and yet the neocons claim our actions don’t have negative consequences

Posted on August 4th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , 4 Comments »

Perhaps we should show US 8-15 y/o’s videos like this so they know who they will be shooting at in 10 years.

Wall Street got drunk?

Posted on July 23rd, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Isn’t it more like Wall Street was slipped some PCP? Between the Federal Reserve, Congress and the executive branch we’ve got inflation, wars, deficit spending, subsidies, regulation, artificially low interest rates and other interventionist policy. All of which distort market reality and now we are in the comedown and it sucks a lot more then a hangover.

Another great McCain warmongering video

Posted on July 23rd, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , ,

Ron Paul at the Iranian Policy Hearing

Posted on July 11th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s entertaining that when Paul asks a personal question of a bureaucrat they appear completely dumbfounded. Is it so difficult to say “yes” when asking if H. Con. Res. 362 represents a blockade?

Here also is Paul on the House floor talking about H. Con. Res. 362.

This just in! Congress should have a say in going to war

Posted on July 9th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments »

http://www.cqpolitics.com/…

Two former secretaries of State unveiled a plan Tuesday to require better consultation between Congress and the president over sending U.S. troops into war.

The legislation, the product of a blue-ribbon commission headed by James A. Baker III, secretary of State under President George Bush, and Warren Christopher, who held the same office under President Bill Clinton, would establish a joint congressional committee and require that the president consult with its members before sending the military into battle.

“This statute gives Congress a seat at the table in deciding whether or not to go to war — not just a seat at the table, but one with a permanent staff, a permanent professional staff, and access to all the available intelligence information,” Christopher said.

Christopher and Baker urged Congress and a new administration to quickly take up their proposal, and said they had reached out to the campaigns of Sens. Barack Obama , D-Ill., and John McCain , R-Ariz.

The plan also would require Congress to vote on a concurrent resolution to authorize the conflict within 30 days after military action begins. If that resolution fails, it would allow an expedited vote on a joint resolution of disapproval, which would become law only with the president’s signature or over his or her veto.

Any military action expected to last more than a week would require consultation, and formal consultation would continue every two months. If action requires secrecy, the president would have to consult within three days after the action began. Covert operations, humanitarian missions, limited reprisal against terrorists and repelling attacks on the United States would be exempt.

Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, since the end of World War II, presidents have committed the U.S. military to several conflicts without asking for declarations of war, though in some cases Congress has enacted authorizing resolutions, as it did in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Congress also has the power to limit spending for military operations, though it could be politically difficult to do so once U.S. troops have been committed to a conflict.

The proposal would replace the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which the commission concluded was ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst.

OHHH. I see what they are saying. Congress does have a say. They just don’t bother to use that power. Nor do they use the power to impeach and try the president for high crimes of going to war without a declaration. Lets take a look at that “Constitution” thing they speak of.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have the Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Seems pretty clear to me. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” He is the Commander in Chief only when the Congress calls the Army, Navy and/or Militia of the several States into actual service. When can they be called into service? When the Congress declares war, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” That’s it as far as I can tell.

And what did James Madison say on the topic?

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Hence it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.

So it seems even more obvious that Congress not only has a say but it is the only voice. Will such a setup as proposed fix anything? I don’t see how. The more strict and constitutional ways for military deployment has failed for decades. This plan has no teeth. Hell, the president can veto the “joint resolution of disapproval.” Even if the president couldn’t what would that do? It’s just a disapproval resolution. It sounds like a UN security council resolution. There is nothing to back it up.

Two peas in a state worshiping pod

Posted on July 3rd, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment »

John McCain:

Patriotism is deeper than its symbolic expressions, than sentiments about place and kinship that move us to hold our hands over our hearts during the national anthem. It is putting the country first, before party or personal ambition, before anything.

Barack Obama:

Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping. Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war for the very first time in our history.

And that is why I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate – I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.

Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, and the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia.

As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.

Asked? How about told. McCain’s looking to start another war or ten and likely a draft will be needed. Obama is looking to expand national services of all sorts and even if they aren’t giving me busy work they will be using their guns to make me pay for it.



bob store

© 2008 blog of bile is powered by Wordpress