Monday, June 09, 2008

Showing your flag

Marvin Olasky interviews John Wohlstetter.


  1. Thanks for the link Patrick! Great, great article!

    I think each of his points are unassailable, but I know that the liberal leftist moonbats utterly detest and despise his arguments.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.


    “More from the propaganda machine... There would be a big outcry if HS was actually violating the constitution? Are you kidding me? That is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Not only is it illogical but blatantly wrong.”

    For someone who’s big a logic and argumentation, you’re short on both.

    “This article makes me sick.”

    That’s unfortunately. HS undoubtedly has you on its hit list. You don’t dare go to the ER lest a Zionist paramedic euthanize you.

    “They just never stop. Imperialism at it's best.”

    Imperialism? If we’re an Imperialist power, why didn’t we seize the Saudi oil fields?

    “They claim the constitution yet they violated it in the first place to get to Iraq. Read the executive orders passed since 2001.”

    Read the Congressional War Resolution.

    “Then let's see where our rights stand.”

    Well, you obviously retain the right of free speech. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be free to post these comments.

    Aren’t you afraid that HS is monitoring your subversive comments? Your rights seem to be intact.

    “This whole thing is like trying to dump water out of a leaky boat. Hail Ceasar!”

    You think that Bush is Caesar? I didn’t know that Caesar was term-limited. Did Caesar run for public office? Not that I recall. If Bush is Caesar, why is Bush stepping down from power after November? Why doesn’t he declare himself President-for-Life?

    “Those of us who are about to die!”

    What are you about to die of? Hypertension?

  4. Thanks for the link Patrick! Great, great article!

    Oops, sorry TUAD, it's actually from Steve! But, yeah, great article. :-)

  5. Patrick Chan said:

    "Oops, sorry TUAD, it's actually from Steve! But, yeah, great article."

    This is Patrick's self-effacing way of giving me all the credit while he does all the work.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.


    “The CWR is nothing but a push to keep in tact UN resolutions. It never once mentions the constitution. The legislature must make a constitutional declaration of war in order for the US to go to war - (According to the plain language of Article 1 section 8 of the US constitution.)”

    The CWR doesn’t need to mention the Constitution since the CWR is, itself, an exercise of Congressional Constitutional prerogatives. You’re missing the forest for the trees.

    “The CWR doesn't declare war and puts the power to wage war in the president's hand who has no authority to do so whatsoever. The president does not have that authority.”

    Which is why he received Congressional authorization by the branch of gov’t empowered to declare war. You’re splitting hairs.

    “Biblically and constitutionally the right authority must declare war. It should be a just war. War against a nation who has actually attacked us.”

    i) You’re conflating just-war criteria with the Biblical laws of warfare (e.g. Deut 20). They’re hardly interchangeable. Deut 20 wouldn’t meet just-war criteria. So which takes precedence—the Bible, or just war theory?

    ii) There was no separation of powers in Bible times. A monarch simply went to war.

    iii) Just-war theory was formulated by patristic/medieval theologians. Even if you think we are bound by this extrabiblical tradition (what happened to sola scriptura?), military technology has moved beyond the era of crossbows and fortified cities. Just-war theory needs to be updated to take into account EMPs, ICBMs, biochem weaponry, suitcase nukes, cyberterrorism, &c.

    “The other side of the coin to the CWR, amounts to a checklist for the president to follow the dictates of the UN... Scary to say the least.”

    Bush went to the UN to enlist international support for the war effort. He was using the UN, not vice versa.

    Let’s not forget that the US had a hand in the UN resolutions. And the US is a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto power. The President isn’t following the dictates of the UN.

    Mind you, I think the UN is worse than useless. We should pull out of the UN.

    “We don't have to take the Saudi oil fields to qualify, we are in Irag.”

    Which misses the point. Imperialistic powers traditionally colonize other countries to gobble up their natural resources. By contrast, we pay for what we take. Indeed, our corporations are often responsible for developing the technology and building the plants in the first place. We’re customers, not thieves.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. bobby mosteller said...

    “No Steve you are missing it. It is simply not a declaration of war. It is a transfer of power to the President to wage war. It is not the prerogative of Congress to transfer power.”

    This was not a blank check issued to every president to wage war whenever he wants to. Rather, this was Congress giving a particular president official permission to invade a particular country at his strategic discretion.

    “Sorry, it is not a declaration of war.”

    The Constitution doesn’t stipulate any specific wording which must be used. The point is separation of powers. The commander-in-chief can’t wage war unilaterally. Congress must sign off.

    “Were are not a monarch, 1 Peter 2:13 Submit to every ordiance of man...lit.trans. any form of government.”

    That’s hardly talking about the relation between one coequal branch of gov’t and another. Rather, it’s talking about the relation between gov’t officials and the hoi polloi under their authority.

    “No I am not referring to just war theory. I am referring to Romans 13. Submit to the the higher power. Which applies to our servant government as well. The law is King no the other way around. The law of the land is the Constitution. An amendment would need to take place to fit the criteria of Romans 13.”

    Rom 13 is silent on disputed points of Constitutional law or the doctrine of preemption.

    And man-made laws aren’t “king.” Only God’s law is “king.”

    “Exactly my point...WITHOUT a declaration of war from Congress. He needs the support of the American people not the UN. We don't elect UN officials but the people elect/ speak through the legislature who is the only entity that can declare war.”

    Now you’re rewriting history. Bush had popular support for the Iraq war in the ramp up to the invasion. He also enjoyed the majority support of our elected representatives in Congress. And he then went to the UN, not as a substitute for domestic support, but to piece together a military alliance.

    “He is letting the UN grant him power(international government) not the US people or the constitution.”

    You have a very selective reading of the Constitution. Treaties are supreme law. We have treaty commitments under the UN.

    Now, I think we should withdraw from the UN. But it’s not as if it’s inherently unconstitutional to enter into international treaties with other countries, including member states of the UN.

    “Exactly my point... building the plants where???”

    You’re saying that U. S. corporations have no right to enter into commercial partnerships with other countries? I take it that you’re not a business major.

    “This government has been robbing ever since 1861.”

    Which is irrelevant to the context of my statement.