By Earl Lofland
March 22, 2011
I am not interested in liberal nor conserative talking points. and Americans only objective should be to ensure those who take the Oath of office uphold that law, and the other laws of this land, that they are not violated by those in power, (by the way; the oath of office is a US Code, violating it is a violation of the US Code- it is therefore a crime called perjury).
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this attack. Constitutionalist understand what’s wrong with that picture.
It is obvious as the nose on ones face. They are all the same rotting fruit falling from the same tree.
In accordance to the Powers of War Act 1973, this administration has clearly committed war crimes by launching an attack on a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US and who did not properly address Congress, other than sending them a "letter" . This action It is not only a violation of the Constitution. It also subverts the very laws that were passed to preserve and prevent such actions from occuring. A person usurping too much power away from the People and Congress.
Though Bush did go to Congress, all he obtaines was an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force", rather than a declaration of war. He cited Section 4 of the POWA which gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. 7 years later we were still involved in Iraq, (Not quite Constitutional I would say), but better than nothing, At least Mr. Bush did go before Congress. Not to say the Iraq War didn't violate the law, but still when Mr. Bush cited section 4 of the Powers of War Act. If memory serves correctly. This gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. And after that time expired, he was then acting in violation of the Powers of War ACT, until congress decided to pass a resolution to extend the time of our military involvment. Yet he never gave an accurate exit strategy. And that little photo op "Mission Accomplished" was nothing more than subversion of the definition for use of military forces. The entire administration, in my opinion should have been charged with war crimes by Congress. They falsified records, lied before the UN Counsel, and lied to Congress with the doctored letters that did not show the facts that Saddam Did NOT pose an imminent threat to the US. In violation of Section 2 of the Powers of Wars Act. Just as Obama has clearly done in the illegal use of US military and its equipment against a sovereign country that has not posed an imminent threat of attack against the US.
Despite having a crushing $14 Trillion national debt, and Congress even thinking about raising the debt ceiling, with a $1.5 Trillion annual budget deficit, and a dire 15.9% unemployment rate (using the real but still underestimated u6 rate); the financial drain to help Japan, Obama committed America to yet another war in the Muslim world. Our military and national budget are already stretched to the limit and all he seems to think about is playing with military ordinances which goes completely against the very campaign he ran on to be elected.
Perhaps the Nobel Peace Priz Committee should also consider giving Obama another Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences since he’s driving the U.S. into insolvency.
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this duplicitous attack. Conservatives understand what’s wrong with that picture.
The Constitution Party of Delaware openly opposes
America’s involvement in yet another war during these dire economic times. Benjamin Harrison a signer of the Declaration of Independence once said that we are not to be the Police of the world. This includes meddling in a civil war of an Arab country that has little strategic value and for which Congress was not officially consulted.
Benjamin Harrison stated that America serves the world best not as a policeman (or benefactor), but rather as a beacon of hope, liberty and that comes only through the knowledge of Who Christ Jesus is.
None of those missiles and none of those coalition jet pilots will be able to discern the difference between pro-Gadhafi civilians or anti-Gadhafi civilians since they all have weapons. We have no real idea who the rebels are or their true political agenda; some even having ties to Al Qaeda. Obama like his predicessor has no clear objective, no clear definition of victory and no clear exit strategy .
Former first lady Laura Bush Recently, went public with a plea that foreign aid be spared in pending budget cuts. Here is the reason why I oppose republicrats. her lavish banquets and hobnobbing does not qualify her to be statesman (woman) anymore than visiting the NASA Center makes her an astrophysicist.
Like many political insiders, and make no mistake Mrs Bush, you are one, you like the others with a D or R behind your name find it easy to give away other people's money. We should remember, the money we give to foreign lands is borrowed, and to be paid back by future generations with interest. Also, let American voters not forget, contributions to foreign beneficiaries by no means is voluntary - They are forcefully collected through taxes.
As Congressman David Crockett once said Mrs. Bush, It is not yours to give. feel free to donate all the money you wish to your worthy mission...
"Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Science of Deception
The Science of Deception
By Earl Lofland
March,7,2011
Explaining what occurred in the 2010 election is intended to enlighten other conservatives about the reason why Christine O’Donnell did not win. The national leadership of the GOP and its financial backers did not have any interest in Christine O’Donnell, nor other candidates like her to be placed in office. It doesn’t matter if they are running for local, county, state, or federal office. The chain of command still applies. Whoever the National Party doesn’t support, the state Party leadership will not support. If the leadership of the state party changes to more conservative views, the national will provide the least amount of support the states candidates.
Conservative voters should ask what marketing firm was behind the making of the advertisement Christine O’Donnell ran; "I am not a witch" It was obvious to many who know the science of Political selections it was aired to drive down her voter approval ratings, and shift more public interest from the moderate Republican voters to vote for Chris Coons over Christine. Some will find this hard to believe although the evidence clearly shows the National Party and its financial contributors do not hold the same interest as the local conservative voters, especially those in Delaware.
Anyone who studied the science behind political campaigns realizes what occurred with Christine’s campaign, and others like hers. While the majority of their supporter usually work tirelessly, hoping to change things nationally at the state level-- Delaware proved in the 2010 elections,(as well as in 2008) there is little chance to force redirection onto the national party and their financial contributors to side with conservatives on a state level, especially with a state like Delaware and the number of electoral votes it carries in national elections. National leadership always holds higher stakes and thus more leverage in controlling what will occur on the state level in elections especially in Delaware. And the Republican national party would rather have someone like Chris Coons in office compared to a Christine O’Donnell based on the number of moderate republicans who are in office across the country.
There is a political riff between the conservative and the moderate republicans in Delaware due to the political war within Delaware’s Republican Party. The outcome will most likely cause a split in the party, where some members will decide to leave the party. Either to form a new party, or look for another party that best fits their political views. In Delaware, a vast majority of Moderates could end up switching over to the Democrat party in hopes to bring more Blue Dog Democrats in over the social liberal democrats if the Conservative side wins.
However if the Moderates gained control of the Republican party there will be some voters who will look for another conservative party to support. If the Conservatives decided to stay with a party controlled by moderates, many new conservative voters would also see the party having a more liberal dialog, not much different than the Democrat party.
By Earl Lofland
March,7,2011
Explaining what occurred in the 2010 election is intended to enlighten other conservatives about the reason why Christine O’Donnell did not win. The national leadership of the GOP and its financial backers did not have any interest in Christine O’Donnell, nor other candidates like her to be placed in office. It doesn’t matter if they are running for local, county, state, or federal office. The chain of command still applies. Whoever the National Party doesn’t support, the state Party leadership will not support. If the leadership of the state party changes to more conservative views, the national will provide the least amount of support the states candidates.
Conservative voters should ask what marketing firm was behind the making of the advertisement Christine O’Donnell ran; "I am not a witch" It was obvious to many who know the science of Political selections it was aired to drive down her voter approval ratings, and shift more public interest from the moderate Republican voters to vote for Chris Coons over Christine. Some will find this hard to believe although the evidence clearly shows the National Party and its financial contributors do not hold the same interest as the local conservative voters, especially those in Delaware.
Anyone who studied the science behind political campaigns realizes what occurred with Christine’s campaign, and others like hers. While the majority of their supporter usually work tirelessly, hoping to change things nationally at the state level-- Delaware proved in the 2010 elections,(as well as in 2008) there is little chance to force redirection onto the national party and their financial contributors to side with conservatives on a state level, especially with a state like Delaware and the number of electoral votes it carries in national elections. National leadership always holds higher stakes and thus more leverage in controlling what will occur on the state level in elections especially in Delaware. And the Republican national party would rather have someone like Chris Coons in office compared to a Christine O’Donnell based on the number of moderate republicans who are in office across the country.
There is a political riff between the conservative and the moderate republicans in Delaware due to the political war within Delaware’s Republican Party. The outcome will most likely cause a split in the party, where some members will decide to leave the party. Either to form a new party, or look for another party that best fits their political views. In Delaware, a vast majority of Moderates could end up switching over to the Democrat party in hopes to bring more Blue Dog Democrats in over the social liberal democrats if the Conservative side wins.
However if the Moderates gained control of the Republican party there will be some voters who will look for another conservative party to support. If the Conservatives decided to stay with a party controlled by moderates, many new conservative voters would also see the party having a more liberal dialog, not much different than the Democrat party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)