4um: War Funding Bill Passes Senate

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
ObamaNation
See other ObamaNation Articles
Title: War Funding Bill Passes Senate
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... /27/war-funding-passes-senate/
Published: May 27, 2010
Author: AP
Post Date: 2010-05-27 22:03:10 by christine
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: None
Views: 170
Comments: 34

The Senate has passed a bill to fund President Barack Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan.
The almost $60 billion measure passed by a bipartisan 67-28 tally.
More than half of the funding would go to the Pentagon, mostly to support Obama's influx of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
There's also $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief and aid to U.S. allies in the war on terror.
The bill includes legislation to allow the Coast Guard to receive advances of up to $100 million from the oil spill liability trust fund to pay for the federal response to spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The House has yet to approve the war funding measure, which faces opposition from many anti-war lawmakers. Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
The almost $60 billion measure passed by a bipartisan 67-28 tally.

Those people love war.
Truman started wars without Congress approval 60 years ago next month.
Since then congress has not had the courage to say no and keep evading their responsibility.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:08:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: christine (#0)
The House has yet to approve the war funding measure...

How obscene. The 67 "For" Senators and all the Representative who will vote "For" funding this undeclared war should be put on the Ashcanistan fields with rifles and let them fight whoever they think needs to be killed.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2010-05-27 22:11:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: X-15 (#2)
How obscene.

Congress refused to do their duty in 1950 and nearly every president since has taken advantage of that fact, to wage war in one form or another.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:14:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: X-15 (#2)
God, I hate these bastards.
And all the yokels that lent their applause and gave their votes to that long-eared Harvard phony who promised them he'd end the wars - I have nothing but contempt for them.
They get what they deserve.
I see psyops everywhere.
randge posted on 2010-05-27 22:16:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: randge (#4)
Had Congress stood up to Truman in 1950 and SAID NO WAR WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL, we would not be in this fix.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:19:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Cynicom (#1)
Truman started wars without Congress approval 60 years ago next month.

If you REALLY want to know the truth, the treaties with the UN permitted unmitigated power in Korea.
Similarly with all the presidents dealing with Vietnam; the treaties provided defensive characteristics. And I could go on and on ..... that is why you see America in a continuous state of war.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 22:19:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
Treaties and UN be damned, Congress FUNDS all wars, no funds, no war.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:21:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
The treaties (or agreements) that the US honours permits this same funding. Americans have always been conned.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 22:23:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#9. To: buckeroo (#6)
America

Was it all an illuminist enterprise from day one?
Is is simply at hard labor doing what an illuminist enterprise must do?
I see psyops everywhere.
randge posted on 2010-05-27 22:24:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: Cynicom (#3)
Congress refused to do their duty in 1950 and nearly every president since has taken advantage of that fact, to wage war in one form or another.

The Supreme Court of the time ruled this travesty legal.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
tom007 posted on 2010-05-27 22:26:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#11. To: randge (#9)
Remember that treaties modify the US Constitution. When America pledges defensive protection within NATO, SEATO, UN and other alliances the funding is nearly automatic.
Since winning WWII, America has always been involved in defensive measures around the world.
Treaties modify the US Constitution.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 22:29:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#12. To: tom007 (#10)
The Supreme Court of the time ruled this travesty legal.

The Supreme Court, the third leg of a dead chicken.
The lot of those olde buzzards should be in the Olde Fools Home.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:30:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#13. To: randge (#9)
Was it all an illuminist enterprise from day one?
Is is simply at hard labor doing what an illuminist enterprise must do?

No, America as set forth by the Founding Fathers is still the best model of government yet devised by man. It's the corruption of that original intent by immoral men that have put America in an untenable position.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2010-05-27 22:44:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#14. To: X-15 (#13)
It's the corruption of that original intent by immoral men that have put America in an untenable position.

Our Congress is now poised tomorrow, to allow gays to serve openly in the military.
Grunts will be queers of all sorts.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 22:47:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Cynicom (#1)
Truman started wars without Congress approval 60 years ago next month.

Only after Congress passed a law giving the authority to declare war to the UN Security Council.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:08:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#16. To: Cynicom (#5)
Had Congress stood up to Truman in 1950 and SAID NO WAR WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL, we would not be in this fix.

Too late. They had already given up our sovereignty.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:11:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#17. To: tom007 (#10)
The Supreme Court of the time ruled this travesty legal.

Youngstown Steel? Or do you have another opinion in mind?
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:12:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#18. To: DeaconBenjamin (#16)
Too late. They had already given up our sovereignty.

Congress voted for WW2. They did not vote for Korea.
Congress by the Constitution, not by any treaty, funds all wars. No money no war, just as we have seen today.. Without the money Obama would be FORCED TO WITHDRAW....
It has nothing to do with sovereignty, treaties or anything else. No one stands before Congress and dictates passage of any money bill.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 23:18:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#19. To: Cynicom (#18)
No money no war

Not true at all, fellow tax slave.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 23:20:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#20. To: DeaconBenjamin (#15)
Only after Congress passed a law giving the authority to declare war to the UN Security Council.

I do not recall any such law????

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 23:20:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#21. To: DeaconBenjamin (#15)
"National Security and the Communist Threat: Korea, Vietnam, and Nicaragua
The Korean War
World War II and nuclear weapons made the U.S. and the Soviet Union world powers. In the cold war that followed between them, national security became the chief concern of American presidents. In 1950, President Harry Truman saw communist North Korea's invasion of South Korea as a threat to the U.S.This is what President Truman cited in his decision to send troops to Korea.
While Senator Robert Taft supported the use of force in Korea, he saw "no legal authority for it." Senator Paul Douglas justified the president's action, emphasizing 1) the need to react swiftly to a "disaster that can occur while Congress is assembling and debating" and 2) the U.S.'s interest in preventing "communist aggression" (given the Soviet Union's almost certain sponsorship of North Korea's incursion). Such reasoning "would guide American military actions for most of the remainder of the twentieth century," according to Gerald Astor in Presidents at War.
But this justification for war, under the banner of "national security," would also open the door for presidents of both parties to repeatedly intervene in other countries, either overtly or covertly. A president might call for the use of American military, as in Grenada (Reagan). Or, as in Guatemala (Eisenhower), the president might authorize secret use of a local military to overthrow a foreign leader that was viewed by American officials as a threat to U.S. interests. The president might secretly supply arms and intelligence, as to the Afghani mujahideen who were fighting the Soviets (Carter). Or the president might order the bombing of suspected jihadists, as in Sudan (Clinton).
"In none of these cases did the Congress exercise its power "to declare war." In some cases, only a few congressional leaders even received briefings about what the U.S. was doing, while most legislators were left in the dark."

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 23:26:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#18)
They did not vote for Korea.

They voted to fund it.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:26:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#23. To: DeaconBenjamin (#22)
They voted to fund it.

I think that was my point from the very beginning, funding is not authorizing.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-27 23:29:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#24. To: Cynicom (#23)
funding is not authorizing.

Sometimes, Cynicom, you are all wet ... kinda like a limp boiled noodle. You are diametrically wrong. As an example, how on Earth did GWBush get authorization to commit ground troops in IraqII?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 23:33:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#25. To: Cynicom (#20)
United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-27 23:37:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#26. To: DeaconBenjamin (#25)
Excellent underscore.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 23:41:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#27. To: buckeroo (#24) (Edited)
As an example, how on Earth did GWBush get authorization to commit ground troops in IraqII?

Saddam Hussein threatened Israel, hence, The New Hitler had to be removed by all means and we (America) do all the fighting for Israel:

_________________________________________________________________________
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2010-05-27 23:44:02 ET (2 images) Reply Trace Private Reply
#28. To: X-15 (#27)
The Cold War completely collapsed the US Constitution. Why do you think you see the rapid changes in America, today? Actually, it works well within the US Constitution since treaties may modify the same.
And no amendment process is required at all. It is all written in the "living" and "breathing" document.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-05-27 23:51:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#29. To: DeaconBenjamin (#25)
While Senator Robert Taft supported the use of force in Korea, he saw "no legal authority for it." Senator Paul Douglas justified the president's action, emphasizing 1) the need to react swiftly to a "disaster that can occur while Congress is assembling and debating" and 2) the U.S.'s interest in preventing "communist aggression" (given the Soviet Union's almost certain sponsorship of North Korea's incursion). Such reasoning "would guide American military actions for most of the remainder of the twentieth century," according to Gerald Astor in Presidents at War.

Rather indicative if the Senators at the time saw NO LEGAL basis, for Truman, yet you state an act for participation in the UN.
At the time, war was never declared by Truman nor Congress and at any time Congress could have halted the military funding. Just as they could now.
Presently we are involved in an endless war because of a treaty with NATO, not the UN, anything to escape a declaration of war. NOTHING in the agreements with UN nor NATO prohibit Congress from doing their duty as prescribed by the constitution.
If one is looking for ways to circumvent war declaration, Presidents have done so a total of 187 times in the history of this country.

Cynicom posted on 2010-05-28 3:19:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#30. To: buckeroo (#28)
The Cold War completely collapsed the US Constitution. Why do you think you see the rapid changes in America, today? Actually, it works well within the US Constitution since treaties may modify the same.
And no amendment process is required at all. It is all written in the "living" and "breathing" document.

That is "UNTIL" the so-called governing force loses the consent of the governed. At that point we have to consider the options.
The entire world is close to rebellion. The entire world is demonstrating less tolerance with respect to being fucked around by the arrogant PTB (currently).
G-20 spending a BILLION for security is an indicator.
"The smallest of frauds such as Santa Claus are perpetrated upon children by criminals in order that the largest of frauds such as the FEDERAL RESERVE may be had upon them as adults."
noone222 posted on 2010-05-28 4:26:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#31. To: christine (#0)
How much for military aid to Israel?
It is better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not. - Tommy The Mad Artist.
TommyTheMadArtist posted on 2010-05-28 8:27:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#32. To: DeaconBenjamin (#25)
The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein

That's invalid. Any treaty that violates our Constitution is invalid. They're also invalid if not approved by the Senate. Regardless of misreadings and opinions to the contrary, no treaty can alter the U.S. Constitution.
From Article 6:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It is State Constitutions and Laws that might be affected by US treaties. No officials are empowered to overstep Constitutional boundaries. If they do, that is when their power to legitimately act under the Authority of the United States ends. This is an example of an invalid treaty in the news because Secretaries of State have absolutely no treaty authorization powers: URGENT: While we're all watching the gulf: Hillary signs UN Small Arms Treaty
Presidents are subordinate to Congress during war and for the use of our troops, which is intended to be a strong incentive for them not to draw us into overseas wars and military adventures. Congress doesn't have to put our troops in more danger by not funding their needs. They have the power to bring them home instead anytime they want to do that, not Presidents. Treaties aren't even necessary to end wars so Presidents don't have to be involved at all in the decision to end them. Bring our troops home now, Congress.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2010-05-29 1:40:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#33. To: GreyLmist (#32)
That's invalid. Any treaty that violates our Constitution is invalid.

I do not disagree that the Constitution controls any treaty or statute. However, the courts have upheld Congressional delegation of powers to the executive -- powers expressly granted Congress by the Constitution.
I do not agree with that judicial doctrine, but it is currently the law.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
DeaconBenjamin posted on 2010-05-29 13:49:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#34. To: DeaconBenjamin (#33)
I do not disagree that the Constitution controls any treaty or statute. However, the courts have upheld Congressional delegation of powers to the executive -- powers expressly granted Congress by the Constitution.
I do not agree with that judicial doctrine, but it is currently the law.

It is Unconstitutional law and therefore illegal. Justices of the Supreme Court can be removed for bad behavior like that. People who want to rule or be ruled by "consensus" rather than uphold and adhere to the Constitution are no valid part of our system.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2010-06-01 23:45:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um