Oh I see. So he was giving an order that he knew couldn’t be kept… sure.
And the “few” who were here on 9/11 ?
1 Like
They were allowed here, they were being observed, they were taking flying lessons and weren’t interested in learning how to land and take off…
So they were not interested in take offs or landings. Well no flag there. Who the fuck was doing the observing?
The Bush administration. The ones that used the attack ultimately to begin the so called war on terror that has given us the forever wars that Trump has correctly observed have cost us 8trillion wasted so far.
The 9/11 attackers were allowed here under the same understanding of Jihad as still exists today.
UPDATED: AUG 29, 2018
ORIGINAL: AUG 30, 2017
Government Terrorist Trackers Before 9/11: Higher Ups Wouldn’t Listen
Before 9/11, only a few dedicated law-enforcement and intelligence agents understood the enormity of the terrorists’ ambitions. And they had a hard time convincing their bosses.
Do you think there is no danger to America from repeated criticisms of the President?
Not to get off track; but how much was wasted on LBJ’s War on Poverty?
1 Like
If LBJ’s effort was sincere and genuine, I can’t fault him for trying.
I’m not going to waste much effort if some liberal calls Trump fat and ugly. Any goofball can do that.
That is how Conservatives have long regarded the minor indignities the Left and Liberals have subjected America to.
And now we wonder how things got so bad in America.
No criticism, just sayin.
One of the things that is cited as instrumental in helping Mayor Rudy Giuliani reduce crime in NYC was to enforce the laws against minor crimes like throwing rocks through windows of vacant buildings.
Having too thin a skin can clutter up a forum like this. If a liberal thinks that he’s clever by repeating some stale joke about Trump for the millionth time, I don’t think he’s impressing anyone who matters.
I also don’t bother when the village idiot calls me stupid, unless there’s some humor to be had. Often, there is.
I like you and mean no disrespect.
But, our society is not as bad as it is because we failed to address the BIG issues as much as because we let the little things slide.
Quite a conundrum, isn’t it? Many police departments are so overwhelmed they simply cannot chase the little things so criminals think they can just get away with whatever petty crime they commit.
I just spent a heck of a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) to plant a garden of flowers that parallels the street in front of my house. I noticed today that someone cut all of the flowers that I had taken so much joy from recently blooming.
I have an avocado tree in my front yard that will probably produce fruit this year as well. I’m sure people will think they are free to help themselves to that, too.
I know these are the “little things” but they reflect a such lack of respect for others. I really and truly blame parents for not teaching morals and values as well as a lack of fear of the law that people feel they have the right to take what isn’t theirs with no repercussion.
1 Like
I can’t spend my life fighting every little thing. I follow the old adage “Don’t sweat petty things and don’t pet sweaty things”
I stopped watching the NFL I was so upset over Kaepernick’s antics. The 49ers used to be my team, now they can go to hell. I dropped AARP when they made a deal with the devil on Obamacare. I’m not going to shun a DeNiro film because he’s an asshole. I’d end up living in a cave.
I guess any goofball could call Obama names too.
To the notion that criticism of the president is harmful to the country…
Presidents have ALWAYS been criticized, mocked and ridiculed, and they ALWAYS will be.
Israel did 911. You cannot take history. com seriously.
Bin Laden was hospitalized in the American Hospital in Beirut in September and died in December 2001.
He was just a stooge and had nothing to do with 911.
Just like Tim McVeigh. Bags of fertilizers on the small truck parked outside destroys a building? Come on.
If you would read the things I post for your edification you might save yourself from looking silly and allow me not to bring to your attention the things that hold you back as a poster.
This explains how the criticism of Trump is completely different in nature than the criticism of Obama.
And the next time you fail to recognize this I will remind you of your failure to read and digest the things I post to help you progress.
Incidentally, there is a side benefit to ME if you DONT read this.
It allows me to post this info to help educate more of the patriots.
So, either way, my side progresses.
You only progress by keeping up with your opponent’s developments.
Otherwise you fall further and further behind.
If you read this you will do yourself a favor.
As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate.
This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.
A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.
Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.
Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government.
They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.
Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.
The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection.
There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process.
That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.
In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege.The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public.
There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.
One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law.
When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him.
What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts.
The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.
Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.
In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end.
They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard.
The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?
For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.
Republicans and Conservatives never did any of these posted things to Obama.
Not necessarily. The American public never knew that FDR couldn’t walk because the media did its best to cover it.
1 Like