What would a constitutional military look like?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jan 21, 2014.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    A Constitutional Military would call for far more than just an end of our overseas military bases.

    A standing peacetime Army is unconstitutional, our Founding Fathers abhorred them and warned us not to keep them.

    From Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -

    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy”

    The Founders made a clear distinction there between an Army to be called up when needed and a full time Navy.

    “I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them.” –Thomas Jefferson

    “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” – James Madison, Father of the Constitution

    So just what would a Constitutional military look like?

    Read more: http://benswann.com/what-would-a-constitutional-military-look-like/#ixzz2r43ZzWS5
     
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 1 of reply

    Utter nonsense. As usual, a clueless post not based in actual fact.
    None whatsoever. The Army Clause
     
    #2 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2014
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2 of reply

    That's an out-of-context quote. It leaves out the fact that Jefferson was not addressing the need for a standing military, but budgetary concerns. The entire quote is part of his "profession of political faith" in the function and goodness of the United States government, and the entire paragraph reads thusly:
    The purpose of the section you quoted changes dramatically in light of the actual context, which your website tried to hide by only giving a partial quote. The same is true of your Madison quote:
    Here is what was actually written, and note that 1) this is not an actual quote of Madison but the minutes of the Federal Convention summarizing what Madison said, and 2) the concern is not against a federally maintained peacetime military, but that the states themselves would resort to standing armies that would endanger the collective government, thus making Madison's comments supportive of a federal standing army:
    Just like it does, because what we have is constitutional, despite your disingenuous efforts to prove otherwise.
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I'm sure everyone here already knows that the only opinions worth mentioning come from the neocons and Saudi Faux Snews but thanks for reminding us again just the same.

    I can see where defending the United States against invasion is constitutional. I might even agree that having a standing army in this day and age is a good idea.

    But I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why we need an imperial standing army that acts on the advice and insistence of internationalist corporate backed "policy planners" such as the CFR and all the other bankster controlled "think tanks".
     
    #4 poncho, Jan 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2014
  5. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    What do ya mean Saudi?
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Saudis Influencing Fox News

    It is of the utmost importance to begin to notice, to scrutinize and assess what Fox covers and -- more important -- what it doesn't and why.

    As I reconsidered the Murdoch-Alwaleed relationship, I was struck anew not only by the 7 percent of News Corp. that Alwaleed owns, but also by the 18.97 percent of Rotana, Alawaleed's Arabic media group, that Murdoch owns. I discovered that just as Murdoch-Alwaleed holdings include Fox, Alwaleed-Murdoch holdings include Al Risala, a 24/7 religious station run by a Kuwaiti Muslim Brother named Tareq al-Suwaidon. Al-Suwaidan, who doubles as a popular on-air host at Al Risala, is not just any Muslim Brother, either. He is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in US history, the Holy Land Foundation trial. That means the US government believes Al-Suwaidon, too, was involved in fund-raising for Hamas. That means that Murdoch and Alwaleed's cable stable includes O'Reilly, Doocey and Al-Suwaidon, aka, Mr. Hamas.

    That's not the only appalling connection the Saudi association brings to News Corp. On the advisory board of Al Risala is Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose Rabita Trust has been designated by the US Treasury as an Al Qaeda financier (see photo).The structural parallels may be somewhat imperfect but they are still illustrative: Just as Alwaleed has a business connection to News Corp. board member Roger Ailes, Murdoch has a business connection to Al Risala board member and al Qaeda financier Naseef.

    That's reality.

    http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/interview-diana-west-saudi-influence-fox-news

    Evidently Sean no longer thinks taking money from this guy is such a bad idea now that Prince Al Waleed is his boss.

    Now comes the part where TND tells us that because Snews Corp Inc. and the other 5 mega consolidated corporate news networks aren't reporting on this cozy relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the Sunni terrorist sponsoring (see Libya and Syria for details) Saudi monarchy it doesn't really matter.

    He'll tell us that anyone that disagrees with him and his neocon counterparts and the military security media complex are traitors or nutballs and true to neocon form reciting Joesph Goebbels favorite war propaganda he'll tell us if we don't make war on everyone the Saudis want us to make war on "Al Qaeda" will get us.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=91053
     
    #6 poncho, Jan 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2014
  7. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    So why is Charles Krauthammer working for Fox? He is a smart guy & he is a Jew who indicated he feels strongly that .....ahhhh you know what I am driving at.
     

Share This Page

Loading...