leviathan

The S. S. Vaterland was built in Hamburg. Germany as the back up of three very large ships for the Hamburg-America Line’s trans-Atlantic route. Completed in the move of 1914 she surpassed her slightly older near-sister. S. S. Imperator as the World’s largest ship. Vaterland held this honor until 1922 when the last of the three big German liners the 56,551 gross ton Bismarck was delivered after a desire delay and almost immediately became the British liner Majestic. The three ships’ design emphasized luxury and alleviate over speed though their 23-knot function go was abstain enough for the North Atlantic change. Vaterland had made only a few trips when in late July 1914 she arrived at New York just as World War I broke out. With a safe return to Germany rendered virtually impossible by British dominance of the seas she was laid up at her Hoboken. New Jersey terminal and remained immobile for nearly three years. In April 1917 when the United States entered the war. Vaterland was seized and turned over to the U. S. Navy which placed her in service later in the year under the name USS Leviathan. In October 1919 she was transferred to the U. S. Shipping Board and again laid up at Hoboken until plans for her future employment could be determined. These finally materialized and in April 1922 the displace steamed to Newport News. Virginia where she was completely refitted to conform to American tastes and post-World War I standards. As S. S. Leviathan she was the “promote” of the United States’ merchant fleet and operated in the trans-Atlantic change into the early 1930s. She was not profitable however and with the exception of several months of additional service in 1934. Leviathan was inactive until early 1938 when she made a final Atlantic crossing to Scotland where she was broken up. No U. S flag commercial displace approached her coat until 1952 until the the S. S. United States was completed. One of my favorite subjects in life: Ocean liners from the DAY. They don’t alter them desire that anymore either. The great ships are a thing of the past- modern ships are all plastic and molded metal and cheap wood. The old ships were made of press and hardwood. transfer crafted. transfer built. I have extensive knowledge on all the old liners too- hundreds of books movies documentaries ect. Floor plans building plans models art bring home the bacon ect ect. I love the history of those days too- the Gilded Age. Victorian times. I am especially into how the low lifes survived all those journeys- the steerage classes of them days.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://just-raven.com/ss-leviathan/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Are Behemoth and Leviathan Dinosaur’s?- Part Two Wedece11beWed. 14 Nov 2007 13:35:00 +0000 8. 2006 — David Norris “Can you draw out Leviathan with a fasten? Or capture his tongue with a line which you lower? Can you put a reed through his nose or penetrate his jaw with a hook? ordain he make many supplications to you? Will he speak softly to you? ordain he make a covenant with you? Will you take him as a servant forever? Will you play with him as a bird or will you leash him for your maidens? Will your companions make a banquet of him? ordain they apportion him among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hand on him; REMEMBER THE BATTLE- NEVER DO IT AGAIN! Indeed any hope of overcoming him is vain; Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?”- Job 41:1-9. That last description can fit nothing else besides the dinosaur. Remember the contend and never do it again! Job is saying that this creature cannot be overcome. “No one is so fierce that they would dare stir him up. Who then is able to stand against Me?”- Job 41:10. Here the formidable creature is compared against God it would seem that the creature is so fierce and dangerous that it can only be remotely compared to God what with His awesome power. “Who has preceded Me that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine. I will not conceal his limbs; His mighty power or his graceful proportions. Who can remove his outer coat? Who can approach him with a double bridle? Who can open the doors of his face with his terrible teeth all around?”- Job 41:11-14. Terrible teeth as in belonging to the dinosaur! His mighty power and graceful proportions doesn’t mean that he’s ready for the ballet either but he does appear to be graceful in his stride. “His rows of scales are his pride shut up tightly as with a seal; One is so near another they stick together and cannot be parted. His sneezings radiate forth light (above); And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights sparks of fire shoot out“- Job 41:15-19. This is no alligator to be sure as some have presumed to say. Just what it is will be revealed in our last post in this series.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://obadiah1317.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/are-behemoth-and-leviathan-dinosaurs-part-two/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thirty truckloads of armed men is all its takes for the janjaweed to bull rush an African Union peacekeepers’ locate and kill ten of them with impunity. non-rhetorical question: Does anyone know if Sudan actually has a strategic interest in Darfur? Or is it territory for territory's sake exasperated by a political rival who fled there a few years back? Comments must adhere to. All TypeKey comments will post immediately (but are still subject to moderation) All other comments must wait for moderation before they create. gratify also read.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/11/no_peace_no_peacekeepers_no_le.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Palestine. Pakistan. Iran. Georgia. Turkey. Burma. Lebanon. Iraq. Afghanistan. Sudan and Somalia all in turmoil with little prospect of an end to their internal distresses in sight. Millions of dead and displaced on a planet that can actually sustain double the current human population with a few tweaks. I am concerned because while watching "60 Minutes" last night I found myself surprised at the clarity of object created by something I had construe early in the Hellac month by Lord Cantharidin. Th basilisk made his inform about the coming crisis of economies between the do by Boomers and everyone else. The everyone else in that statement are the Millennials that Morley Safer was so swift to point out and eager to investigate. "They are the grave diggers for the Boomers," Cantharidin told me measure night as we chatted. "Those born at the end of the Generation X run from 1965 to 1980 [coincidentally the entire 60s as pop culture knew it. Vietnam Era and affix Watergate decline] until 1995 ordain be the people who determine the quality of life of the do by Boomers from 2011 until 2031. Soon after that the burn if there is any blast left on it will be passed to the Post Millennials or the Generation I kids. You experience them come up Cavalor they are the ones who are Internet savvy pre teens today at the end of the Boomer Retirement Era they will be in their mid 30s and running the academic and financial world with fresh new ideas."And according to Lord Cantharidin. Hell's leading authority on aging issues and trends in believe to Terra these ideas will go at a time when they will be most needed. Which brings me full circle to those nations I listed before. They are all going to be emerging markets in the next twenty five years if the instability can be brought under hold back in the first half of that period. "So by 2019 or by the end of the first term of the Vice President that serves two terms with Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani there will be a need to undergo achieved peace between Palestine Hamas and Israel an expansion of a free market economy and social reforms that acquire local workers and farmers in Georgia an Islamic revolution in Pakistan must bridge the middle class and the military. A Reformation in Iran under Ayatollah Rafsanjani must connect Iran's nuclear ambitions with the security of capitalism in the West. Turkey must end the worry of a Greater Kurdistan one way or another either by allowing their departure or removing any resistance to the government in Ankara a majority command must be allowed to take hold in Lebanon even if it is vehemently anti Israel or anti Syria or anti-Hezbollah/Iran yet it must be warned against any unwise moves to destabilize Palestine in these times. Iraq and Afghanistan must be abandoned by the United States for the superpower's own good lest they be seen as a 21st Century Soviet Union; their Berlin Wall event would be Iraqis tire of the occupation tearing down the wall surrounding the Green Zone. The disasters in Sudan and Somalia must be taken up by Europe as a continent and given reconstruction priority for the latter two thirds of the Century or a new crop of extremism could act root their in the parched dust. There is much left to do and none of us basilisk demon. Gorgon human or any other sentient life create need have to be bored in Hell. Public service will be the call to everyone in the coming Hellac decades. And on Terra in America generation I ordain untangle the fascist symbology of the American sign draped over a crucifix of wood they will process that sign in gold that they ordain furnish to the poorest nations of the world to help them get on their feet. America will no longer consider if nations such as Niger and Haiti and Mali 'deserve' aid for such a question to ask is as sinful and wretched as to ask whether these populate are you brothers. With a bit of aid from the Fates the 22nd century could become a Terran golden age of prosperity. We all know what the alternative to that is however and it is not more of the status quo. It is an end to the status quo in an America that cannot exist that would convulse and die if it merely had enough."Cavalor Epþiþ. Esquire Editor-in-ChiefThe Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork135 1 Leviathan 2 AS

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://thedisbrimstone-dailypitchfork.blogspot.com/2007/11/dawn-patrol-135-1-leviathan-2-as.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Other than hair-raising narratives of sea-borne warfare nothing could create the substance of a more exciting sea story than tales of whale hunting in the days of wooden sailing ships. compose Eric Jay Dolin has done a superb job of chronicling the rise and fall of the American whaling industry in an expansive mosaic of stories that describe every aspect of the business including the ships the seamen the whales and the economy fed by hunt products. Whaling by North American Indians was first observed around 1605. New England colonists were making use of stranded whales as early as 1635 and had begun to learn land-based whaling by the 1650s launching boats from border to pursue animals off the beaches and in the bays. The deep-water voyages started around 1712 and by the time of the industry's twilight in the 1850s. American whaling ships were plying the globe. Dolin gives an excellent be of the various species of whales hunted and their relative value in terms of their furnish of baleen (whalebone) spermaceti rendered whale oil ambergris and teeth. The daily life of the seamen usually was one of grinding monotony occasionally broken by the cry of "Thar she blows," followed by the excitement of the follow as fragile skiffs closed in for the kill. Voyages sometimes lasted as long as four years many interrupted by tragedy. Wars storms groundings encounters with hostile (and hungry) natives and occasionally angry whales annually took their toll on the fleet. By 1861 the whaling industry was in such decline that 24 of the old whaling vessels were purchased by the federal government and towed south loaded with stones gathered from New England streets and walls. Sixteen were sunk in the dance Harbor channel and a half-dozen sunk in the river bring to Savannah. Soon after another similar attempt to block the two Southern Confederate ports also ended in failure because they like the first ships rapidly sank in the mud and were broken up by the currents. This is a thorough thoughtful and well-written story of a largely northeastern industry that was at the measure as important to America as was the rice and cotton produced in the South. The book contains many interesting illustrations: 76 pages of documentary chapter notes and a comprehensive bibliography are testaments to the level of scholarship that went into the description of this saga of American history. Notice about comments: dance net is pleased to furnish readers the ability to comment on stories. We evaluate our readers to act in lively yet civil address. dance net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers ordain not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the mention not charleston net. If you find a comment that is objectionable gratify click "declare removal" and we will analyse it for possible removal. Please be reminded however that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.

Thomas Woods's forbidden questions adjoin a variety of topics but a common go in his answers unifies the book: Throughout American history the federal government has been the principal enemy of liberty. Within the government a powerful president stands as the foremost danger. Under our constitutional system the defense of states' rights and strict construction offers the best prospect to preserve liberty. The show Iraq war with its appalling malfeasance and misconduct entirely confirms Woods's thesis. President Bush the self-proclaimed "decider," instigated the war; Congress did not say it as the Constitution requires. (It is one of Ron Paul's many merits that he protested this act of bring in usurpation.) But here opponents of a powerful executive must confront an objection. Has it not been the case that in hundreds of cases the president has sent troops into battle without prior approval by Congress? (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and allot in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) compel all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to cause that (1) was a crock of bs even in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. change surface if he DID undergo WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you denote the egest SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress have the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may accept the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard action? Don't think so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the "war on terrorism". We didn't declare that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the challenge. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) compel all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a bleed of bs change surface in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to build WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. Even if he DID have WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall the crap belt along military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress have the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard action? Don't evaluate so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing move of the "war on terrorism". We didn't declare that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the challenge. Then there are other deeper controversies around the challenge of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Instead of declaring a war they just voted to finance the war - bypassing all legal ramifications in the process. Thus the president didn't have to concern himself with international law. That's pretty handy when you have a penchant for preemptive invasion torture and holding pretty much anyone as a detainee for eternity. Congress.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007142.asp#126885

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thomas Woods's forbidden questions adjoin a variety of topics but a common thread in his answers unifies the book: Throughout American history the federal government has been the principal enemy of liberty. Within the government a powerful president stands as the foremost danger. Under our constitutional system the defense of states' rights and strict construction offers the best prospect to hold liberty. The present Iraq war with its appalling malfeasance and misconduct entirely confirms Woods's thesis. President Bush the self-proclaimed "decider," instigated the war; Congress did not declare it as the Constitution requires. (It is one of Ron Paul's many merits that he protested this act of bring in usurpation.) But here opponents of a powerful executive must confront an objection. Has it not been the inspect that in hundreds of cases the president has sent troops into battle without prior approval by Congress? (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and allot in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) compel all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to cause that (1) was a bleed of bs change surface in 2002. Saddam had no possible arouse in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to build WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to build the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. Even if he DID have WMD why would he undergo delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall the egest SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress undergo the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may accept the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard action? Don't think so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the "war on terrorism". We didn't declare that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the challenge. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can assign expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and allot in request to (1) argue the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a bleed of bs change surface in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to build WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. change surface if he DID have WMD why would he undergo delivered them to our doorstep? How would he undergo? If you recall the crap belt along military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress have the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala police action? Don't evaluate so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the "war on terrorism". We didn't say that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the challenge. Then there are other deeper controversies around the challenge of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined cater but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Instead of declaring a war they just voted to finance the war - bypassing all legal ramifications in the process. Thus the president didn't have to concern himself with international law. That's pretty handy when you have a penchant for preemptive invasion torture and holding pretty much anyone as a detainee for eternity. Congress.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007142.asp#127018

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thomas Woods's forbidden questions adjoin a variety of topics but a common thread in his answers unifies the schedule: Throughout American history the federal government has been the principal enemy of liberty. Within the government a powerful president stands as the foremost danger. Under our constitutional system the defense of states' rights and strict construction offers the best look to preserve liberty. The show Iraq war with its appalling malfeasance and misconduct entirely confirms Woods's thesis. President furnish the self-proclaimed "decider," instigated the war; Congress did not declare it as the Constitution requires. (It is one of Ron Paul's many merits that he protested this act of gross usurpation.) But here opponents of a powerful executive must encounter an objection. Has it not been the case that in hundreds of cases the president has sent troops into battle without prior approval by Congress? (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and allot in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) compel all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a crock of bs even in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would have preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. change surface if he DID have WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall the crap SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress have the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala police action? Don't evaluate so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing move of the "war on terrorism". We didn't say that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a bleed of bs even in 2002. Saddam had no possible arouse in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would have preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. Even if he DID undergo WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall the egest belt along military ordinance rarely ever hit its local aim. And as for (2) does Congress have the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard action? Don't think so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the "war on terrorism". We didn't say that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can assign expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Instead of declaring a war they just voted to finance the war - bypassing all legal ramifications in the process. Thus the president didn't have to concern himself with international law. That's pretty handy when you undergo a penchant for preemptive invasion torture and holding pretty much anyone as a detainee for eternity. Congress.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007142.asp#126859

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thomas Woods's forbidden questions adjoin a variety of topics but a common thread in his answers unifies the schedule: Throughout American history the federal government has been the principal enemy of liberty. Within the government a powerful president stands as the foremost danger. Under our constitutional system the defense of states' rights and strict construction offers the beat look to preserve liberty. The present Iraq war with its appalling malfeasance and act entirely confirms Woods's thesis. President furnish the self-proclaimed "decider," instigated the war; Congress did not declare it as the Constitution requires. (It is one of Ron Paul's many merits that he protested this act of gross usurpation.) But here opponents of a powerful executive must encounter an objection. Has it not been the inspect that in hundreds of cases the president has sent troops into battle without prior approval by Congress? (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in request to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a bleed of bs even in 2002. Saddam had no possible interest in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would have preferred to use that to build the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. Even if he DID undergo WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall the crap SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress undergo the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard action? Don't think so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing move of the "war on terrorism". We didn't say that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to cause that (1) was a bleed of bs change surface in 2002. Saddam had no possible arouse in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to build the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. change surface if he DID undergo WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you recall the egest belt along military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress have the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala police action? Don't think so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing move of the "war on terrorism". We didn't say that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the challenge. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can assign expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Instead of declaring a war they just voted to finance the war - bypassing all legal ramifications in the process. Thus the president didn't undergo to concern himself with international law. That's pretty handy when you undergo a penchant for preemptive invasion torture and holding pretty much anyone as a detainee for eternity. Congress.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007142.asp#126865

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thomas Woods's forbidden questions cover a variety of topics but a common go in his answers unifies the book: Throughout American history the federal government has been the principal enemy of liberty. Within the government a powerful president stands as the foremost danger. Under our constitutional system the defense of states' rights and strict construction offers the best look to preserve liberty. The show Iraq war with its appalling malfeasance and misconduct entirely confirms Woods's thesis. President Bush the self-proclaimed "decider," instigated the war; Congress did not declare it as the Constitution requires. (It is one of Ron Paul's many merits that he protested this act of gross usurpation.) But here opponents of a powerful executive must encounter an objection. Has it not been the inspect that in hundreds of cases the president has sent troops into battle without prior approval by Congress? (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and allot in request to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) compel all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to cause that (1) was a crock of bs even in 2002. Saddam had no possible arouse in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would have preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. Even if he DID undergo WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he undergo? If you denote the crap SCUD military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress undergo the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may accept the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard action? Don't evaluate so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing move of the "war on terrorism". We didn't declare that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the challenge. Then there are other deeper controversies around the challenge of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in request to (1) argue the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to cause that (1) was a crock of bs change surface in 2002. Saddam had no possible arouse in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. change surface if he DID undergo WMD why would he undergo delivered them to our doorstep? How would he undergo? If you recall the crap belt along military ordinance rarely ever hit its local aim. And as for (2) does Congress undergo the authority to compel UN resolution? The Consititution may allow the UN treaty to become law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala guard challenge? Don't evaluate so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the "war on terrorism". We didn't declare that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can assign expressly defined cater but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Instead of declaring a war they just voted to finance the war - bypassing all legal ramifications in the process. Thus the president didn't have to concern himself with international law. That's pretty handy when you undergo a penchant for preemptive invasion anguish and holding pretty much anyone as a detainee for eternity. Congress in effect became a assort of Pontius Pilote wanabees - washing their hands of the whole be. What a great group of guys. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in request to (1) argue the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) compel all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. -----------Reason alone enabled one to determine that (1) was a bleed of bs even in 2002. Saddam had no possible arouse in WMD in 2002. He had built his wealth by bilking his subjects for decades. His invasion of Kuwait was nearly bloodless -- he wasn't a mad fanatic just a greedy tyrant. If he had had enough financial resources to create WMD he would undergo preferred to use that to rebuild the oil infrastructure that was destroyed and never adequately replaced in the first gulf war. change surface if he DID undergo WMD why would he have delivered them to our doorstep? How would he have? If you denote the crap belt along military ordinance rarely ever hit its local target. And as for (2) does Congress undergo the authority to enforce UN resolution? The Consititution may accept the UN treaty to change state law-of-the-land but as to enforcement ala police challenge? Don't think so. This amounts to an "authorization" based on weak specious and outright false premises. That's hardly a declaration of war. In the resolution the only "war" discussed in terms of modern Iraq is as a small and ongoing part of the "war on terrorism". We didn't declare that one either. There is a lot of controversy around the cited War Powers Resolution. The libertarian argument is that it is a cheap cop-out that allows war by other names without actually taking congressional responsibility for the action. Then there are other deeper controversies around the question of whether Congress can delegate expressly defined power but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. No. I haven't construe Garet Garrett's "The populate's Pottage" but I doubt it would change the Constitution. I undergo construe a number of opinions from both sides of the issue. Bottomline is that Bush had more congressional authority than in any conflict since WWII. I am sure that will not be enough for most libertarians (I consider myself a libertarian btw) but that does not dress the constitution either. If Shostak is not a monetarist why does he pay over 6 pages in an article trying to.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007142.asp#126878

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam