters of a regime, that you defend, treat grieving Iranians:


Farnaz Fassihi

✔@farnazfassihi
#IranProtests2020
Tehran: Security forces violently beat up a grieving man protesting the downed plane.


8:15 PM - Jan 12, 2020

President Donald Trump warned Iran about attacking protesters on Sunday, tweeting, “To the leaders of Iran – DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS. Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching. Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people!”


Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump
To the leaders of Iran - DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS. Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching. Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people!

5:48 AM - Jan 12, 2020

“To the brave, long-suffering people of Iran: I’ve stood with you since the beginning of my Presidency, and my Administration will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely, and are inspired by your courage,” Trump wrote on Saturday, adding, “The government of Iran must allow human rights groups to monitor and report facts from the ground on the ongoing protests by the Iranian people. There can not be another massacre of peaceful protesters, nor an internet shutdown. The world is watching.”​

“Unlike previous waves of opposition, some of the outrage this time has come from conservatives who ordinarily support the government, as well as from the usual critics,” the Times added. “Headlines in hard-line newspaper demanded resignations, and the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hossein Salami, issued a very rare public apology. … The editor in chief of the Revolutionary Guard’s Tasnim news agency, Kian Abdollahi, said that attempts by government officials to lie about what had happened were as great a ‘catastrophe’ as the crash itself.”​

The Times noted that protesters chanted,

“The supreme leader is a murderer; his regime is obsolete,” “Our enemy is right here, they lie to us that it’s America,” and “They killed our geniuses and replaced them with clerics.”​

Navid@Navidfa
Truly remarkable. Just 2 mo ago regime killed over 1,500 people on streets. Despite this, people return on streets w/ even more fierce chants against entire ruling system while emphasizing repeatedly in slogans: “The enemy is RIGHT HERE, they LIE & say it is the US”. Tehran, Jan 12


8:49 AM - Jan 12, 2020

Other videos from protests in Iran showed protesters refusing to walk on flags of the United States and Israel that were painted on the ground.

BBC reporter Ali Hamedani tweeted a video that showed student protesters refusing to walk on a giant American and Israeli flag that was painted on the ground, writing, “At the height of the Iranian establishment anti Americanism, Tehran Beheshti university’s students refused walking over the US and Israel flag while participating in #IranProtests. They all grew up to hate the two countries but seems like the revolutionary ideology is failed.”

WATCH:


Ali Hamedani

✔@BBCHamedani
At the height of the Iranian establishment anti Americanism, Tehran Beheshti university’s students refused walking over the US and Israel flag while participating in #IranProtests . They all grew up to hate the two countries but seems like the revolutionary ideology is failed.


4:57 AM - Jan 12, 2020

Iranian College Students honoring the Stars and Stripes.

Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist, tweeted:

“Watch how Iranian students refuse to step on American & the flag of Israel. This should embarrassed Iranian regime & their propaganda funeral for #Soleimani where people were told to chant ‘Death To America.’ Now people in Iran chanting ‘Death to Islamic Republic dictatorship.'”​

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) tweeted:

“Students at Beheshti University of Tehran Refuse to Walk Over U.S., Israel Flags, Boo People Who Do”​

On Saturday, protesters chanted

“death to liars,” “death to the dictator,” “So many years, so many crimes, death to the Islamic Republic,” and “Soleimani was a murderer, his Leader is also a murderer.”​