The twin killers of success are impatience and greed.
Jim Rohn
Tweet of the Day
It's so sad to see so many libertarians turn their backs on the fundamental rights of preborn children, the most defenseless. #WeWontGoBack— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) April 13, 2017
You find yourself volunteering to work nights, weekends and holidays. #SignsThatYourNoLongerInLove— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) April 13, 2017
Interstate Commerce and the Constitution
Alternate Financial Services
Facebook Corner
Well, I knew when I came out against Trump's military strike in Syria, I would get attacked on National Review. Here's a snapshot of follow-up comments and my response.
Ronald A Guillemette · 1:06:10 OPPOSE. This is flagrantly unconstitutional. Syria did not attack the United States. When are we going to stop perpetual war which does little but invite blowback?
Like · Reply · 5 · Yesterday at 10:09am
Hide 17 Replies
Maria Vilar-Blanco
Maria Vilar-Blanco · Ronald Guillemete how after watching the video that Syria is using chemical weapons killing innocent children, the Trump administration be indifferent... He did a good respond to it.
Like · Reply · 5 · Yesterday at 10:56am
Tony Cerra
Tony Cerra · This is blowback,it started with the Arab spring that turned into winter for the people in the Arab countries. That's why European countries are in turmoil now. Over run with refugees from the disaster of the last administration so called" Arab spring." And yes I support the air strike, sent a message that was received world wide.
Like · Reply · 4 · Yesterday at 12:57pm · Edited
Bradley Aaron Formanski
Bradley Aaron Formanski · It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. - John F. Kennedy
Like · Reply · 3 · 23 hrs · Edited
Bradley Aaron Formanski
Bradley Aaron Formanski · After Hitler invaded Poland, France and Great Britain responded by locking the front door to hide in the basement. The US raised an eyebrow after France was defeated because we were to busy listening to Japan whisper peace in our ear. If we do nothing in response to aggression then we might as well give up the title as the Greatest Nation on Earth. What we do for humanity defines who we are as American.
Like · Reply · 2 · 23 hrs · Edited
Mary Bussan
Mary Bussan · Children died it was justifiabe
Like · Reply · 2 · 23 hrs
Robert Lipp
Robert Lipp · I am not sure what world you live in and I am thankful that the Demorats are not in charge anymore.Maybe you should look for another place to call home, just sayin.
Like · Reply · 3 · 23 hrs
Janice Pomaville
Janice Pomaville · Trump wants to help Syrian family, has to stop leaders to use Chemical attacks. No other countries help those people.
Like · Reply · 3 · 22 hrs
Roger L. Perkins
Roger L. Perkins · Ronald A Guillemette. How exact is it "flagrantly unconstitutional"?
Like · Reply · 1 · 21 hrs
Roger L. Perkins
Roger L. Perkins · Waiting Robert...
Like · Reply · 21 hrs
Shawn Dougherty
Shawn Dougherty · Trump launched an attack on a sovereign, albeit messed-up, nation without consultation or approval from Congress...
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 21 hrs
Shawn Dougherty
Shawn Dougherty · Trump launched an attack on a sovereign, albeit messed-up, nation without consultation or approval from Congress...
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 21 hrs
Roger L. Perkins
Roger L. Perkins · Ronald A Guillemette Still waiting, Ronald.
Like · Reply · 20 hrs · Edited
Roger L. Perkins
Roger L. Perkins · Here's the same answer I gave before, Shawn Dougherty - ""Congressional consultation and approval" is not needed for the president to use force. He is the Commander in Chief, not congress. If he continues for more than 90-days THEN he needs permission from congress IAW the War Powers Act. Something Obama did NOT get for Lybia, BTW."
Like · Reply · 5 · 20 hrs
Roger L. Perkins
Roger L. Perkins · Shawn Dougherty? Ronald A Guillemette ? No answer? Then I assume you have finally did some research and realize you are incorrect. The President does not require the approval of congress to use military force. Only if its sustained beyond 90-days and thats a new rule from the 70s.
Like · Reply · 2 · 20 hrs
Ronald A Guillemette
Ronald A Guillemette · One gullible neo-con right-alt fascist troll at a time. Maria, do you really want to believe that any video you saw is accurate? Why would you want to believe that Assad, whose fortune has improved through Russian intervention, in a war full of civilian casualties, some 99% not involving chemical warfare, would risk at this point Western intervention with politically incorrect attacks? Ask who has the most to gain from Western intervention, like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Has this purported "evidence" been independently vetted? So spare me the tears of a few dozen casualties--who just may be the victims of a false flag attack. Do you think I want the US to become the Air Force for Al Qaeda? I have no empathy for Assad, but he has protected the Christian minority there. You know what will happen if the rebel Islamists take over. The feature of our variant of democracy is protection of minority rights.
As for Tony C., what makes you think that this new intervention is "less equal" than the old? Syria did not attack the US; the US has no moral or constitutional basis to intervene.
Now for Bradley, what the hell are you talking about? The US has been almost constantly at war since the 1940's, long after our ill-advised entry into WWI, the war to end all wars. So spare me the peace-loving lipstick on a warmonger. Now let's deal with your Hitler domino theory. First of all, WWI was settled by imposing harsh economic conditions on the German people; this created the possibility of a Hitler. Second, Japan is largely dependent on resources imported from other countries; we imposed economic sanctions on Japan, an economic declaration of war. Our country's policies exacerbated the conditions leading to WWII. Does that stop evil men from attaining empires? No, but all empires are unsustainable and will come to an end, including ours.
As for Mary and the tragedy that children died. Yes, but 99% of civilian deaths are by "legal" conventional weapons. The point is, you don't even "know" that Assad is responsible; the Trump Administration has a vested interest because it's trying to defend attacking a country which didn't attack us. And while we're at it, look at the hypocritical Trump's own tweets when Obama was threatening to bomb Syria; was he right then in criticizing Obama or is he right now?
As for Robert, I'm the one for constitutionally limited government, including a defense limited to actual threats to the US, not small countries like Iraq and Syria which do not pose a credible threat. You are the one questioning limited government; maybe you should leave.
As to Janice, you are begging the question of who really did it. I don't want to get repetitious here; Certainly Syria's neighbors have a vested interest. But as I've repeated, Syria did not attack us; we have no constitutional basis to intervene. 99% of casualties are from conventional weapons.
As for Neo-Con Roger: Presidential military action is only justifiable on purely defensive/imminent danger matters, none of which applies here. A declaration of war is reserved to the Congress. Trump did not ask for or receive Congressional approval. Trump's act of war in attacking Syria is an impeachable offense.This is based on stone-cold fact. Not to mention the US since its early years avoided foreign entanglements, showing Constitutional intent. Even a permanent military was controversial because many patriots rightly thought that it would be more readily used.
Oh, for impatient Fascist Roger: BUZZZ. WRONG answer, idiot! The War Powers Act is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL delegation of legislative authority. I'm not going to repeat Judge Napolitano's arguments here, but he published a recent video on this very point. In short, you don't know the hell what you're talking about.
Have I finished answering all you trolls? Next time I won't be so nice.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Amy Grant, "Angels"
