While Republican Bush II once famously claimed he was “the decider,” the ‘Change We Can Believe In’ promised by his replacement, the Democrat Obama, is hardly any different in regards to the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars. The media and American people breathlessly await the President’s decision on how many troops to send into the war zone. With spines made of jelly, Congress is as toothless as a bunch of newborns as they delegate their responsibilities to represent the American people to a single man. What could they ‘Change’ instead?
Congress could refuse to approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. Congress should instead pass a resolution for a rapid, immediate, and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders. Congress could increase the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. Congress should also issue constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
To support this stance, I offer the following four key points: First, elected officials must begin behaving like the United States is a nation of laws, not a collection of rogues who delegate their gravest responsibility and immaturely fail to follow the supreme law of the land and declare war. Second, America’s historical foreign policy actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood, which contain the true reasons why terrorists attacked the United States in 2001. Third, a sober look at the eco-politics of the area, such as opiates and oil pipelines, must be taken. Lastly, we should contain the problem by securing our borders, and with all of the economic unrest, now is no time to be nation-building and quartering troops in foreign lands. Read More »
“Soldiers’ supreme wish is to avoid war, for the costs are inevitably paid with their blood and brains.“ – Jake Towne
November 11, 2009 11:11 AM
Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.” All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans. As I stated in the campaign’s veterans plank:
“Service members shoulder a heavy burden when they volunteer to risk their lives in defense of our country. They perform a necessary function in our society and for their service veterans receive deserved benefits and gratitude. However, the greatest way to honor them is to keep them out of unnecessary conflict. The only just war is one carried out in self-defense, as a non-aggressor, and as a last resort.
“It’s important that we have a strong military to deter attacks against the our country and protect it when attacked. However, asking our young men and women to participate in unjust war is a moral abyss that we as a country should never leap into. If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.”
Honor our soldiers abroad by bringing them home to protect our borders. Never EVER accept the shipping their bodies and brains to a war zone without a constitutional declaration of war. Read More »
Ron Paul appeared on Larry King Live tonight following Michael Moore to refute (and agree) with some of what Moore said. It was a very good appearance by Paul. He spoke about health care, foreign policy, and the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Ron Paul participated in a House Foreign Affairs committee today regarding Iran and a bill that would “enhance” energy sanctions on Iran put in place in a 1996 bill.
Ron Paul uses his 5 minutes quite well as he declares that sanctions are an act of war and attempts to educate his peers on the unintended consequences of these types of sanctions.
Ron Paul participated in a House Committee of Foreign Affairs hearing on the U.S. policy in Afghanistan yesterday. To say he was a bit passionate and animated about his views is an understatement.
“It’s time to end the whole mess!”
When watching it one gets the impression he’s made these same arguments a few too many times. Judging from his demeanor he may be getting sick of replaying the same arguments and not have anyone really listen to him. Well, a few of us are listening, and agreeing.
Summary: As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid, immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Under no circumstances will I approve spending to extend this unconstitutional, preemptive war of aggression.
Besides the creating new dollars to debase the currency and spending taxpayer funds to fund war during adverse economic times, my justification for the position is the following:
First and foremost, without a declaration of war, the Iraq War is an unconstitutional and illegal war as it conflicts with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. In dereliction of their duty and oaths of office, the House voted down by unanimous vote a motion in committee to follow the Constitution and declare war in H.R.J. 114, the bill that authorized Bush II to invade with attack in March 2003. (1) (2)
A year ago when the Presidential election was in full swing the main buzzword we heard out of the Obama camp was “change”. In fact, “change you can believe in”. At the time we were pretty sure it was all hogwash and his first year in office has proven that assessment to be true.
A piece by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com a few weeks ago points out many examples how so much of Obama’s talk of change was just that: talk.
“When it comes to uprooting (’changing’) the Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism and civil liberties — the issue which generated as much opposition to the last presidency as anything else — the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do.
“They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers.
“With great fanfare, they announced the closing of CIA black sites — at a time when none was operating.
“They trumpeted the President’s order that no interrogation tactics outside of the Army Field Manual could be used — at a time when approval for such tactics had been withdrawn.
“They repudiated the most extreme elements of the Bush/Addington/Yoo ‘inherent power’ theories — while maintaining alternative justifications to enable the same exact policies to proceed exactly as is.
“They flamboyantly touted the closing of Guantanamo — while aggressively defending the right to abduct people from around the world and then imprison them with no due process at Bagram.
“Their ‘changes’ exist solely in theory — which isn’t to say that they are all irrelevant, but it is to say that they change nothing in practice: i.e., in reality.”
“Isn’t it so interesting how the phrase ‘Patriot Act’ was the symbol of everything Democrats claimed to find so heinous during the Bush years, but now that there’s a Democratic President, Senate and Congress, it’s absolutely certain that the Patriot Act will continue, and civil libertarians are reduced to hoping that there may be some tiny modifications to it, and even that’s highly unlikely?”
I expect there are many people out in the world today, some of them even Obama’s most staunch supporters, wondering why Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Saying that I’m incredulous is an understatement. He just bombed the moon. He has continually bombed and killed civilian innocents in Pakistan. We are not out of Iraq. We are not out of Afghanistan.
Louis Armstrong’s famous song “What A Wonderful World” is now officially satire.
Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee was afraid of being called racist?
The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
Perhaps Obama winning this award is not surprising after all. The only other two sitting U.S. Presidents to win the award were Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Hmmm, do I detect a pattern here? Perhaps it should be renamed, “The Nobel Progressive Prize”. It certainly has nothing to do with peace.
What if this obvious political move has the unintended consequence of spreading more resentment for America overseas than less? In effect this would be using the prize as a strategic chess piece for wishes that will never come true.
“I don’t think Obama deserves this. I don’t know who’s making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity,” said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. “Since he is the president, I don’t see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Maybe we all should be asking ourselves what is the purpose of our interventionist foreign policy? What makes us think we can help (I use that term loosely) Afghanistan where others have failed miserably?
We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer
The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see
The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” said Captain Masengale.
Liberty Maven
Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.” All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans. As I stated in 
Follow LM on Twitter