During the Cold War, there were many British (and U.S.) traitors who betrayed the secrets of both countries to the U.S.S.R. But, at the time, the U.S.S.R. was an enemy, and we expect our enemies to encourage and support such activities.

While I know of no evidence that Pollard was run directly by Israeli intelligence, Israel was the eager and silent beneficiary of Pollard's betrayal. I find it difficult to believe that this was not accomplished without at least some help and encouragement from Israel.

And it is more than a little disingenuous to lump the likes of Burgess' or Walker's betrayal to the U.S.S.R. with Pollard's betrayal to Israel. Unless this Is that what we expect from our closest, real ally!

Alright, here are the two amendments verbatim.



I disagree.  It also says unless prohibited by the States, as well.   Like the antis, you only read half of it.

Face it, you hate Israel and possibly your own country, and will twist anything and everything to try to prove your point.

And now YOU say that a preponderance would agree with you whereas earlier you said the numbers didn't mean anything.



and



You love to insult people and try to pretend that you are smarter than most.  I will admit you are pretty smart.  It takes a lot of creativeness to come up with all your 'reasons', your smoke and mirrors, to to make it seem that you are arguing a Constitutional matter, when it is all just really a blind hatred for Israel.  It really doesn't matter what the Constitution or the Bible (that you love to quote in your anti-Israel tirades) says, for if you could not attempt, and fail mind you, to make one of them say what you want, you would find something else to hide behind, something else to mask your outright hatred of Israel.  Nothing else matters, even to the point, by your own admission, of not caring if you are siding with radical, Islamic, murdering, terrorists.

What!! No choice for "None of the Above"??
Fact of the matter is, we have no idea who our "allies" are cause the only time you find that out is when you get knocked on your ass! Wait till we're down with someone's hands at our throat and see where your "allies" are....

Sickening that I had to place Britain over Israel.  When was the last time Israel did something for us?

Omit Germany and I would hane to say all the above...

Although the Germans have damn good MREs,

Larry, our Constitution ENUMERATES the powers of the federal govt. If it's not in the Constitution, then they can't do it! The question is, where is the authority in the Constitution to take and send citizens money over seas, (or anywhere else for that matter). OR, are you one of those who think it's a "living" document??

Tony Blair would send the Queen into battle if we asked him.

Larry, you sure like to use the words "hate", and "bigot" a lot. Good words when you are on the defensive, and out of ammo, (if you are argueing for a liberal audience). And you really should read the 10th again, you seriously mis-understand it.

for those of you bashing canada for harbouring draft dodgers, please remeber that many canadian men joined the US army for Vietnam (10,000 men) and also Korea (no number known).

Canada has stood behind the US at every phone call that was made to her,and the USA repeatedly keeps trying to grind us under thier boot heels.

Article II Section 2. 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; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

[red]He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors,[/red] other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments

Article I Section 8. [red]The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;[/red] but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

[red]To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.[/red]

BLA BLA BLA I HATE JEWS BLA BLA (JACK ASS)

Anyway.........good poll idea,what about Jamaca?
I think they love us[<]:)]

Let's review the US Constitution gives the President the power to conduct foriegn policy. It says so, it list Treaty ratification, and appointment of ambassadors.

The Congress has the power to tax, and spend. the Consitution doesn't limit what the Congress can DECIDE TO SPEND MONEY ON, except for the enumerated circumstances. Congress can also regulate trade between the States and Foriiegn Countries.

In other words the President has the power to conduct foriegn policy, and Congress gets to pass a budget, with very few limitations. I don't see where Congresses spending authority is limited to not giving money to Israel.

Originaly posted by PaulLaVanway

("Had to vote for Britain----IMHO, Israel's use of Jonathan Pollard to try and steal U. S. secrets disqualifies them".)

Are you Kidding....Have you ever heard of the Zimmerman Telegram.

A little bit of British Spycraft meant to draw us into WWI.

Have to agree with Oly M4gery on this one. Congress holds the purse strings, and is not prohibited from doing anything they damn well please with our tax dollars. If we don't like how they're doing it, the first Tuesday in November is the time to gripe about it.

Ukraine.  We buy their nuclear weapons...

Serbia.  They gave their all to cover for Clinton.

Sudan.  They sell us oil, and we let them keep slaves.

China.  They liked the M14 so much, they made some too.

Yes, but we only want to count the ones who HAVEN'T fled the U.S. to avoid jail sentences for treason or espionage on behalf of their real employer, Israel.

OlyM4gery -

Kudos for citing Constitutional references.

You make good points, but your statement as follows is misguided (IMO):

[i]Consitution doesn't limit what the Congress can DECIDE TO SPEND MONEY ON, except for the enumerated circumstances.[/i]

The reality is JUST the opposite - its is NOT that Congress / the President have all powers except those specifically enumerated that they are NOT allowed to have, its that they have [u]NO POWERS except for the ones [b]specifically enumerated that they DO[/b] have.[/u]

As the Tenth Amendment says, if NOT specifically enumerated as a POWER of the Congress or the President, ALL POWERS are reserved to the states or to the people.

And I FULLY support EVERYONE's  right to write that $10,000,000 annual check to Israel if they wish.

But to steal MY tax dollars to fund "your" pet project is NOT what America, or Conservatism is all about.

We all get lost sometimes in the pragmatism and consequences of a particular action, rather than the rightness or wrongness. Admittedly, cutting of ALL foreign aid (to ALL nations, NOT just Israel) will have dire consequeences for some people. But UNLESS we get our entire policy, both foreign and domestic, back in, line with teh Constitution, we open a Pandora's Box, which we hold while standing on a slippery slope.

Admitedly, I am a strict constructionist. But any position other than strict construction, any position which allows for STEALING tax dollars from hard working taxpayers so they can be sent to our ally du jour ALSO allows for the stealing of tax dollars for national socialized medicine, homosexuality normalization in public schools, public funding of abortion, and an endless list of other socialist and marxist objectives.

Let me add one more thing - "commerce" is what happens between corporations, of differring nations in this instance. Commerce DOES NOT include foreign aid in the form of humanitarian supplies, military ordnance, or just outright gifts at taxpayers expense. THAT is NOT commerce - its called welfare.

As such, humanitarian aid, ordnance, etc (at taxpayers expense, specifically) is unConstitutional.

Post from 71-Hour_Achmed -

And just how many would that be?

C'mon hazard a guess at the number you believe to be correct.

Eric The(Ain'tHoldingMyBreath)Hun[>]:)]

Why Germany? They are out there in Afganistan with us.

Av.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and [red]provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States[/red].....

If the President enter into treaties or pacts with Israel, and Congress ratififies the treaties and pacts, or feels it is in the interest of the United States to supply assistance to another Country I believe they have that authority.

Go Australia!

And I believe that UNLESS the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that have the power to do that, then they DO NOT have the power to do that.

Like I say, I'm a strict constructionist.

"General welfare" is too often abused to mean anything and everything I think is cool. Socialized medicine is for the "general welfare." Controlling the means of agriculture and of production (Marxism defined) is for the "general welfare." Its GOT to stop SOMEHWERE. In my estimation, it STOPS with the SPECIFICALLY enumerated powers.

ANYTHING beyond the specifically enumerated powers places our nation on a slippery slope, holding an opened Pandoras Box.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

(NOTE: Above applies to ALL foreign alliances, NOT just Israel)

[red]He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors,[/red]

Again that silly Consitution thingy...... Says the President with the advice and consent of the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE TREATIES. It doesn't place any limits on what the treaties may be in regardg to.

So President-Makes treaties on the behalf of the US with the advice, consent, and ratification of the Senate.

THAT IS AN ENUMERATED POWER, there are no limits placed on the power to make treaties, other than the "oversight" of the Senate.

OlyM4gery -


What's going on today is WELL beyond "making treaties."

You'd have to read contemporary writings to get the impact of what "treaties" really means in the Constitution (just as we read contemporary documents to get the meanings of "people" "militia" "arms" etc etc mean in 2A.)

Further, I belive history prior to 1880 (some 100 years, and 120 years CLOSER to the Founders original intent) will show that "treaties" basically represents non-agression pacts - NOT the sending of BILLIONS of dollars annually globally all over the world.

You simply CANNOT find the USA sending billions of dollars all over the world, based on our "treaties" PRIOR to the 20th Century - a time period when globalization, and NOT US sovereignty came to dominate the political landscape.

Good discussion tho. You've forced me to think.

The Industrial Revolution.
The emergence of Communism.
The United States becoming the most powerful Nation on Earth.
ICBMs.

Alot of things have happened since 1880.

Ask yourselves this:

Do you think that the United States is the most powerful Nation on Earth because of...

A) our positive attributes?

or  

B) our negative attributes?

I think it's our positive attributes that enabled us to become so powerful, both economically and militarily.

We can't go back to the way things were in 1880.
Even if we wanted to.  Pining away for the good old days is futile.

I beleive we are the most p[owerful nation on earth BECAUSE of the policies we held PRIOR TO 1880.

The time period Since 1880 has actually been dominated by the decline of our nation -  involvements in the Balkans, Social Security, Stalins Five Year plans that we funded, etc etc.

Basically 80% (est. but definately more than half ) of what we've been involved in globally since 1880 has been bad for this nation.

The overly-simplistic statement that "we can't go back to the 1880's" is both obvious, and misleading.

I'm not saying go back to horse drawn carriages - I'm saying go back to where the raw, naked, unapologetic furtherance of American sovereignty (and NOT globalization and Balkanization of the USA) is the driving motivation of our foreign policy.

You mean like the treaties we made with France in order for them to support our little Revolution?? That was military aid in the form of the French Navy and monetary support for the Continental Army.

We were not a world power then. We are now.

If those "policies we held PRIOR TO 1880" are what allowed us to become this powerful, then they must have still been in effect, throughout the period of our ascendence.  They must still be in effect, therefore, today.
The mere memory of "policies we held PRIOR TO 1880" is not enough to create the most powerful nation in the history of this planet.
No how, no way.

That's EXACTLY what I mean.

Treaties that benefit us.

Even so, much of the writings of the Founding Fathers subsequently spoke of the back edge of the sword from such treaties, Washington's Farewell Address among them.

And the next hundred years showed scant little involvements in the affairs of other nations.

The treaty with France was a necessary evil. And I dare say it came with a price.

Enuf of these policies  were around and in effect (not just a "mere memory" )from 1880 - 1940 to carry us shortly into world power status.

And today we see the nation veering from them, and the nation in a state of decline.

I am willing to investigate whether there is a causality there. I see TOO MUCH of an unwillingness to conduct such an investigation.



And the

Well if they were OK with acepting military aid via a treaty, don't you think they would also consider the opposite??

I don't remeber the US setting itself up to do things that were against it's interest. Don't remember any sales of military hardware to the USSR during the Cold War etc.

Generally the US acts in a manner that is clearly in it's best interest. I think the problem you are trying to attack is that you don't think the support of Israel is in America's interest. I don't think that jumps to the level of a Constitutional Conundrum however.  

Post from OLY-M4gery -

You are correct, Sir!

As I've stated earlier, all Presidential Administrations since the creation of Israel have considered support of Israel (from a little to a lot) as in the interests of US security!

Any arguments you [u]might[/u] have with their decisions would be one of objective issues only, and would not rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis by any stretch of the imagination.

Eric The(ThanksOLY!)Hun[>]:)]

But Eric, you are forgetting about the svengali-like control that the Jews, and the Jewish controlled media has on our government, and our very thoughts.
They MAKE the US do things against OUR interests.
AND, of course they're doing all of this for money, because they're not only sneaky...
...they're greedy, as well.
Where have you been?
[;)]

1. I use the word you mentioned because they are the truth.  They do not mean one is on the defensive when they are the truth.  All this arguing about what the Constitution says is just a smokescreen by those that hate Israel.

2.  Maybe YOU should read the 10th again.  Maybe my interpretation is correct rather than yours.  You and others like to imply that you are more intelligent than others and, therefore, your interpretation is correct.  And NO, I don't think it is a living document.

3.  If you will notice, I have not responded to any of your posts in quite some time as I have chosen to ignore you, partly because of your insulting insinutations of your superiority to those who disagree with you.  Please return the courtesy of not responding to my posts.

Post from Cinncinatus -

Yes, but with all their power they could not even get one of their own elected as Vice-President in 2000 by simply making certain they captured the electoral votes of...Florida!

What an easy setup they were working with! All they had to do was win Florida!

Talk about the 'luck of the Jews'![:D]

Eric The(Bewildered)Hun[>]:)]

It appears OLY's just found the 'Elastic Clause'. BUT, this does not mean the gov't can do whatever it wants, the elastic clause was simply a provision made by our founding fathers (since they could not forsee all) to make new laws, when necessary, to keep the gov't in proper working order.

The Constitution must be read, applied as a whole. You can not take 1 sentence or word and cut it from the rest of the document.

There are checks and balances everywhere. That clause only says if the power is delegated to the US Congress can do what is reasonable to exercise that power. It is not absolute. There are limitations on power throughout the document.

Because no matter what power Congress has listed it can not use it's power to take away "the People's" Rights.

Yes there is certain "stretch" to allow the Government, the States, or the People to use thier Rights or powers, but not to overstep their Rights, or to diminish the Rights of others.

I see that Amendments IX and X very clearly state that, in regards to the US's, and States Rights/Powers.

By the same token if the US has certain enumerated powers, it can exercise those powers.

Britain is our only real military ally at this time. We have no other types of allies.

Whoa! When has Israel EVER come to OUR aid?

I can't believe how many people voted for Israel. Russia is more of a military ally than Israel is.


And you won't release criminals who flee from the US to Canada who might qualify for the death penalty. AND you let terrorists into your country even more freely than the US does. You accuse the US of meddling in YOUR affairs? You can keep your 10,000 soldiers, their price is too high.

Canada doesn't beleive in the death penalty and wont send people off to be killed. If you had better relations with Canada and you actually stop breaking the rules of the free trade agreement we might actually send you them.



Thats why all the highjackers on Sept 11th never spent a day in Canada. I can see how our system failled now, because your laws allow people to crash planes into buildings and ours get terrorist arrested at the CAN/US border before they can commit a crime, its all our fault then, right?



The price our men are paying in Afghanistan and payed in Vietnam for a ungratefull country is too high.

We need more allies like Israel.

Then we could pay out more than 80+ Billions of our hard earned money.

We could get more of our ships purposely sunk.

We could get more of our politicians bought and paid for.

Yep, we need more allies like Israel!

I can't belive that 41% of the people that read this forum picked Israel over UK and Canada.  And I thought those people on the Democrat Underground were morons.  Sorry, I don't mean that all AR15.com people are morons, only 41% of a sample of 101.

It's EXECUTED, Scary. There IS a difference. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the death penalty or not - they're our prisoners who have escaped, not yours! Does the United States insist that your execute your prisoners tried by your courts? Sure we'd like you to, but we won't deny extradition if you refuse to execute them. Why do you think you can tell us what we can do in our courts?

Stop dumping your stuff over here and we'll lower the tarriffs. Don't expect us to play fair if you won't. And I seriously doubt you'd send back escaped prisoners if we dropped the tariffs. Canadian arrogance wouldn't permit it.

I would much rather you keep your troops home than have them killed by friendly fire. Next offer Bush should just say "no thanks". We wouldn't want you to capture Osama Bin Laden and then refuse to hand him over because he'd be executed, now would we? It's not like we need anybody's help, Bush just wants to create the illusion of allies and a "coalition".

My vote goes to a country that isn't on the on list. This country stays out of our business and we stay out of theirs. We don't have to pay them billions of dollars every year to this country just to get them to be our "friend". We don't have our ships being attacked by this country. We don't have terrorists blowing up U.S. assets because we are friends of this country.

My vote goes to Switzerland.

Executed is the same as murder under Canadian Federal law. No prisoner is allowed to be executed and we don't send people off to be executed, if we did we would have to send back political prisoners from 3rd world shit holes so that they could be killed.

Your on Canadian land you live by Canadian law, US law is not international law.



We are allowed under the free trade agreement to do as we please when it comes to subsidizing our products, if your country didn't like it they didn't have to sign it. And fuck, if you don't like having cheaper lumber, and less expensive houses, go right the fuck ahead.



On the subject of Osama Bin Laden, you guys had him, the Taliban where ready to hand him over to a international tribunal, but nooo, you guys didn't want that, and now look what you got.

Australia has always backed you guys in every endeavour, we may be small but its the size of the fight in the dog not the size of the dog in the fight!

Post from scarecrow -

[b]Bullsh|t, bullsh|t, bullsh|t![/b]

You are so full of it, I can't believe you don't slosh when you walk![:D]

The Taliban, my northern buddy, at the very last minute, announced they were thinking about handing him over to trial by an Islamic Court in Afghanistan, made up of Islamic jurists from the Islamic world.

Oh yeah, that's what should have satisfied the US desire for justice in the case of Sept 11th!

Now just how stupid is that?

You know what you guys should do is to take a page from Prince, that POS from Minneapolis, and rename your country as:

[b]'The nation formerly known as the Dominion of Canada.'[/b]

It's the only country I know of where you can arrive at the border and carefully explain to the Canadian officials that the passport that you are traveling under is a [b]forgery[/b], and yet still be permitted into the country!

Eric The(GotGuns?No,IMean[u]Real[/u]Guns?)Hun[>]:)]

WOW!!! It can happen also if you are willing to get into Belgium!

That isn't what was reported on the news, please post a refference to what you stated above before I beleive you and not what I heard on TV.



Again, post sources of your information. I still find it funny that you talk about Canada being such a easy access to terrorist yet all the Sept 11th terrorist had nothing to do with Canada, lived in the USA, and where completely and legally free to take flight courses and fly planes into buildings all in the USA.

And they arent finding Canadians who joined into terrorist training camps in Afghanistan either.

I hear lots of "Blame Canada" being screamed on this board, but I guess its easier to say whats wrong with others when there is something so obviously wrong about yourselves.

Line 'em up EricThe(AllTalkNoContent)Hun.

I am amazed that more people didn't vote for australia.  Not only do they continually help us (and, more generally, agree with us) but they do so eagerly.