en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/880459 Comments by recce1 http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-must-see-obamas-link-to-kenyan-mall-massacre-and-al-qaeda-revealed-2/#IDComment725792172 Folks, we need to remind people that the evidence was there in 2007 that Sen. Obama was a socialist Muslim with ties to Communists, Muslims, and terrorists. We need to work to not only retain control of the House in 2014 but to increase conservatives in it and in the Senate. As it is, we know that neither the House or Senate has the courage to do its constitutional duty and remove Mr. (intentional) Obama from office for a number of constitutional violations, including treason. Then we have gun running to destabilize Mexico and starting a war against Libya without consulting Congress just to name two more illegal actions by Mr. Obama. Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:00:57 +0000 http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-must-see-obamas-link-to-kenyan-mall-massacre-and-al-qaeda-revealed-2/#IDComment725792172 http://defensetech.org/2012/05/04/f-22-pilots-to-discuss-why-they-wont-fly-the-jet/#IDComment357059446 Musson, evidently yes. I was severely reprimanded for asking if Wing staff would prevent the punishing of crew members who overrode bad decisions by aircraft commanders that would have resulted in the loss of planes and crews in a peacetime environment. Wed, 9 May 2012 09:36:52 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2012/05/04/f-22-pilots-to-discuss-why-they-wont-fly-the-jet/#IDComment357059446 http://defensetech.org/2012/05/04/f-22-pilots-to-discuss-why-they-wont-fly-the-jet/#IDComment357056555 Musson, perhaps it was the manner in which the statements were said by the pilots and Sgt. Stein. Are you familiar with what Sgt. Stein actually wrote initially? The difference is that the 2 pilots didn't use any derogatory words of criticism of the president or their any superior officers. Sgt. Stein initially said, "Screw Obama, I won't obey all orders from him." That was an UCMJ offense. Of course he corrected himself and said that he wouldn't obey any ILLEGAL orders from Obama, which what the UCMJ requires. So the men's conduct were radically different. I do wish Stein had received an Article 15 rather than a less than honorable discharge. As for the pilots, they had a Congressman with them on the set but I doubt will protect them. We have a president who is willing to go to great, and sometimes illegal, lengths to punish those he perceives as a threat. Think of Pres. Nixon. Gen. Mitchell, although correct, disobeyed direct legal orders from his superiors. He was posthumously exonerated. Then there was Gen. MacArthur who defied Pres. Truman. His offense was in trying to over the presidents head go to the public about how to fight the Chinese in Korea.. That he was tactically right was beside the point. Wed, 9 May 2012 09:29:24 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2012/05/04/f-22-pilots-to-discuss-why-they-wont-fly-the-jet/#IDComment357056555 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/18/arizona-v-united-states-showdown-in-the-supreme-court/#IDComment342492043 The one question I can't get conservatives or libertarians to answer is who has the right to determine immigration, the federal government or the states? I realize there's the accepted answer, that it's the federal government's responsibility, but is it correct? Consider Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution together for a moment. Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 states, "The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now unless my dictionary is wrong, the words naturalization and immigration don't mean the same thing even if they're interrelated. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to regulate immigration. Or have I missed something? So why are conservatives and libertarians so terrified of addressing the issue of who has the right to control immigration? Do they believe that court precedents are sacrosanct even it they're unconstitutional? Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:02:30 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/18/arizona-v-united-states-showdown-in-the-supreme-court/#IDComment342492043 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/03/morning-bell-obama-slams-supreme-court-over-obamacare/#IDComment332787789 Call me a politically incorrect conservative constitutional Bible and gun owning Neanderthal but I don't understand why people are so reticent about connecting the dots about "Professor" Obama? Mr. Obama has already shown a propensity for disregarding the Constitution. He's claimed the right to declare war on a country that wasn't a threat to the US (Libya); has said that he'll confer with other nations and then tell Congress if he plans to take military action in Syria; has made appointments without Senate confirmation while Congress was in session; has ordered the smuggling of guns to criminals in Mexico who want to overthrow that nation; has instituted lawsuits against states trying to protect their borders and thus ignored Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution; has refused to provide adequate proof of his eligibility to hold office; has said he has the authority to arrest, detain, and execute American citizens without trial; wants the authority to shut down the internet; has claimed that he can order religious institutions to violate their beliefs, and has claimed he and the government have the authority to order citizens to buy government approved products from government approved companies at government approved prices. Now he claims the supreme Court hasn't the right of judicial review in order to overturn a law he has staked his political future and agenda on. Furthermore, he's claiming that he and the Congress have the right to impose anything they want on Americans thru the misuse of the Establishment, Proper and Necessary, Commerce, and Supremacy Clauses because it's "good" for the country. Do we have a Constitution with Enumerated Powers or not? Do we even have an intact Bill of Rights? What more does it take to wake up conservatives and libertarians who cherish the Constitution? These aren't the actions of a man who’s ignorant of the Constitution, rather they’re the actions of a potential fascist/socialist dictator who knows exactly what he's doing. He's an acolyte of Saul Alinsky with a clear knowledge of Cloward and Pivens. We're risking the very continuation of a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law if we underestimate this Fabian socialist's hostility to and disdain for the Constitution. It's imperative that he be removed from the presidency by any means, whether it is the ballot box (not bullets) or impeachment. Where are the Paul Reveres, Patrick Henrys, Sam Adams, and Thomas Paines when we need them? Fri, 6 Apr 2012 03:46:43 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/03/morning-bell-obama-slams-supreme-court-over-obamacare/#IDComment332787789 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/03/morning-bell-obama-slams-supreme-court-over-obamacare/#IDComment332693825 You mean you want conservative justices dead so socialist Mr. Obama can pack it with socialist justices who believe in an eisegesist interpretation of the Constitution rather than an exegesist one? I take it you have little understanding of the purpose of the supreme Court. Or maybe like Mr. Obama you do understand but disagree. The main functions of the Supreme Court are to: 1. Settle disputes between states. 2. Hear appeals from state and federal courts. 3. Determine the constitutionality of federal laws. With regards to the latter, the purpose of the Court is not to determine whether or not a law is good policy, or whether or not it is good for the people. Its sole role is to decide if a particular law conforms to the Constitution as written, particularly Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. It isn't supposed to get creative in interpreting the Constitution. Furthermore, it has the writings of the Founders, the Federalist Papers, and subsequent Amendments to make such determinations. Previous precedents that violate the Constitution aren't sacrosanct despite the concept of stare decisis. However, I do understand your murderous thoughts about "righties," after all you're a progressive socialist Jacobin. So Sieg Heil, Comrade. Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:55:14 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/03/morning-bell-obama-slams-supreme-court-over-obamacare/#IDComment332693825 http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2012/03/new-vrap-gi-bill-for-unemployed-vets/#IDComment326998751 Yes, they are waiting for you and I to die. I was promised 10 years of VA Education benefits if I made it to retirement. The year before I retired they changed it to 1 year. In addition the government broke it's promises regarding free medical and dental care for me and my qualified dependents and other benefits. They've even refused to treat my dependents who were on TriCare Prime, or as I call it, Try-To-Get-Care. I might mention that Medal of Honor recipient Col. George Day, an attorney, argued in 2003 for the enforcement of the promises made to service members but lost before the SCOTUS Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:01:06 +0000 http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2012/03/new-vrap-gi-bill-for-unemployed-vets/#IDComment326998751 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/16/morning-bell-the-secret-plan-to-defend-obamacare/#IDComment318103664 Even we retired veterans are paying the price of broken government promises. We were promised free medical and dental care for ourselves and eligible dependents if we made it to retirement. However, we now need to pay for Tricare Prime, or as some call it, Try-To-Get-Care, for medical coverage and dental is not available even to retirees. In addition, the Obama administration is discussing raising the premiums by 75 to 100%. Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:49:25 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/16/morning-bell-the-secret-plan-to-defend-obamacare/#IDComment318103664 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/12/f-35-boss-well-fix-the-jet-just-let-us-do-it/#IDComment316161119 I completely agree. The J-20 is a true 5th generation aircraft and will be quite dangerous. It likely will be better in a fight than the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and even the F-35 if pilots are equally skilled. As for hours, remember that all the MiGs and most of the Sukhois were limited in hours. but they were dangerous aircraft. Also, the Soviets built far greater number of them. For example, lets say an American fighter had a 10 to 1 kill ration but the Chinese had 15 to 1 number advantage. In an all out fight who will be the likely winner? Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:16:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/12/f-35-boss-well-fix-the-jet-just-let-us-do-it/#IDComment316161119 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/12/f-35-boss-well-fix-the-jet-just-let-us-do-it/#IDComment315667952 Why a larger F-22? The Chinese J-20 is larger because they don't have the ability to miniaturize as well as we can - yet. Larger means more weight and less agility. The only advantage of a larger airframe is more space for fuel, but then we have more tankers than does China. Perhaps more internal space for weapons might be an advantage. As I understand it, the F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 a fighter bomber. Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:23:33 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/12/f-35-boss-well-fix-the-jet-just-let-us-do-it/#IDComment315667952 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300282984 Far too many posters are calling for changing the law not realizing that it derives from a treaty. As Article VI Paragraph 2 states any treaty the US accepts becomes the Law of the Land and can trump any other part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. That's the danger of not insisting on the people getting to see what's in proposed treaties or senators not being required to have them read in full before a quorum and then not having senators sign off as having read a treaty and understanding it. For those who would say that would take too long, that's part of their job. It's too bad we can't impeach senators. Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:54:26 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300282984 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300277409 It is too late. The law derives from a treaty and all agreed to treaties become the Law of the Land, even if they void other parts of the Constitution. Read Article VI, Paragraph 2 and weep. Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:43:47 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300277409 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300276731 If you kept up with the number of instances of our federal government far exceeding it Constitutional mandate and using fear, intimidation, and persecution to get citizens to cower and remain silent about government wrongdoing you thank Heritage for informing people. However, what do you think Heritage's calling is, to sing the praises of big and oppressive government? Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:42:28 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300276731 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300274233 yeooldgrump, au contraire. The law cited was the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . In Article VI, paragraph 2 the Constitution states, "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." Thus any treaty signed and passed becomes as binding on the country as the rest of the Constitution. Think about it, what if the US accepts a UN treaty banning private ownership of guns, require giving children the right to disobey parents about going church or even prohibitions on having sex with adults, giving up close offshore drilling and mining rights to the UN, closing down much of our energy production, or disallowing parents to bring up their children in one's faith? What if we sign a treaty allowing Sharia Law to be considered in our courts? By the way, the Obama administration has tried to get around the Constitution's super majority vote for approval of treaties by submitting them as statutes and then declaring them treaties, a process of fast-tracking. Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:37:21 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300274233 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300020900 The undercover agent was likely shopping at the store. Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:57:23 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/#IDComment300020900 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/#IDComment299558690 Fred Trautlein, where's separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or any other founding document? Since when are the Establishment, Commerce, Proper and Necessary, or Supremacy Clauses meant to invalidate Article 1 Section 8 or the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution? The new mandate is not about women's healthcare,or even the First Amendment, it's about forcing all Americans to conform to Federal dictates. Remember the effort to force Catholic doctors and hospitals to provide abortion services or for Catholic adoption agencies to allow adoption by homosexuals? How about the effort to stop Jewish circumcisions? If you think calling Mr. Obama's healthcare plan ObamaCare is disrespectful, how about the Democrats calling Bush Hitler or a Nazi? What of the movie advocation his assassination? Or will you next say using ObamaCare is racist? Bedsides, why should we respect a president who holds the Constitution is disdain as he has shown on a number of occasions. As for Republicans supporting it, ObamaCare passed the Senate by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents supporting it and all Republicans against it. It passed the House 219–212 with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill. So much for your "facts." As for 98% of women having used birth control at some time, are you arguing that because a majority support an idea they have the right to suppress a minority? By that standard slavery at one time was OK, wouldn't you agree? To be specific, we don't live in a democracy where the majority can persecute a minority. That's called mobocracy. We live in a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law so as to protect minority views, or at least we used to. Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:31:13 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/#IDComment299558690 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294499394 It only takes 51 votes in the senate to pass a budget. I believe they have 53. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:24:19 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294499394 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294450711 You mentioned "once we commit to peace, American children pay for it with their blood." How then will sitting this one out, perhaps a good idea, further your argument. History has taught us that if we stand by and watch our brethren slaughtered, eventually it will happen to us. However, that's not a plea for military adventurism. As you said, perhaps we should sit this one out. Syria is a client of Iran, Russia, and China. Let them sort things out or be held responsible. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:00:44 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294450711 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294447698 Just think how the Democrats and the Left castigated Bush for going into Iraq claiming he violated the Constitution. But at least Bush got a feel good resolution from Congress and that there were real treaty violations by Hussein to consider. However, Mr. Obama by himself declared war on Libya in an obvious violation of the Constitution by not even notifying anyone in Congress of his actions. That's an impeachable offense, not that the Democrats will ever vote to impeach a Democrat president. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:55:19 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294447698 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294437296 How can we expect the Army to be funded for two years when the Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in almost three years? Our Constitution, what is left of it, isn't relevant to progressives because as the Founders stated, the Constitution was a chain meant to bind down men desirous of power from mischief. Progressive, i.e. socialists and communists, find the Constitution to be an annoyance as it champions individual rights and initiative. The progressives favor collectivism and a compliant public ruled be a "compassionate" ELITE. "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:37:09 +0000 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/16/morning-bell-fighting-to-the-death-in-syria/#IDComment294437296