Refrain from talking carelessly, the withdrawal of American troops needed, marines, sailors and airmen from Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates to talk directly about the mistakes of U.S. foreign policy and the authority of expected post-modern president to exercise imperial scepter in the world. While on the one hand demanding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say it was a few soldiers, thousands of themstay in Iraq and the wider Middle East for the implementation of the United States and foreign relations. This is probably also means support for the creation of an organized American military bases in Iraq. Obama went so far as to advocate invading Pakistan. This is certainly not a constitutional approach to the campaign for the post of chief U.S. growth, that is, if the final entry is subject to preserve and, where possible, at present the exercise of power by the illegalU.S. executive branch.
Numerous federal agents, and some moving pictures have called the American president as the most powerful man on earth. This is not true. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the executive, in essence, equal power. The powers only great moment from the President to be exercised powers other than those that the executive branch by the Constitution of the United States are those that were wrongly abandoned by Congress and delegatesillegally legally in the executive branch, without having to change the Constitution for such a waiver. Uphold the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional delegation of authority that the pseudo-credibility of the process.
When in New York, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ohio, South Carolina, John Edwards, or other Democratic candidates for the role of pure constitutional executive power, Article 2, in which executive power is based only in an embraceUnited States President, who must give up the imperial foreign policy agenda, and all the American presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt exercised. I recently had an email conversation with retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff of former Secretary of State Powell Colen, in which Wilkerson has spoken openly about his personal opinion on the ability to carry out the plan of Chairman illegal and criminal conspiracy against the people of the United States andUnited States Constitution. He said: "Power management at the Presidency of the most powerful country in the world, is hardly reducible to the theories of (criminal) conspiracy, but the theories of this sort gives great satisfaction naively uninformed minds."
Open to the public with his use of the word "cabal" in describing Bush Cheney cabal "that has been in power since before 9 / 11 Wilkerson. He has to say on the disc, off, on national television that "Cheney" Rumsfeld cabal "was U.S.Foreign policy is not a president in international relations and not too well with great interest. "
The "Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary defines cabal as a group of conspirators, plotters, or a secret plan or scheme. But he rested for a claim of a conspiracy plot, which puzzled me for more attention to political correctness that Wilkerson the naked truth. Wilkerson see it as a first example of "career soldier allegedly" educated"supposed" government of the students, regardless of personal prejudices, in order to reach that conclusion about the presidential arrogance. This is perhaps the basis for his, but the perception of color by Richard M. Nixon and Watergate. Denounced in his apologetic e-mail, my use of the word conspiracy, suggesting deliberate participation of the leaders of the WTC and Pentagon attacks of 9 / 11, he said,
"What I learned is that this is applicable, that the arguments I do not like those who do not confessRoom for rational debate. Incompetence as much as Watergate was a conspiracy, Iran-Contra (Oliver North had lied to Congress and Ronald Reagon denied complicity) could also be a response to an encroachment on the executive control by the legislature to understand, the Mexican War was, as you say, based on a farce (absurd) evidence - but very well supported by the American people a reason (Lincoln lost his seat in the House), and was anything but a conspiracy, if you close thisConspiracy of most people who were clearly complicit and Vietnam was tortured, a process of complete incompetence, lies, deceit and deception played for several years (14), with hints of complicity. "
Wilkerson is presented as an authority on American political history, but does not recognize that American historians have, since 1975 the Mexican War of 1846, due almost exclusively attributed to a policy of arrogance, the mandate of the expansionist policies and hidden illegally ExecutiveThe action of President James Polk. Letters, notes and journals of general and later President Zachary Taylor, the Cabinet members under Polk, and Polk's papers, he himself, telling the conspiracy between Polk and Taylor to create a war with Mexico. Polk's personal mandate to increase the size of the United States aside, was from Mexico, with a fast, the large number of land, which was from Mexico to the United States to be sold under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, whichMotivation behind the conspiracy that took the lives of nearly 2,000 American soldiers and Marines.
When Taylor called the White House was in February 1846, he was ordered Polk to create a war with Mexico. And as the United States, traditionally accepted historical perceptions of the behavior of the legendary Davy Crockett, the Alamo, who died in 1836 during the battle, brandishing the pistol rifle, Old Betsy, historical knowledge that Mexicans started fighting in the month of April1846, led an attack against U.S. troops Cavalry Mexican army, was American historians to investigate the Mexican honest account is supported. It seems that after numerous magazines credible official of Mexico, Crockett, hiding from the Mexicans at the Alamo, when he knew that if captured, will be killed. According to reports, after the battle, which acted as a diplomat tourists until it was discovered, captured and killed by a Mexican team focus.
Italso appears, from accounts in Mexico believe that Zachary Taylor, and his heavily armed cavalry, went to Rio Grande, a fortress on the river side supported by the Mexican government, and 24 April 1846, the first shots fired in response to a patrol cavalry of Mexico, killing a force of cavalry, the Mexicans and the fire. The same calculation has been included in numerous magazines Mexican soldiers who witnessed what really happened. Taylor, however, back and report to Congress that theMexicans had drawn first blood away from the American attacks. James Polk, then a press conference sponsored propaganda blitz, the first big lie that the American public has been published, public incitement to the frenzy of war, before calling before Congress for a declaration of war against Mexico. Therefore, Wilkerson claims that most of the American public were ignorant of the war was correct in principle. If men had the truth is known, probably have accused Polk. But endsconspiracy took place in favor of the conspirators, and a deadly war the lives of over 12,000 men and women.
What I see is the bottom line, in response Wilkerson, a job to prove the contents sophistic explanation, in fact, that the average American voter does not have the insight and intelligence to assess the performance and the actions performed, which are the President of the United States. While I have a degree in political science, is essentially arguing that Wilkersonrequires higher skills and years of federal service that distributes the President rightly be able to conduct as right or wrong, truth from falsehood. Wilkerson is a good example of Samuel P. Huntington Model of a professional soldier who, as creator of fire of foreign policy decisions of professional politicians imposes constitutional limits. The oath that Wilkerson, and all other commissioned officers, a sworn statement with the obligation toProtect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere in that oath is said that a threat to the Constitution should be determined only by senior officers and that the unique role of the official is sworn to uphold the dictates of that person's supervisor and the president of the United States. In short, if Polk, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Reagon, Clinton and GHB could get away with deliberate conspiracy by the efforts of military andIntelligence, why not George W. Bush has tried to do the same as its predecessor? I think the sad story clearly states the ends of rational debate, if there is an irrational person, the denial of the possibility of conspiracy, agreeing to discuss the matter in a logical manner.
When a president of the United States goes behind the backs of Congress and American voters in order to secretly plot to commit the illegal and contrary to existing constitutional and legal, such asU.S. extends troops unilaterally imperial police for foreign policy, and the treaties and international agreements, without the will of the people, in particular, the President of the United States has broken the law and must be punished . So when an American soldier in a pointless military conflict perpetrated by an American president killed, I think the President is guilty of murder, if not a premeditated murder. This is the death following a regularKing-like type of power is currently exercised by the executive branch the power to invade a sovereign nation states only to obtain and use their natural resources. The next president will inherit these powers unconstitutional, if the current Democratic candidates make public a sincere desire to extra-constitutional executive power-grabbing points made.
Donald Sutherland, but in his role as chairman of the House in the TV series "Commander in Chief," playing a scriptThe statement that "a person who seeks the presidency is looking for maximum power. This is power, and a person who does not want supreme power should not be in the White House." This is a paraphrase of the line tried, but it contains a gigantic truth that can not be denied. As I said in many articles, written the Federalist Papers of James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were all the restrictions were enforceable. American colonistsalready faced with a tyrant King George III, in a bloody revolution, and did not want another tyrant rise in the form of a president of the United States to be seen. To illustrate this, Article 1, § 8 power of Congress are the "Regulations for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces not included in Section II, which includes a mention of the very limited powers of the executive. If the author had wanted to give the President the power of movements of land and marine monitoringForces, it is reasonable to conclude that he had given that power under Article 2, instead of Article 1? Something very disturbing is the sad fact that since 2003, no member of Congress, also tried to make the house or Senate, the reasons for the surrender of the Congress in Article 1, § 8 power to address the rules for handling forces.
I can well understand why 75 percent of people in Vermont want to secede from the union of federal states. TheUnited States Government did not support productive for the welfare of citizens for a long time. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which I noticed as a child, other than national targets set out briefly. First, the establishment of justice, second, insurance, civil peace, the third, not (for the common defense is bad), Fourth, promote the general welfare, and the fifth, the insurance on the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our offspring. NoLast mentioned in the preamble of a program of foreign policy, the thousands of billions of dollars of taxpayers 'money' to conservation would be done. It seems that the authors of much concerned with what at home among the people sweating in the United States as well as, what would filter out of the country. Do not start the American Republic, in 1789, with an imperial agenda. Transform a young American republican government, and in such a scheme distorts changed. Ifthose individuals who aspire to the presidency, but rather to emulate the goals and aspirations of those who developed and wrote the glorious Constitution of the United States? I think so.
Glass Top Coffee Table Cheap christian dior sunglasses fellowes ps70 Panasonic Lumix Digital Cameras Dmc Camouflage Pants
