Looming Disaster - Trump Inching The USA Closer to Another War

The guy Democrats are mourning today engineered the attack on Benghazi ,,, with the help of Obama. Barack chose to ignore calls for help from the consulate --- he had a fund raiser to attend.

Then he made up a story about a movie trailer that no one watched.

Pelosi voted for American blood today. It's on her hands if anyone gets hurt.

 

I guess when one actually believes Trump is doing the right thing because the direction of the US government has descended so far down the rabbit hole that the last half dozen Presidents are actually racketeering war criminals, then one must believe the US government's direction and agenda must be righteous and in full conformance with our founding document and the Constitution. As such, I have no intention or inclination to convince you that what you post is the result of propaganda/indoctrination. So my objective is just to correct your fallacies/misguided beliefs for the sake of correcting all this nonsense.

Actually it's true you didn't mention government in YOUR strawman. The discussion was about the US government and its restrictions via the Constitution and you introduced America via some kind of silly projection. "America" had zero to do with the discussion yet you chose to conflate it with its government.

Actually you are correct, it doesn't despite that Congress has unconstitutionally delegated its authority to another branch. Delegation of constitutional authority is strictly prohibited by the 10th Amendment and Congress is fully responsible for its unconstitutional actions.

Or less in your case since I already explained it to you but it's ok I understand where you're coming from.

The War Powers Act is a violation of Article I, Article II (if acted on by the Executive), Article VI and the 10th Amendment.

Yikes, talk about "reading comprehension". Article VI Paragraph 2 is quite explicit:

"... all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

But for you, ignore the word "treaties", it's not really there "per se".

Congress has no authority to legislate anything that violates international treaties the US government is a signatory to because all treaties are incorporated into the Constitution via the Supremacy Clause and are the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no wiggle room here.

 

Predicatable. Yes yes I know. No one is good enough for the perfect among us.

Blaming me for your strawman. Classic.

As I said before, you should avail yourself to SCOTUS so they can clear up 250 years of incorrect rulings.

You could always use a dictionary to look up "delegation" to check.

I'm not debating the content of it. I'm saying that declaring war is literally a legislative act. Therefore the Congress defining war via legislation couldn't be more Constitutional.

Which still doesn't define war in the Constitution.

Sure, if you ignore the wiggle room that the US can terminate membership in an international treaty.

 

I would have to file a federal Complaint tens of thousands of pages long, then file an appeal because the District Court would likely dismiss the Complaint on fictitious grounds, then a petition for Writ of Certiorari because the Appellate Court would also reject my appeal on fictitious grounds and then have SCOTUS decline the petition because there is absolutely no chance they will reject their seized power to "interpret" the Constitution. That should take about 10-15 years give or take. I'm not sure I will be around that long. But if I do prevail, I would guess that over 90% of all laws and SCOTUS rulings would become null and void. Not to mention most of the US government would be indicted for a host of serious crimes against humanity.

I just think it's probably easier to follow through on the advice of our founders (see my signature) and far more effective.

Sorry I forgot to add that the War Powers Act also violates Article V since it effectively amends Article VI of the Constitution via legislation.

 

You're assuming facts based on evident prejudice, not any facts that you have cited, and extrapolating that Trump supporters would be demanding "total war." Like nukes? Razing Teheran to the ground? That's absolutely absurd. I'm sure you can find a red hat somewhere who will say anything. Who I don't know. But is he representative of the whole?

There was an actual attack on an American embassy that could more reasonably be tied to Iran than Russia could be tied to Trump, and no one called for total war. No one! Hyperbolic defamatio is energizing Trump voters. Like calling them all racists.

 

Well, yes, I think they do. But that doesn't mean that every military action is a war. We killed one guy. One! And no one has called him good other than hysterical Iranians stampeding each other to death. (I actually doubt that all those people screaming and wailing in the streets were there of their own volition, or really were that upset at the death of someone they didn't know.)

 

They did launch missiles at US based troops before killing an American contractor and injuring 4 troops. One of the reasons Trump is supported is because he does not want war unlike Hillary boasting she would go to war with Iran if they struck Israel. Neither Trump or Iran want a war but a reminder what the US can do is appropriate.

 

"Mainstream outlets, suffering mightily from Trump derangement syndrome, practically rooted for a wider conflict with Iran in the hopes it might damage Trump, then evinced genuine disappointment when Iran backed down after half-heartedly lobbing a few short-range ballistic missiles in the direction of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, which inflicted no casualties."

John Davidson, The Federalist

 

Nothing happens in a vacuum. What is happening in the world today is directly related to events that happened days ago, weeks ago, months ago, even years ago.

In May 2018, Trump removed the U.S. from the Iranian nuclear agreement and replaced the agreement with harsh economic sanctions designed to destroy the Iranian economy. The agreement permanently barred Iran from making a nuke.

Iran retaliated and in months since has mined and captured ships, destroyed one of the largest oil refineries in the world, and even shot down a very sophisticated American aircraft. She also has increased her nuclear stockpile, enriched uranium at higher levels, and enlarged the number of centrifuges in use. Today, she is much closer to making a nuclear weapon thanks to Trump's reckless decision.

A few days ago she gave up all pretense and followed the example set by Trump. She left the agreement.

On Friday, as a consequence of Iran's belligerence, Trump decided to take out the Iranian general commanding the Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani. Did he want to divert attention from his impending Senate Impeachment trial?

As a consequence of Trump's assassination of the Iranian general, Iran, of course, counter-attacked. Two days later, the Pentagon confirmed missile strikes on the Ain Assad Airbase in western Iraq and a base in Irbil in northern Iraq.

Four hours after that, due to the fog of war and the fear of American reprisal, a Ukrainian airliner was shot down soon after taking off from a Tehran airport. 176 people killed in the crash:

The 176 people are considered collateral losses to Trump's decisions involving Iran.

"As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," Trump said yesterday.

Why didn't he just leave the Iran nuclear agreement alone?

 

I should ask you out of curiosity. In your world (or your language) does that mean the word "treaty" in Article VI is actually invisible (or metaphorical) or that the content of all the treaties that define war and war crimes are actually invisible (or metaphorical)?

 

You mean like the problem you have understanding the definition of "delegation"?

A treaty isn't a permanent thing and isn't even initiated by the Legislative branch. It's a function of the Executive, with approval by the Legislature.

You know. Like waging war.

 

In other words your non answer evasion shows you have no clue what Article VI is all about but you try to pretend you know something and make crap up on the fly. That was already obvious. Like I said I was just curious, no big deal.

Nothing is permanent, you’ve made no point at all or any sense or anything remotely relevant to what I asked you.

 

....inching us closer to a war with Democrats?

That Iranian "smack in the face" was more of a smooch. We're closer to peace with Iran than we've ever been.

 

Meh, Iran has been causing trouble for 4 decades. Trying to say what Iran does is Trump's fault is stupid.

 

Oh I evaded nothing, I answered specifically.

Article VI can say whatever it wants about ephemeral treaties that come and go.

You're still stuck with the fact that engaging in warfare was intentionally split between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and it's up to the Legislature to define what war looks like.

Going by your ridiculous theory, we could never fight a non-state entity, since you can't declare war on non-state actors.

Congress can't declare war on Hezbollah or Quds or ISIS. They're not a country. This is exactly why the US didn't declare war on the Barbary pirates.

Learn some context.

 

And so can you. The difference is that what it says matters, what you say doesn’t.

 

I see you like to clip out the parts of people's responses that show how ridiculous your argument is.

I'm familiar with the tactic.

I guess if we're attacked by non-state actors we just have to take the beatings.

You call SCOTUS yet to help them review the last 250 years worth of decisions?

 

No just yours just as I'm doing here because over 90% of what you post is irrelevant to the Constitution, it's just your invented claims and/or plagiarized from propaganda or your own imagination. For example:

Article VI specifically says that all international treaties that the US government is a signatory to are (part of) the Supreme Law of the Land and what you try to do is dismiss Article VI with nonsense such as "treaties come and go".

The current state of some these treaties that "come and go" (as you characterize it) define war and war crimes and that text has not gone away and is currently the Supreme Law of the Land and has been since the US government ratified that text. Only an agreement by all the parties to these treaties can modify these treaties. And because the contents of some of these treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land, Congress has no authority to legislate anything that amends the terms of these treaties, that would be a violation of these treaties and several key clauses within the Constitution as already listed. Congress can only create legislation that helps support the terms of these treaties. In fact, the Oath of Office makes that their duty and mandate. The War Powers Act violates the Constitution in many ways (see posts #377 & #379 with respect to the War Powers Act).

The Executive also has no authority to violate Article VI. Doing so is not only a violation of the Oath of Office because it violates the Constitution in several ways including and beyond Article VI but it is a war crime as stated in these treaties, the Supreme Law of the Land.

So you can try to pretend Article VI is irrelevant or that treaties are irrelevant by coming up with all sorts of silly excuses. But in fact it is one of the most important clauses within the Constitution because it is a directive that makes the Constitution THE LAW, it specifically incorporates these treaties. All other laws and acts are subordinate or null and void if not in full compliance.

Like I said, what you say doesn't matter and neither does what I say. What matters is what the Constitution says. So yes I will continue to excise anything you post that is irrelevant to the Constitution because it is worthless.

 

I gotta admit, as a Trump fan you are doing one hell of job derailing this thread.

 

Most people know what imminent means, but not our secretary of state. In dealing with Trump's claim that our embassies were being threatened, Pompeo had this to say.

"Those attacks were imminent," Pompeo told CBS News.

He told Fox News, "We don't know precisely when, and we don't know precisely where, but it was real."

 

Well, I'll be. I knew it. In fact, I have said it several times in the past few days. Trump's Senate trial is imminent and suddenly he decides to take out an Iranian general responsible for killing American troops in a was ten to fifteen years ago. On top of that, he and his SecState are struggling to keep their stories straight.

Well, here is why.

According to two separate reports this week, President Donald Trump had the impeachment process on his mind when giving the go-ahead for the drone strike that assassinated Iranian military and intelligence official Qasem Soleimani last week.


On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported: “Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.”


The Journal does not name any of the senators in question, but it does follow a similar report from the New York Times on Tuesday that said the president has been “pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...whose-support-he-needs-on-impeachment-936180/

 

The Trump administration is very confused.

Iraq’s prime minister said that the U.S. military sent a letter regarding American troop withdrawal from the country.

The Pentagon admitted that the letter “was a mistake.”

Trump suggested Thursday that he ordered the killing of Iran’s top military commander because of a previously undisclosed plot to attack the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. “We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy," Trump said. He declined to share further details.

Answering a follow-up question, Trump suggested that the evidence of such a plot was out in the open, pointing to protesters who stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad over a week ago. “No, I think it was obvious, if you look at the protests,” Trump responded.

Despite the fact that Trump was referring to an imminent threat, one that had not happened yet, Trump Trump's people said he was referring to the attacks on our embassy earlier.

Later in the day the White House changed the story again. They said there is evidence Soleimani was planning to attack the embassy and kill American diplomats and staff. Of course, they didn't say what that evidence was.

Trump said in an interview airing Friday on Fox that Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was plotting attacks against four embassies. “I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies,” Trump told Laura Ingraham during the interview.

Congress was provided a briefing by the Trump administration on Wednesday. Today, not a single member was aware of such a threat.

If the reader is confused, don't feel bad. Everyone is, including Trump.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

 

Yeah especially the part where I posted the guy is a constitutional and war criminal. In your world if I don't post what you want to read, it's a derail. But anyway, thanks for quoting my posts, they probably need to be re-posted. BTW the above is more of a derail than anything I posted, not to mention a lie.

 

I'm still waiting for that war you are promising us.

More "presumptions" on your behalf I presume?