This relates to a question I have been mulling over for a few days now. How is it that our military can "legally" be used to keep rich filth rich or make them richer? I know someone other than me like perhaps during the Vietnam War have wondered how anyone has the right to send our military anywhere? I thought it was a "Defensive" organization? Isn't that what it is called to be in our constitution? So than any one who changed that type of rule has done so illegally and it needs to be put back. If this is not the case then it needs to be the case We The People should have direct control of where and how our family members are sent or used. We do not need to send our families to keep filthy rich scum rich. This is a crime!
In Biden's America, what's legality got to do with it? He blew up Nordstream, an act of immense economic and environmental sabotage to our European "allies," yet will not be punished for it. NATO was never defensive. Its whole idea, since WWII, has been to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the US military in. Nothing has changed except for the fact that we now have a madman with advanced dementia sitting in the WH.
No one let into the halls of power are not vetted as A grifter and clever linguistic manipulator. They just try and wear the fashion facades of public "service".
I start with the idea that global respect of private property is a national interest, in order that 1. the nation can avail itself of the resources that support its high station among other nation-states and 2. the value of competition and "winning" can be celebrated. Ownership, however it is disposed, depends on its vigorous defense for its credibility. The executive is all but blessed to do what needs must in case of "insurrection", a label that can be applied too freely, even when to neutral observers the actions appear identical to war.
Funny how that term "insurrection" or "subversion" can be used against others who storm the castle walls of power. And yet private property of the Palestinians is ignored or the Iraqi or Syria or any other place the USrAel set their colonialism imperialist sites on stealing.
They, like most peoples, want a land on which they can self-determine their systems of production and distribution, informed by their own traditions rather than foreign dictates. Such a thing fundamentally denies the universal absentee ownership system the West has managed to inflict on almost the entire planet, and now seeks to impress on people's behavior and even their thoughts. Strict bans on such foreign ownership rights would go a long way toward relieving the carcinogenic effects, but I don't think it would stop that totalitarian moment unless that were to implode.
This relates to a question I have been mulling over for a few days now. How is it that our military can "legally" be used to keep rich filth rich or make them richer? I know someone other than me like perhaps during the Vietnam War have wondered how anyone has the right to send our military anywhere? I thought it was a "Defensive" organization? Isn't that what it is called to be in our constitution? So than any one who changed that type of rule has done so illegally and it needs to be put back. If this is not the case then it needs to be the case We The People should have direct control of where and how our family members are sent or used. We do not need to send our families to keep filthy rich scum rich. This is a crime!
In Biden's America, what's legality got to do with it? He blew up Nordstream, an act of immense economic and environmental sabotage to our European "allies," yet will not be punished for it. NATO was never defensive. Its whole idea, since WWII, has been to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the US military in. Nothing has changed except for the fact that we now have a madman with advanced dementia sitting in the WH.
The US Constitution provides the power to declare war solely and exclusively with Congress.
Congress has failed to assert that power and check the President's unilateral and illegal usurpation of that power. Ditto the US Supreme Court.
How do do it when all of congress are in on it?
No one let into the halls of power are not vetted as A grifter and clever linguistic manipulator. They just try and wear the fashion facades of public "service".
I start with the idea that global respect of private property is a national interest, in order that 1. the nation can avail itself of the resources that support its high station among other nation-states and 2. the value of competition and "winning" can be celebrated. Ownership, however it is disposed, depends on its vigorous defense for its credibility. The executive is all but blessed to do what needs must in case of "insurrection", a label that can be applied too freely, even when to neutral observers the actions appear identical to war.
Funny how that term "insurrection" or "subversion" can be used against others who storm the castle walls of power. And yet private property of the Palestinians is ignored or the Iraqi or Syria or any other place the USrAel set their colonialism imperialist sites on stealing.
They, like most peoples, want a land on which they can self-determine their systems of production and distribution, informed by their own traditions rather than foreign dictates. Such a thing fundamentally denies the universal absentee ownership system the West has managed to inflict on almost the entire planet, and now seeks to impress on people's behavior and even their thoughts. Strict bans on such foreign ownership rights would go a long way toward relieving the carcinogenic effects, but I don't think it would stop that totalitarian moment unless that were to implode.