Obama is waging wars against Iraq, Syria... with whose dimes? If our government finances wars what about Detroit, Pittsburgh... ? What is Congress doing? If congress doesn't do its job who will?
Art 1, sect 8 clearly states that congress shall have power to declare wars..., to raise and support armies..., to make rules for the government..., to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...
Why don't you check for yourself? Are you living in the US or not? How can you not know their tragedies? So you know about Iraq but nothing about your own land, what can I say? Nothing. I'm speechless.
This is a problem with your writing. You assume everyone reading is as informed and intelligent as you. We are not.
Your ambiguity here prompts the question; do you want Obama to wage war against Detroit and Pittsburgh? I would throw in Chicago too. Don't you read the newspapers. The rest I would agree with you, and maybe bombing Detroit, but I do still have relatives there---bomb it anyway.
No, I meant that if we have ENOUGH money to bomb the rest of the world, why wasn't the government taking care of cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh...? It is clear that the government (by government I mean, the people that have been ruling for years now) has no interests in saving Americans. If they can kill children for oil, gas and other commodity, they will care less about Americans. And, it is exactly what is happening. They ruined economically, environmentally the country and now they are hunting for greener pasture. Our presence in the middle east and Africa is a telltale sign.
"Art 1, sect 8 clearly states that CONGRESS shall have power to declare wars..., to raise and support armies..., to make rules for the government..., to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…"
An ex-military man informed me that our generals are advising Obama the best course/s to take, but he is ignoring them… If they resist or argue with him, they are labeled as racists. (Is this rude? un PC? off topic?)
During Kennedy's tenure those same generals were pushing Kennedy to press the nuclear button, Eisenhower warned the public against the influence and power of military industrial complex... Doesn't it say a lot about those generals?
"October 7 - President Kennedy signs the Partial Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting all nuclear weapons testing providing an exception for underground nuclear testing only." Wikipedia
Why did those generals want to press Kennedy to...
Push the BUTTON?
Haven't you noticed that most of governments aren't well-intentioned? Haven't you noticed that when Kennedy became president a certain tension, called cold war, existed between the US and Russia? Until now Brzezinski, Obama's master, is caressing the dream of eliminating Russia from the world map? If you didn't know, and you are REALLY interested in the topic why not reading Webster Griffin Tarpley's "Obama, the postmodern coup". But, BEWARE, it requires a lot of efforts (to type on the computer the title, to look for your plastic card number, to purchase it, to wait for the delivery...).
Nixon's bona fides as an anti-Communist were at least as strong as Kennedy's, perhaps stronger. Kennedy wasn't elected to fight the Cold Was, he was elected because - TELEVISION!!
Television or because he was smarter and telegenic? Why did you think Obama was elected for his "involvement" in the community?
Obama was the culmination of a very long plan. He is proof that we lost the Cold War. Kennedy was hardly smarter. When surveyed the radio audience preferred Nixon, why - because he was smarter.
Which survey said that Nixon was the winner? Because I don't see in which subject he was better than Kennedy. But again, if it was REALLY the case, didn't the American electorate chose twice consecutively Bush as a president?
As you seem to put a lot of credibility into Tarpley, I did one of those famous 20-minute google searches.
How can one address a conspiritist(sp?)? All debunking proof is declared to be proof of the conspiracy. All skepticism of the conspiracies is deemed to be naivety. Your Tarpley's writings may resonate with your perspectives, but other than a validation of those perspectives - what is your "proof" of his truth(s)?
As for his credibility, here is an excerpt from one of his book promos:
"Exhaustively documented by intensive search of dozens of archives and months of interviews with government insiders, this biography digs up all the dirt - frightening, gory, hilarious - on the Bush dynasty: how the Bushes made their fortune building up Hitler and the Nazi war machine; "
Months of interviews? "digs up all the dirt?" "building up the Nazi war machine?"Really? This is the expert you rely on for information?
Here is a nobody talking about a man that he NEVER read. Who do you think you are? If you read the book and oppose a valid argumentation I understand but if you oppose me without knowledge I will denigrate your arrogance.
His book is a rational testimony of the descent of the US towards a dictatorship. It is scholarly argued and supported. His intellectual reasoning and knowledge give to his book the dimension of a historical document. Since you didn't read, dare contradict me!
Which conspiracy theory of his didn't become true? Again if he is a conspiracy theorist, what makes you? A servile and fervent jingoist? To be polite.
Who is your "expert"? O' Reilly?
Well... I guess you certainly nailed me didn't you.
I did read most of the preview pages available for a couple of his books. It did not take long for me to feel justified in my original opinion.
That you call his writings "rational testimony" explains much about the tone of most of your forum comments.
If you are right, then I am just a cell in the matrix of a controlled citizenry which will never see the the truth hidden behind the curtain.
If I am right, then my world must be completely alien to you. I'm betting on the latter and believe you are equally as happy in your world as I am in mine. Which is as it should be.
ps. Now that I see the foundational material that supports your views, I promise to never contradict you again.
You can contradict but at least be informed and rational. For you to quote Tarpley through someone else's quotation shows that you are part of the mass the one that doesn't think for itself. As for me, I am not ashamed to count among my sources, Meyssan, Tarpley, David Crist, John Perkins, Naomi Klein, Mickey Huff, Andy Lee Roth, Steve Coll, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Ruppert...
There are two separations in the American society one that yourself calls the conspiracy theorist and the other that I called the servile and fervent jingoist. If we accept those two fringes, I agree with you, you are just a cell in the matrix of citizenry.
When did I say I was happy? What does allow me to say that I am happy in a nascent dictatorship? Are we spied upon yes or no? If the answer is yes then what is the difference between the US, China and Russia? Knowing that, how can someone be happy? How can someone project their offspring in a possible future? If the world becomes one government (fascist?), one economy (neoliberal?), one money (derivative of the dollar?) what will my identity, my rights become?
Every people is traceable through their DNA. The people is at its purest form. The majority of Germans marry a German, a French a French etc...The only ones that would bring a problem would be royalty and aristocracy, the US and Israel. Everybody knows that royalty and aristocracy mixed their blood so did Americans and Israelis. It could explain the appellation "blue blood". In a way, they all lost their original ethnicity. So if I follow my theory it would make sense (as another incentive) that the people at the top would want to eradicate the ones at the bottom.
The generals encouraged Kennedy to use nuclear bombs against the Soviets? Is this what you are saying?
Why don't you first answer my original question?
You're being evasive. What was your question? Was it directed at me?
"The president is the Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States according to Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.
"Of all the cares and concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms an unusual and essential part in the definition of executive authority.
by Deforest2 years ago
Then, why did Obama (the executive) made a new law by changing what the constitution stipulated anteriorly? Isn't the US becoming an absolute monarchy?
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I'm curious to know what have been the Republican congress accomplishments since Obama has been in office? It seems to me all they have done is criticsize everything that he has done and say no to any bill or...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
Section 7 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.Section 81: The Congress shall have Power To lay and...
by zzron4 years ago
Maybe the word hate is a little strong. So why do people dislike President Obama and the way he is running the country? Are you an Obama fan? Yes, no, what is your opinion of Obama and his policies?
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
Good morning,Democrats and Republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the American people.Health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. Too many of us can't afford it -- not...
by niall.tubbs6 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.