[Peace-discuss] Obama's lies are now officially crazy

["E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"]

Most of those who were involved in writing the
Constitution were familiar with that old book,
and understood the consequences of being under a king.

If indeed the Amerikan king could be limited to the things
that Samuel warned of, it would be a great improvement.

And the Amerikan Pharaoh does not go to the battles,
but bravely out of range, he watches his wars on TV.




On 07/29/13 10:10, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> A story from an old book:
>
>   "...all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, ‘You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.’ But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to govern us.’ Samuel prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so also they are doing to you. Now then, listen to their voice; only—you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.’
>
>   "So Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plough his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’
>
>   "But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, ‘No! but we are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like other nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.’"
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 8:47 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"<ewj at pigsqq.org>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Amerikans, just like most subservient people throughout history,
>> want to be ruled by a king.
>>
>> It could be argued that the willingness to be ruled by a king
>> is genetic, and has a natural selection advantage for the subservient.
>>
>> Cattle-like, they are willing to trod the same paths from the
>> shade to the water hole to the barn over and over and over
>> again, invariantly.   Habituation is in ROM chips if you are
>> cattle.
>>
>> Cattle-like people are allowed to eat, and mate, and give
>> birth to more cattle-like offspring.  They ascribe to the
>> herd mentality.  Those who are disobedient to the herd
>> mentality are treated poorly and are not likely to be
>> allowed to reproduce but will be culled.
>>
>> The constitution apparently was written to provide clear barriers
>> to the king-like power in the executive.  Successive
>> executive administrations invest more and more kingly authority
>> in the office.  Of course the "friends" of the executive support
>> the increase in authority and those who speak against the accretion
>> of power often do so out of partisan jealously rather than out
>> of a genuine concern for the consequences.
>>
>> Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the cattle keep their heads down.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/29/13 9:21, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>      
>>> ProPublica  |  By Cora Currier
>>> Posted: 07/26/2013 12:35 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/26/2013 10:09 pm EDT
>>>
>>> In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”
>>>
>>> So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret.
>>>
>>> At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.
>>>
>>> The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”
>>>
>>> A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could cause “serious damage to national security.”
>>>
>>> “Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.”
>>>
>>> It’s not an abstract question: U.S. drone strikes and other actions frequently target “associated forces,” as has been the case with dozens of strikes against an Al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen.
>>>
>>> During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he was “not sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as “murky” and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces” of Al Qaeda.
>>>
>>> Sheehan said that by the Pentagon’s standard, “sympathy is not enough…. it has to be an organized group and that group has to be in co-belligerent status with Al Qaeda operating against the United States.”
>>>
>>> The White House tied Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and “elements” of Al Shabaab in Somalia to Al Qaeda in a recent report to Congress on military actions. But the report also included a classified annex.
>>>
>>> Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law who served as a legal counsel during the Bush administration and has written on this question at length, told ProPublica that the Pentagon’s reasoning for keeping the affiliates secret seems weak. “If the organizations are ‘inflated’ enough to be targeted with military force, why cannot they be mentioned publicly?” Goldsmith said. He added that there is “a countervailing very important interest in the public knowing who the government is fighting against in its name."
>>>
>>> The law underpinning the U.S. war against Al Qaeda is known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and it was passed one week after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t actually include the words “associated forces,” though courts and Congress have endorsed the phrase.
>>>
>>> As we explained earlier this year, the emergence of new or more loosely-aligned terrorist groups has legal scholars wondering how effectively the U.S. will be able to “shoehorn” them into the AUMF. During the May hearing, many lawmakers expressed concern about the Pentagon’s capacious reading of the law. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described it as a “carte blanche.”
>>>
>>> Obama, in his May speech, said he looked forward “to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.” But he didn’t give a timeframe. On Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced an amendment that would sunset the law at the end of 2014, to coincide with the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was voted down the same day, 185 to 236.
>>>
>>> The AUMF isn’t the only thing the government relies on to take military action. In speeches and interviews Obama administration officials also bring up the president’s constitutional power to defend the country, even without congressional authorization.
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/pentagon-war-classified_n_3659353.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>        
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>      
>
>