Politics

[geoff rath]

View attachment 560787

Not funny, really ...

 

[geoff rath]

Regarding your comments regarding chain of command.....I see you're from Idaho. Not sure what part of the state you're in, but perhaps you're familiar with the INEL. The government nuclear power site some 50 miles west of Idaho Falls. I worked there, quite closely with the navy. I was a civilian but I attended the Naval Nuclear Power School which was at the time in Orlando, Fl. After graduation I then went to the INEL for in plant qualifications at the Naval Reactors Facility. You can Google that if you wish to learn more about it. I mention this only to make you understand that while I was never in the service and won't pretend like I was, I did learn something about giving, taking and executing orders when operating a nuclear power plant. Failure to do so can result in some serious consequences as I'm sure you can imagine. So I take that quite seriously along with the chain of command.

That said, this is the first time I've ever been accused of having a "woke" idea, I must disagree however. @Red Leg touches on this in his last post. But for the sake of discussion presume the so called intelligence that the US was going to attack China preemptively was true. If that is the case, then that certainly comes under the heading of declaring a war.

Now certainly a President needs to have some latitude in the execution of his office and defending the country in the event it is attacked and not have to go to Congress for permission. But this wasn't the case in January of 2021. China had not attacked the US nor do I know of any plans they had in place to do so at that time.

Now the last I looked, only Congress has the ability to declare war. There's a reason for this. We elect a President, not a king or dictator (though some act as if they are). This part of the Constitution was intended in my opinion to hold a President accountable. It's a counterweight to prevent the POTUS from unilaterally engaging in war. A balance to prevent unnecessary loss of life and treasure. I think that was a wise decision by the framers of the constitution.

So any order from Trump to attack China would've been in violation of the Constitution and it would've been an illegal order since Congress had not approved. And you can be certain Trump knew if he had sought Congressional approval at that time for a declaration of war on China he certainly would have not received it.

"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."

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Those are the two oaths that the POTUS and a military officer take when they're swore in. Both contain the words "defend the Constitution" as you can see. I would argue that if Trump ordered an attack on China without Congressional approval that he was not preserving, protect or defending the Constitution and would've been in violation of it.

Similarly I would argue that if Milley had rejected that order he would've been therefore within his oath of supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. I don't see following the Constitution as being a "woke" or "leftist" paradigm.

Regarding Biden / Russia / Ukraine / China / N Korea and nuclear weapons, this is certainly a precarious position. A position that requires sober and serious thought prior to taking any actions, free from emotional outbursts. Prior to any preemptive strikes and a tacit declaration of war by the POTUS, the Constitution should be followed. Again the POTUS must have a degree of latitude to do what is necessary to defend the country in the event it is attacked. And no, I don't think anyone in the chain of command should be allowed to simply ignore commands just because they feel something isn't right.

But the scenario of the POTUS acting in defense of the country was not the situation in January, 2021.

I recently saw Gen Millet stating exactly that the Constitution is the point of allegiance, NOT POTUS, or his/her Vice /substitute.

 

[geoff rath]

View attachment 560869

Insightful words, then, and now, and NOT just in the U S.

 

[Foxi]

I can't say I entirely disagree with you here. But I'm not so much excusing his behavior near as much as I'm saying that I'm ok with it in respect to this issue on China if he in fact played a role in preventing a disastrous situation. Can you imagine what the situation would've been like if war broke out at that time with China?

We did not excuse German soldiers who claimed they were just following orders for their roles in murdering millions of Jews. By default we were saying the correct path was to not follow orders. It would've taken great courage to not follow those orders and of course opened themselves up to the same accusations of being traitors.

"By default we were saying the correct path was to not follow orders. It would've taken great courage to not follow those orders and of course opened themselves up to the same accusations of being traitors".

They would have made short work of you immediately and sent your family to a concentration camp.
As a warning to everyone else.
Unfortunately, it is often easier to participate in atrocities than to refuse to do so.

 

[Red Leg]

To try and circumvent the daily curmudgeon doom and gloom bitch session just a bit, my favorite billionaire has found a new way to drive the left insane. Note that the video has had 82 million views at the time I posted it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707915765977055584

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Elon needs to work a bit on his stance.

 

[Eddie_GE]

Hi,

question for insiders:

Will that really happen in CA?

Meghan Markle 'considering Senate run' after senior California Democrat dies

Much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex’s political ambitions since her and husband Prince Harry relocated to California after Megxit

www.gbnews.com

 

[BSO Dave]

God?
The US constitution never explicitly mentions God or Divine.
They must be rolling in their graves.

You are confusing the concept of separation of church and state with a completely different concept that the Constitution was indeed formed based on Judeo-Christian values. Both of these concepts were considered by the founders in the drafting of the Constitution. They were not mutually exclusive...

The quotes you offered by some of the founders are often misunderstood when not expressed in their proper context. In particular, Jefferson's reference to the separation of church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was meant to establish that he believed the state should refrain from interfering with the church, but not that the church has no place in the affairs of the state especially in regard to the establishment of any laws and government created to reflect Judeo-Christain values and morality.

The Adams quote you reference was also taken out of context from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. The remainder of the quote in its entirety is as follows:

"....as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In its entirety, which we can now understand that Adams was simply reenforcing the concept that freedom of religion shall not be a pretext for political discord. I have listed a few more Adams quotes which seem to affirm his true opinions of the role of God and religion in the creation of the Republic...

"The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society."

 

[mark-hunter]

my favorite billionaire has found a new way to drive the left insane.

Elon Musk is pro gun, or a gun owner? Now I learnt something new!
In modern days it is very hard to find a photo or a video with celebrity with a gun or in hunting. Thanks for posting!

 

[NE 7x57]

Hi,

question for insiders:

Will that really happen in CA?

Meghan Markle 'considering Senate run' after senior California Democrat dies

Much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex’s political ambitions since her and husband Prince Harry relocated to California after Megxit

www.gbnews.com

Well, my 2023 bingo card doesn't have a space for queen whatabe running for office but there also wasn't one for PMC leader attempts overthrow of Russian government. So WTF knows what will happen.

 

[Jfet]

Interesting

 

[Red Leg]

Interesting

Pretty accurate as well. I personally am less moved by the "good and evil" argument as I am the demands of our national interests, but his fundamental point is exactly correct. Funding for border security and for Ukraine are not a zero sum budget decision. Never has been. But, it is a narrative that has been successfully sold to a growing portion of the republican electorate.

 

[WAB]

You are confusing the concept of separation of church and state with a completely different concept that the Constitution was indeed formed based on Judeo-Christian values. Both of these concepts were considered by the founders in the drafting of the Constitution. They were not mutually exclusive...

The quotes you offered by some of the founders are often misunderstood when not expressed in their proper context. In particular, Jefferson's reference to the separation of church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was meant to establish that he believed the state should refrain from interfering with the church, but not that the church has no place in the affairs of the state especially in regard to the establishment of any laws and government created to reflect Judeo-Christain values and morality.

The Adams quote you reference was also taken out of context from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. The remainder of the quote in its entirety is as follows:

"....as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In its entirety, which we can now understand that Adams was simply reenforcing the concept that freedom of religion shall not be a pretext for political discord. I have listed a few more Adams quotes which seem to affirm his true opinions of the role of God and religion in the creation of the Republic...

"The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society."

Separation of church and state is generally misunderstood. In England, the Anglican Church was used to promote the interests of the King. This profoundly impacted our founding fathers, causing them to craft language to ensure that the government could not meddle in the affairs of the church. It certainly was not meant to prevent the church from expressing its views on the action of the government. It was absolutely not intended to prevent prayer in government meetings, schools, etc.. Anyone who believes this has a very tenuous grasp of history, or the actual behavior and beliefs of our early leaders.

 

[Doubleplay]

To start with, separation of church of state means the government cannot establish its authority in establishing a national religion and because of that, we thankfully don't have an official national religion.
Expressing views and praying in public settings falls under the first amendment clause.
Meaning not only church but temples, mosques, atheists etc.. can also express their views about government or whatever else.
We should be grateful that founding fathers had the wisdom to give the people freedom and liberty to practice whatever religion they wanted.
As far as the actual beliefs of our founding fathers some like Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were established Deists and some others were thought to be so.
It's clearly stated in their quotes and the books they wrote like the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.

 

[rookhawk]

Was this rhetorical, or serious?

I started typing California, Oregon, Washington but then thought I misunderstood the post.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Ray B]

Was this rhetorical, or serious?

I started typing California, Oregon, Washington but then thought I misunderstood the post.

Strong words for someone from Illinois/Wisconsin.

The question was for regions- they can start bombing NYC, Philadelphia, LA & Chicago any time they want- and if they carpet bomb the Rio Grande from the Gulf to New Mexico as a bonus.

 

[geoff rath]

Was this rhetorical, or serious?

I started typing California, Oregon, Washington but then thought I misunderstood the post.

View attachment 561005

in Australia's case, Canberra.

 

[BSO Dave]

As far as the actual beliefs of our founding fathers some like Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were established Deists and some others were thought to be so.
It's clearly stated in their quotes and the books they wrote like the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.

Thanks for the lecture, but I'm not the one confused about the concept of separation of church and state. Nor am I confused as to why the founders intentionally omitted direct references to God in the U.S. Constitution, and that omission has nothing to do with the fact that the Constitution was indeed drafted with a firm foundation of Judeo-Christian morals and values. You do realize that Deists still believe in the existence of God? They just don't believe in a creator who directly interacts with humankind... Paine specifically opposed organized religion and thought the church to be corrupt, but that didn't mean he didn't believe in God... More to the point, although their influences most certainly affected the actual framers, neither Franklin nor Paine directly contributed to the content of the Constitution.

Even more interestingly, Paine was no fan of George Washington who Paine felt betrayed him during his post-war arrests in Great Britian and France for treason.... He called Washington an elitist and an incompetent general... Paine actually opposed many parts of the Constitution including the mere fact that the Constitution was written by members of the government itself. He believed that a Constitution should be drafted directly by the people. He also strongly opposed the concept of a single executive, and 2-body legislature... If Paine were alive today, he would be branded by the democrats as Ultra-extreme radical MAGA!

I've read everything Paine ever wrote... Maybe you should as well before making more singular, out of context references... For anyone else interested in the actual thoughts and ideologies behind the work of the founding fathers and how the Constitution came to be, I recommend reading the Federalist Papers. Many of the actual thoughts and influences of these men may surprise you...!

 

[cpr0312]