NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 5.0/7 (1 vote cast)

peteyamble2
The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day…

“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote …positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair..

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly…..)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage.. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

Just think it’s about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not, who will?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 5.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Targeting Terrorists

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Anwar Al-Awlaki image
“How can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?” Jonah Goldberg (1)

The assassination of Al Qaida propagandist Anwar Al-Awlaki on September 30 by a drone missile in Yemen has spurred this anguished question.

Nearly twenty years after the US tried to kill Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 which included the rule that “No person employed by…the United States Government shall engage in …..assassination.” (Wikipedia)

But in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress passed a law that stated that the President “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against …persons he determines ….committed…the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011…..” This law, which is tantamount to a declaration of war on Al Qaida, overrode President Reagan’s order, and so authorized the murder of Osama bin Laden in May of this year.

But bin Laden was not an American, and Al-Awlaki was. Does that matter? I contend that in war everyone in the enemy camp is an enemy, and thus a target, regardless of birth and citizenship. Had Al-Awlaki been located in the United States, the proper procedure would have been to arrest and try him for treason. Had he been located in a friendly and stable country such as Germany, France or Britain, the US should have requested the authorities in that country to arrest and extradite him.

The relevant fact was that Al-Awlaki was in Yemen, a failed state, literally in the camp of Al Qaida, so extradition was not possible. Although the Government of Yemen is nominally allied with the United States, it does not actually control all of its territory and a revolution is going on there. By defecting to al Qaida and joining its camp, this man had effectively renounced the rights he would have held as an American citizen.

Is there then any effective limit on the power of the President of the United States to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, by merely asserting that the victim was an enemy combatant or traitor? Roman emperors could kill anybody with impunity. Stalin could kill Trotsky, even in Mexico. Do we want our presidents to have this power?

The only effective restraint on the President is the power of impeachment by Congress, something the Caesars and Soviet dictators did not have to worry about. Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) thinks that Obama deserves impeachment for killing Al-Awlaki, but I say that most Americans believe that he did the right thing. If a future president kills an innocent person, he will be held accountable by the people, represented in Congress. President Nixon was forced to resign for less, and President Clinton was impeached (though not convicted) for much less.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————-

(1) “The president’s terrorist dilemma” in the Milwaukee Journal Perspectives, October 5, 2011, page 15A.

____________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)