I'm going to go ahead and use Mr Massie, who just today agreed with me.
https://greatawakening.win/p/199hlQt2j1/thomas-massie-calls-it-as-it-is-/c/
Agreed.
How about drawn and quartered?
It's an attack. Because Russia launched an all out war and invasion into Ukraine.
I suggest you read up on this if you aren't being purposely obtuse.
I just happen to have read a great write up on this entire fiasco minutes ago.. if you go to Substack, search "The 100 days". His most recent article on this is at the very top, entitled "The 1001 Days".
Ukraine just launched the missiles into Russia.
That's an attack.
And now you're playing politics toeing the company line of Russia attacking Ukraine and poor little Ukraine is just defending itself.
So either you're clearly partisan and just think Russia BAD, or you have a clear misunderstanding of what has lead up to this in the first place.
Or you're trolling, but I don't think you're being that underhanded.
Hate to break it to you, It's the favorite music of the white dipshits in the suburbs too.
That's what it's all about-no music becomes huge without the white consumer making it mainstream.
Supplying weapons to a country for defensive purposes does not require congressional approval.
Supplying weapons that are used to attack another country must gain congressional approval.
"We have not declared war on Russia. We have not made military attacks on Russia."
False. A declaration in modern terms does not have to be formal. Actions taken can be determined to be the declaration.
In addition, we have attacked Russia by proxy. If Mexico were supplied missiles by China, and Mexico launched them into Texas, what would we say?
Seems downright fair to me
I get so angry about the J6 hostages that I think I have buried the entire thought of it deep down.
The combination of sadness and rage is a difficult one for me to control and I have had to quell every bit of it.
He's under control
Declare War Clause
"And, as Professor Saikrishna Prakash has demonstrated, eighteenth-century diplomatic and personal correspondence commonly referred to wars “declared” by hostile action. Thus the clause most likely referred to wars “declared” by attacks as well as by formal announcements.
This reading of the clause resolves the difficulties suggested above. Giving Congress the power to declare wars by word or action makes sense in the context of founding-era fears that the President would involve the nation in needless conflicts. It further explains why leading framers described the clause as an important limit on presidential war-initiation and why in post-ratification conflicts the President was understood to be so limited.
This reading also confirms a number of situations in which independent presidential actions are thought to be constitutionally permitted. The President (without Congress’s approval) cannot take actions that put the United States in a state of war – most obviously, military attacks on a foreign nation.. But the clause does not bar presidential actions that do not put the United States in a state of war. Thus, for example, peacekeeping deployments and defensive deployments do not create a state of war. Similarly, rescue missions and other acts to protect U.S. citizens abroad may not create a state of war if they do not involve direct confrontation with foreign governments. It is important to note, however, that the eighteenth-century definition of “war” included low-level hostilities as well as total or full-scale conflict. Samuel Johnson’s 1755 dictionary defined war as “the exercise of violence under sovereign command.” Thus, limited hostilities with foreign nations, even if the United States is not fully engaged, would seem to require Congress’s approval."
I'm not even sure there was a blow up.
That's what was "reported", so grain of salt required
Are you having fun, Rachel?
Yes yes. Then let me ask you if you think sending tax payer dollars overseas to another country, and then arming said country to attack yet another country that poses no threat to the USA mainland is constitutional?
So you're pointing me to the official document on providing security for Ukraine?
Is that what you're doing?
We shall see
I don't have any arrests or anything like that just the garden variety Jersey shit.
I know. That's one of the issues.
I'm not the "cleanest" person in the world. None of us are. But I think if I just tell the truth about myself, faults and all, and own it, it'll settle itself. Takes the ammo directly out if their hands.
Plus I'm a hell of a skirmisher-bring it on I'll go scorched earth.
I'm more concerned with family, in particular my wife who owns a business. Can I deal with the shrapnel?
And should they?
It's both-opening up the can of Ukrainian worms reveals the sludge of a thousand conspiracies come true-of course the money laundering and human torture in form of experiments that they can't do here-they are also harvesting children in Ukraine. It's their playpen.
But of course, they will do whatever they can to trample over the next 4 years -it's not going to happen.
They don't realize that Putin and Zelensky-yes Zelensky-are in on it too. Expect a lot of smoke without a ton of huge fires to put out.
Then there will be peace orchestrated by Trump
Elon Musk- 1
Boris Epshteyn- 0.0
This is obviously cover for a leak.
Playbook known.
NJ is just about fully controlled by the communist unions.
And the problem is the teachers are on board with the dumbed down, woke commie curriculum... Not because they necessarily believe in the agenda{though more and more do-"selective" hiring}, but because they won't let go of the cushy schedule and guaranteed promotions/pay rise/pension.
In the short term, the department of education is on probation for 5 years with the stipulation they must introduce a new curriculum that implements the Constitution and the bill of rights as mandatory courses, and turn away from special interest classes. Every teacher is on a five year contract. At the end of the five years, they will be judged by the merit system, not by the capability to toe the company line.
It's the only way to fix it.
True... But the constitutionality of this is unquestioned.
Unless they're taking the approval of "aid" for Ukraine to encompass utilizing American supplied weapons to attack Russia rather than defend against an onslaught.
Artist Deez Nutzzzz didn't give it away?
Where's the Congressional approval? This is an overt act of war.
The act of supplying munitions to a foreign country in an ongoing war with no clear and resent danger to our shores is treason. Now that those weapons are actually being utilized...TREASON
Where's the "Republican" outcry?
Has Trump brought this act of war without approval into the public view?
Why not?
So it must be part of the grand climax to the movie then.
There have been inciting incidents>COVID, lockdowns, a clearly stolen election, fraudulent indictments against a president, assassination attempts against that same president, replacing a supposed sitting president without the 25th amendment process, and without a vote.
Now a clear act of aggression in hopes of starting WWIII
And here we are at the inflection point.
What follows the inflection point? Glad you asked!
In a screenplay, an inflection point is a moment when the protagonist makes a significant choice that changes the course of the story. It's a turning point that's often climactic and ensures nothing will be the same.
What makes a good movie?
///
Just cold drop the entire enchilada