âNothing More Impeachable' Than War Without Authorization, Says Constitutional Scholar http://cnsnews.com/news/article/not...s-constitutional-scholar#sthash.MuilCoQN.dpuf
"War Powers Resolution"... The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past by President Reagan in regards to the aid to the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.[2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. As some political asshat once said... "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
Since when do Kings need approval to do anything? When the great Pharaoh speaks, it's a done deal. Besides, Nobel Peace prize winners can't be blamed for war. It's in the fine print.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3bQnxlHZsjY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Both Bush and Odumbo have acted as though they were elected "Dictator For Life"... ranking them high on the "Worst US Presidents" list. And in Odumbo's case, bad as he has been, I fear the worst is yet to come.
I disagree Scat. While Bush was a bad Pres, in no way was he a dictator type guy imo. yes it is true that i defended him quite a bit on this board, even for things that i didn't agree with, but mostly that was because of the completely ridiculous accusations leveled against him and in part due to my own ignorance at the time. Anyway the TSA, DHS, patriot act, not securing the border, NSA etc. are all dangerous policy but i really believe he was just too shortsighted to see the scale of abuse that was possible, and in his mind, he was doing the right thing. He was undoubtedly wrong and even if i am correct in my assessment of him, it still doesn't excuse what he did. just my opinion. As far as obama, there is no doubt in my mind that his intention has always been to expand and exploit these things, he IS a rotten piece of shit and wannabe dictator.
"Apocalyptic narcissism" The Comforts of the Apocalypse By Rob Goodman, August 19, 2013 "Nineteen days after the world failed to end, blood stopped flowing to the brain of Harold Camping, prophet of doom. Had he felt his stroke coming as he confidently forecast apocalypse? Maybe not; maybe he had no more foresight into his own demise than the demise of the world. Or maybe he had simply confused the twoâafter all, he was approaching his 90th birthday, and his own mortality couldn't have seemed far off when, on national billboards and his own radio network, he set a date (May 21, 2011) for the end of days. For some, it is a short mental step from "my end is imminent" to "the end of everything is imminent." Call it apocalyptic narcissism. "We flatter ourselves when we imagine a world incapable of lasting without us in itâa world that, having ceased to exist, cannot forget us, discard us, or pave over our graves. Even if the earth no longer sits at the center of creation, we can persuade ourselves that our life spans sit at the center of time, that our age and no other is history's fulcrum. "We live in the most interesting times in human history ... the days of fulfillment," writes the Rev. E.W. Jackson, Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia, in words that could have also come from the mouth of Saint Paul or Shabbetai Zevi or Hal Lindsey or any other visionary unable to accept the hard truth of the apocalyptic lottery: We're virtually guaranteed to witness the end of nothing except our lives, and the present, far from fulfilling anything, is mainly distinguished by being the one piece of time with us in it. "Perhaps you, like me, are a good secularist, and perhaps Camping's prophecies strike you as a perverse joke. (You may also be relieved to hear his stroke proved nonfatal.) But I find it harder to mock false prophets, because of the very real fear (of death, nothingness, irrelevance) to which their prophecies speak, and because I'm not at all convinced that secular culture is above their form of self-flattery. We're living through a dystopia boom; secular apocalypses have, in the words of The New York Times, "pretty much owned" best-seller lists and taken on a dominant role in pop culture. These are fictions of infinite extrapolation, stories in which today's source of anxiety becomes tomorrow's source of collapse. "Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games projects reality television and social stratification into a televised tournament of death. Scott Westerfeld's Uglies series manages to combine an energy crisis, an omnipresent surveillance state, and caste warfare between "uglies" and surgically enhanced "pretties." Nor is the literature of collapse confined to the young-adult section. The World Without Us, Alan Weisman's 2007 best seller, imagines in loving detail the decay of material civilization on an earth from which humans have vanished. Our extinction goes unexplained, but a sense of environmental catastrophe hangs heavy over the book; billing itself as nonfiction, its premise comes straight from dystopian sci-fi. "All of this literature is the product of what the philosopher John Gray has described as "a culture transfixed by the spectacle of its own fragility." Call it dystopian narcissism: the conviction that our anxieties are uniquely awful; that the crises of our age will be the ones that finally do civilization in; that we are privileged to witness the beginning of the end. "Of course, today's dystopian writers didn't invent the ills they decry..." More >>
IMV, Bush acted like a Napoleon wannabe.... wanted to (1) impress his daddy, and (2) be remembered as a "war president". I saw a video clip of him revealing on a hot mic (his not knowing it was hot), "... I wouldn't mind a dictatorship in America so long as I was the dictator..." Whatever BOD I'd give him before was wiped out with that statement.
Looks like France and Canada are onboard. The UK's parliament wants to examine the evidence, first, but odds are they'll join.