<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: War Is Peace</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/</link>
	<description>Forward Movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:29:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fatty Bolger</title>
		<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-76908</link>
		<dc:creator>Fatty Bolger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:09:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.julescrittenden.com/?p=6668#comment-76908</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s also strange how GG saw the line &quot;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,&quot; but somehow missed the next one:

&quot;To provide and maintain a Navy&quot;

Anything there about a two year limit, GG?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s also strange how GG saw the line &#8220;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,&#8221; but somehow missed the next one:</p>
<p>&#8220;To provide and maintain a Navy&#8221;</p>
<p>Anything there about a two year limit, GG?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grimmy</title>
		<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-76906</link>
		<dc:creator>Grimmy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.julescrittenden.com/?p=6668#comment-76906</guid>
		<description>Dave S:

No, the POS in question is a soft noodled neo-marxist who was able to play at being a Constitutional lawyer.

And Quartermaster does have a point about the federal gov. It has grown into a behemoth in exactly the way the US Constitution was designed to keep it from growing.

I&#039;m usually not at all in favor of new laws being made, we&#039;ve got so many now that are unenforceable and/or ignored. But, a law that demands the forfeiture of life and property of any federal elected or appointed official, including SCOTUS that refuse to honor the Constitution as it is written and amended, rather than how they&#039;d prefer it to read would be a welcome addition.

One amendment to the Constitution that I believe needs to be made is one that reworks the idea of a standing, professional army. We simply can not survive in this hostile world with the traditional use of ad-hoc forces raised up to meet specific emergencies. That was, more or less, our practice prior to the Cold War standoff with the USSR. We&#039;ve long since abandoned the two year limit as a practice. I think it&#039;s time the Constitution was updated to reflect that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave S:</p>
<p>No, the POS in question is a soft noodled neo-marxist who was able to play at being a Constitutional lawyer.</p>
<p>And Quartermaster does have a point about the federal gov. It has grown into a behemoth in exactly the way the US Constitution was designed to keep it from growing.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m usually not at all in favor of new laws being made, we&#8217;ve got so many now that are unenforceable and/or ignored. But, a law that demands the forfeiture of life and property of any federal elected or appointed official, including SCOTUS that refuse to honor the Constitution as it is written and amended, rather than how they&#8217;d prefer it to read would be a welcome addition.</p>
<p>One amendment to the Constitution that I believe needs to be made is one that reworks the idea of a standing, professional army. We simply can not survive in this hostile world with the traditional use of ad-hoc forces raised up to meet specific emergencies. That was, more or less, our practice prior to the Cold War standoff with the USSR. We&#8217;ve long since abandoned the two year limit as a practice. I think it&#8217;s time the Constitution was updated to reflect that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Surls</title>
		<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-76902</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Surls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.julescrittenden.com/?p=6668#comment-76902</guid>
		<description>&#039;Even in the limited sense that the Constitution uses the term (&quot;Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States&quot;), the President doesn&#039;t always wield that power, but only when those branches are &quot;called into the actual Service of the United States.&quot; &#039;

No,putz.  The POTUS is ALWAYS the commander of the Army and Navy.  The Army and Navy are permanent bodies, and are always under the command of the POTUS.  He&#039;s the commander of the militia only when it is called into the actual service of the United States.

And, this nimrod was a constitutional lawyer?  No wonder this country is so screwed up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;Even in the limited sense that the Constitution uses the term (&#8220;Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States&#8221;), the President doesn&#8217;t always wield that power, but only when those branches are &#8220;called into the actual Service of the United States.&#8221; &#8216;</p>
<p>No,putz.  The POTUS is ALWAYS the commander of the Army and Navy.  The Army and Navy are permanent bodies, and are always under the command of the POTUS.  He&#8217;s the commander of the militia only when it is called into the actual service of the United States.</p>
<p>And, this nimrod was a constitutional lawyer?  No wonder this country is so screwed up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Surls</title>
		<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-76898</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Surls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.julescrittenden.com/?p=6668#comment-76898</guid>
		<description>&quot;The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...&quot;

Right out of Article 2.  Greenwald needs to take a couple of aspirin and go lie down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Right out of Article 2.  Greenwald needs to take a couple of aspirin and go lie down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quartermaster</title>
		<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-76896</link>
		<dc:creator>Quartermaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.julescrittenden.com/?p=6668#comment-76896</guid>
		<description>LIncoln did not crush an insurrection. That was merely northern propaganda turned agitprop.

The FedGov has wildly overstepped its constitutional authority, and the overwhelming majority of the problem can be laid at the feet of Lincoln. We can complain about calling the POTUS CiC, but Lincoln laid the foundation and was the titular head of the first leftwing party. Hamilton laid that foundation, but his party didn&#039;t succeed until 1865.

Alas, both McCain and Obama are within that mainstream. We may not like what&#039;s happening now, but it ain&#039;t gonna end until the American people wake up and actually read the constitution and work to enforce it. Chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LIncoln did not crush an insurrection. That was merely northern propaganda turned agitprop.</p>
<p>The FedGov has wildly overstepped its constitutional authority, and the overwhelming majority of the problem can be laid at the feet of Lincoln. We can complain about calling the POTUS CiC, but Lincoln laid the foundation and was the titular head of the first leftwing party. Hamilton laid that foundation, but his party didn&#8217;t succeed until 1865.</p>
<p>Alas, both McCain and Obama are within that mainstream. We may not like what&#8217;s happening now, but it ain&#8217;t gonna end until the American people wake up and actually read the constitution and work to enforce it. Chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RebeccaH</title>
		<link>http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/11/02/war-is-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-76894</link>
		<dc:creator>RebeccaH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.julescrittenden.com/?p=6668#comment-76894</guid>
		<description>What a delicate little flower is our Glenn.  I&#039;m not sure about the &quot;supreme authority of the President&quot; bit, but regarding turning civilians into soldiers... um... who does he think fought the American Revolution?  Or the Civil War, or WWI and II, or any subsequent war Americans were involved in?  Where does he think our present volunteer army came from?  I mean, they weren&#039;t &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; born in camouflage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a delicate little flower is our Glenn.  I&#8217;m not sure about the &#8220;supreme authority of the President&#8221; bit, but regarding turning civilians into soldiers&#8230; um&#8230; who does he think fought the American Revolution?  Or the Civil War, or WWI and II, or any subsequent war Americans were involved in?  Where does he think our present volunteer army came from?  I mean, they weren&#8217;t <i>all</i> born in camouflage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.julescrittenden.com @ 2010-07-30 04:57:01 -->