Comments on Pro Libertate: Is This How It Will Begin?

With all due respect to Mr. Bush, to be the Decide...

2006-12-30T05:56:00.000-07:00

With all due respect to Mr. Bush, to be the Decider, one must realize that Decidership is modified by the will of Congress, even in times of war. Killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is a terrible price, a horror made all the worse by the fact that the reasons for doing it were so ill-defined.

Imperialism and communism seem to be largely rhetorical constructs with little real meaning, given the fact that the primary function of governments (I'm using an operational definition, here) has been to kill people, enlarge the state's effective borders (whether through "empires" or "satellite states"), and kill people. Oh, and strengthen the state militarily and financially. While killing people.

To be fair, some governments [loosely] represent the just authority of God and have a genuine interest in the welfare of their people, but we know those are not in the majority. And they don't last long.

So anyway... as far as the other poster's comment about sedition, Mr. Grigg is not saying anything the media isn't already saying very emphatically in chorus... which I find puzzling, since the media were all cheerleaders for Big War in the beginning of it.

I don't care what anybody says, war is simply not a Christian value.

Sometimes I feel as if the one-worlders are having a competition to see who can hang the USA out to dry first. If they need war to achieve some obscure piece of the Grand Chessboard that they're not even telling us about, they will stir up Nuremberg Rally style patriotism to get it... whatever it takes.

The military is not squeaky clean either. It has ...

2006-12-21T10:11:00.000-07:00

The military is not squeaky clean either. It has become the praetorian guard rather than the defender of the Constitution.

Its leaders continue to seek "relevance" and a mission in a world lacking the Soviet menace and do not mind looking to UN missions and other anti Constitutional endeavors.

As I said in a previous blog, military leaders must come to grips that it is the Constitution, not the President, to which it has sworn its allegiance. It is a difficult concept to grasp since the President is the Commander in Chief of the military; however, the member is duty bound to disobey an unlawful order. How much more unlawful is the order to invade another country without a Congressional declaration of war?

It sickens me to hear these same military leaders laud those who have given their lives for their country - oh, if it were only so. Their lives have been spent, many in the prime of life, for a handful of lies.

It is obvious Congress only wants to dabble in things it is not authorized to dabble in and doesn't mind relinquishing its authority in those duties it is authorized and required to perform.

As I have said before, it is the military that can force the branches of government back into their Constitutional functions.

If refusal to attend one of these mandatory wars which have no Congressional declaration does not bring reality back to those in government and the American citizen, then maybe the Turkish military solution is required.

In Turkey, the military, from time to time, since its modern founding in 1929 by Kemal Attaturk, has taken over the government when that government no longer abides by its constitution. Once the military has shown that it will not tolerate a corrupt government, it returns the government to the civilians. Of course, that is the key.

Until the military figures out its allegiance, I believe we will continue to invade countries that have not attacked us, have not asked for our help, and will continue to serve the UN and CFR.

Mr. Crlewis, thanks for contributing your thoughts...

2006-12-20T17:12:00.000-07:00

Mr. Crlewis, thanks for contributing your thoughts, or at least the product of your cerebral functions, to this blog.

If you can tear yourself away from Faux "News" and rant radio for a spell, you'd profit tremendously from reading Bonner and Wiggin's "Empire of Debt," which explains some of the ironies of Washington's version of imperialism -- such as the fact that it is the first empire in history to subsidize its colonies.

This might be considered perverse, self-destructive altruism, but it's empire, nonetheless. Imperialism, as you apparently don't understand, IS a form of stolen sovereignty -- not only from the peoples who are conquered by the hegemon, but also from the people of the imperial power itself.

Those giving and risking their lives in Iraq are not serving me or my family by murdering or otherwise waging war upon people with whom we should have no quarrel. Our troops don't belong there; they weren't invited there; they're not welcome there; they should leave immediately.

The criminals who dispatched them to Iraq should be dragged, in chains, to that country and forced to apologize on their knees in every significant Iraqi city for the atrocities they wrought on that long-suffering country -- Rumsfeld, in particular should go back for seconds, given his role in propping up Saddam back in the '80s.

"Good guys" don't invade and occupy countries (and characterizing this as anything other than an occupation is as dishonest as referring to assault rape as a "date") half-way around the world on penetrably phony pretexts.

I yield to nobody in my destestation for the UN, a subject about which I've written three books (based on covering about a dozen UN conferences and summits since 1993). The unavoidable fact is that while the UN is evil, any way you slice it, it's not the only one in the world. If it were, God willing, to disappear tomorrow, we'd still have to deal with the increasingly despotic, nuclear-armed criminal clique running Washington.

Curled, petty, authoritarian nationalism is not patriotism, at least as our Founders understood it. The brew you and others have imbibed is of a different vintage and cultural origin (hint: it leaves a distinctly Teutonic aftertaste).

I'm not surprised that people who believe that "massive" WMD finds have taken place in Iraq would consider such sentiments to be seditious -- and by saying so you sorta vindicate the point I was making in my essay.

Have a Merry Christmas -- assuming that you can bring yourself to commemorate the birth of a long-haired, war-aversive Palestinian seditionist (often referred to by believers like myself as the Son of God and Prince of Peace).

We're not imperialists, but precisely the opposite...

2006-12-20T12:36:00.000-07:00

We're not imperialists, but precisely the opposite - we're giving away what little sovereignty we have.

The UN- with all of its communist members - is the imperialistic force in the world, not us. We're not occupying Iraq, but sacrificing the lives of thousands of ou sons and daughters and not taking anything out of it for ourselves (although we definitely should, in which case gas would be 30 cents a gallon here).

You are doing a great disservice to those giving or risking their lives in Iraq when you characterize our side as the bad guys. In a saner time you would be tried for sedition. You are giving geat aid and comfort to our enemies and KILLING OUR SERVICEMEN when you spout the leftist line as you do.

Would that we were engaged in "imperialism" - in spreading old fashioned American Christian ideals throughout the world - to the eternal gratitude of their recipients who lonog for the freeomd we ourselves only used to have.

But we are doing nothing of the kind. We've a PRez who's covered up massive WMD finds (and done all other sorts of dastardly anti-American things) - to bolster the UN and the Democrats he secretly prefers to Republicans, in that he knows it's the former that'll ofer no opposition to his NAU and one world schemes.

But our brave boys are not and never have been occupiers or opressors. They're the good guys. You need to do a reality check whenn you find yourself saying the same things as flaming antichrist marxists like Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Noam Chomsky, Al Francken, and the like.