The War in Libya has brought up some great questions about the Constitution and Americas Foreign Policy.  I have gathered a bunch of quotes and historical facts to show that what our President has done is in fact a violation of the Constitution.  The blame is not only on him as many Presidents before him have done the same, and Congress has not raised much dissent, except for a few like Ron and Rand Paul, Senator Lee, and a few others.  While I am saddened by the enforcement of the globalists agenda via our foreign policy, I am hopeful as I hear many Americans finally questioning what their government is doing.

WHO CAN DECLARE WAR

United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 11: "The Congress shall have power to....To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

This is by no means all of them but here are a few quotes regarding this section of the Constitution:

"A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the executive the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.  If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity." ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #24

"The President is to be the "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..." 

 

First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. 

 

Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.  The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States." ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #69

Mr. WILSON. The Declaration of Independence preceded the state constitutions. What does this declare? In the name of the people of these states, we are declared to be free and independent. The power of war, peace, alliances, and trade, are declared to be vested in Congress. ~ THE NOTES OF THE SECRET DEBATES OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, TAKEN By The Late Hon. ROBERT YATES, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND ONE OF THE DELEGATES FROM THAT STATE TO THE SAID CONVENTION

George Clinton: That the Congress shall not declare warwithout the concurrence of two thirds of the senators and representatives present in each house. ~ By order of the Convention. GEO. CLINTON, President. Attested. John M’Kesson, Ab. B. Banker,Secretaries., New York, Done in Convention, at Poughkeepsie, in the county of Duchess, in the state of New York, the 26th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1788.

Moved by Mr. SMITH.

Relative to the right of declaring war, —

“Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the Congress ought not to have the power or right to declare war, without the concurrence of two thirds of the members of each house.” ~ THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

The CHANCELLOR rose only to correct an error which had appeared in the course of the debate. It had been intimated that the Senate had a right to declare war. This was a mistake. The power could not be exercised except by the whole legislature; ~ THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Mr. M’KEAN: The framers of this Constitution wisely divided the legislative department between the two houses, subject to the qualified negative of the President of the United States, though this government embraces only enumerated powers. In a single state, annual elections may be proper; the more so, when the legislative powers extend to all cases; but in such an extent of country as the United States, and when the powers are circumscribed, there is not that necessity, nor are the objects of the general government of that nature as to be acquired immediately by every capacity. To combine the various interests of thirteen different states, requires more extensive knowledge than is necessary for the legislature of any one of them. Two years are therefore little enough for the members of the House of Representatives to make themselves fully acquainted with the views, the habits, and interests, of the United States. With respect to the Senate, when we consider the trust reposed in them, we cannot hesitate to pronounce that the period assigned to them is short enough; they possess, in common with the House of Representatives, legislative power; with its concurrence they also have power to declare war; ~ THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Gov. RANDOLPH: In England, the king declares war. In America, Congress must be consulted. In England, Parliament gives money. In America, Congress does it. There are consequently more powers in the hands of the people, and greater checks upon the executive here, than in England. ~ THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Mr. DAWSON: Congress, sir, have the power to declare war, and also to raise and support armies; ~ THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Mr. IREDELL: The king of Great Britain is not only the commander-in- chief of the land and naval forces, but has power, in time of war, to raise fleets and armies. He has also authority to declare war. The President has not the power of declaring war by his own authority, nor that of raising fleets and armies. These powers are vested in other hands. The power of declaring war is expressly given to Congress, that is, to the two branches of the legislature — the Senate, composed of representatives of the state legislatures, the House of Representatives, deputed by the people at large. They have also expressly delegated to them the powers of raising and supporting armies, and of providing and maintaining a navy. ~ DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Mr. STONE: The President is the commander-in-chief of the army and militia of the United States; but the ground is narrowed by the Senate being combined with him in making treaties; though even here the ground is reduced, because of the power combined in the whole legislature to declare war and grant supplies. ~ OPINIONS, SELECTED FROM DEBATES IN CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1836, INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, Removal By The President. — On The Bill For Establishing An Executive Department, To Be Denominated The Department Of Foreign Affairs. House of Representatives,June 16, 1789.

Mr. CALHOUN: Why, then, he asked, cannot Congress make peace? They have the power to declare war. All acknowledge this power. OPINIONS, SELECTED FROM DEBATES IN CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1836, INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, On The Commercial Treaty With Great Britain. House of Representatives,January 8, 1816.

Mr. BUCHANAN, (of Pennsylvania.): The Constitution has, in the same section and in the same terms, given to Congress the power to declare war, to borrow money, to raise and support armies, &c. Will any gentleman, however, undertake to say we are under an obligation to give life and energy to these powers, by bringing them into action? Will it be contended, because we possess the power of declaring war and of borrowing money, that we are under a moral obligation to embroil ourselves with foreign powers, or load the country with a national debt? Should any individual act upon the principle, that it is his duty to do every thing which he has the legal power of doing, he would soon make himself a fit citizen for a madhouse. ~ OPINIONS, SELECTED FROM DEBATES IN CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1836, Bankrupt Bill. House of Representatives,March 12, 1822.

OUR CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT VIOLATING CONSTITUTION

I do not believe that the war powers Resolution of 1973 is "in pursuance thereof." As stated before ...Congress has been given the specific power to Declare War in Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 11. Congress is prohibited by Article 6 paragraph 2 from giving that power to the President, Yet they have not declared war since WWII. The only way to do this, Constitutionally speaking, would be to amend the Constitution. In other words any legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, is thus rendered void by the Supremacy clause.

Article 6 paragraph 2 ( Supremacy Clause ): "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Note: The second use of the word Constitution in the above paragraph is not in reference to the United States Constitution but to the Constitution of any State. The Constitution was written in such a way as to make it explicit when it was referring to itself, like it does in the first use of Constitution in the above paragraph.

A few quotes from Constitutional debates regarding the Supremacy Clause:

McKean: Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws thus made in pursuance of the Constitution. ~ Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution

Gov. JOHNSTON: Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void. ~ DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

W. Davie: This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land...It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations. ~ THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

QUOTES REGARDING AMERICAS FOREIGN POLICY

"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has ABSTAINED from interference in the concerns of others, EVEN WHEN conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But SHE GOES NOT abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator ONLY OF HER OWN. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be NO LONGER the ruler of her own spirit..." ~ John Quincy Adams's 1821

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson March 4, 1801 inaugural address

"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." ~ President James Monroe 1823

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very ...remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities. ~ George Washington Farewell Address 1796

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye", was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. By the end of his career he had received 16 medals, five of which were for heroism. He is one of 19 people to twice receive the ,Medal of Honor one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions. He was an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism. In his 1935 book War is a Racket, he described the workings of the military-industrial complex.

WHAT IS OUR PRESIDENT DOING?

The President is only authorized to conduct war with a Declaration of war from Congress, so on what authority is our President acting?

To point out the hypocrisy: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping and actual or imminent threat to the nation." - candidate Obama, Dec 20th, 2007

This Campaign Rhetoric sounds just like the George Bush many of us forgot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9...SOVzMV2bc

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan took President Obama to task for his speech in an article titled "The Imperial Presidency.":

None of this makes any sense, except as an emotional response to an emergency. I understand the emotions, and sympathize with the impulse to help. But I can think of no worse basis for committing a country to war than such emotional and moral anxiety. One fears this is Bill Clinton's attempt to assuage his conscience over Rwanda, rather than Obama's judicious attempt to navigate the Arab 1848. And as Obama said things like "Qaddafi has a choice," did you not hear echoes of Bush and Saddam?

 

At least Bush argued that Saddam posed a threat to the US. No one can seriously argue that Qaddafi poses such a threat. To launch a war on these grounds is to set a precedent that would require a kind of global power and reach that not even the most righteous neocons have pushed for.

 

This military action is not in the interest of "national security." It's simply another example of imperial hubris - "Team America: World Police" coming again to "save the day" in order to make the world "safe for democracy."

 

Will Grigg exposes our Foreign Policy in an article titled "The War Machine on the East River":

"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time," insisted the late Rep. Henry Hyde in 2002, as the regime of Bush the Lesser prepared to invade and occupy Iraq. "Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the president, 'Use your judgment.'" Having Congress declare war, Hyde concluded, would be "inappropriate, anachronistic – it isn’t done anymore."

 

Were Hyde still alive, it would be interesting to ask him this question: Is it more appropriate and up-to-date for the United States to be committed to a war completely unrelated to our national interest by a synod of foreign diplomats meeting in a room on the banks of the East River in New York? That is what happened today when the UN Security Council, acting in a role equivalent to the Mafia "Commission" granting permission for an inter-mob hit, voted to "authorize" war in Libya. This was done in a fashion entirely uncontaminated by the congressional interference that militarist conservatives like Hyde found so disagreeable.

 

Like most modern conservatives, Hyde's conspicuous reverence for the U.S. Constitution did not extend to the document's unambiguous provision that Congress alone has the power to commit the U.S. Government to war by way of a formal, explicit declaration. Conservatives of his type are stridently committed to strict construction of the Constitution regarding every function of the federal government, save only the costliest and most destructive one.

 

Regarding the war-making power – which Madison described as the greatest of all "enemies of public freedom" – conservatives sound a great deal like FDR, who dismissed constitutional limitations on federal power as the archaic residue of "horse-and-buggy thinking."

 

Warfare "encompasses and develops the germ" of every variety of domestic tyranny, Madison warned. It breeds "armies, and debts, and taxes," which are "the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few"; this is why "no nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continued warfare." Madison's indictment, while sound, neglects one aspect of perpetual war's full-spectrum malignity: Continual warfare is, AT BEST, A PROGRAM FOR THE INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION OF A NATIONS INDEPENDENCE.

 

Thus it is that with Washington's tacit blessing, Saudi troops are helping Bahrain's U.S.-equipped security forces to massacre peaceful protesters. This was done, once again, to secure an Arab League resolution asking the Security Council to authorize a "no-fly zone" in Libya, which the public was told would be a "limited" engagement. Of course, as Rep. Ron Paul points out, a "no-fly zone" is an act of war. When warplanes invade and occupy a country's air space, and the pilots are given orders to kill, foreplay has ended and intromission has occurred.

 

Well, as long as we're in, we might as well do it to the hilt. In recognition of this principle, the Obama administration has abandoned any pretense of restraint, urging the Security Council for a resolution "authorizing" a "range of actions" going well beyond deployment of warplanes over Libya. This meant going the Full Monty in the form of a Chapter Seven resolution – the UN equivalent of a formal declaration of war. As the war-crazed shrike serving as U.S. Secretary of State pointed out, this means that the U.S. and whatever coalition it can assemble will soon be bombing Libya. And once again, Congress played no role in this process.

 

It is abominable that 535 people in Washington assume they have the moral authority to compel Americans to make sacrifices of their lives and property in the service of what Daniel Webster (of all people) described as "the folly and wickedness" of the wars arranged by our rulers. Although requiring Congress to declare war didn't make those conflicts morally defensible, it did put those responsible on record. Now, however, such matters are disposed of by foreign diplomats and bureaucrats who are distant, unreachable, and beyond accountability of any kind this side of eternity. 

WHY I AM A NON-INTERVENTIONIST

What I attempt to lay out below is a brief overview of a few points in history displaying how our intervention ( Since early 1900's ) has lead to more intervention, which in turn has lead to more intervention. This almost always seems to create as bad or worse of an injustice, than the supposed "injustice" we set out to stop.  It is this poor track record of government failures, and my new understanding of Natural Law, which has lead me to a foreign policy position of non-interventionism.

EVENTS LEADING TO WWII

 While not directly related here is an extremely interesting story regarding how America has treated some of its veterans ( Bonus Army ):

The Bonus Army, some 15,000 to 20,000 World War I veterans from across the country, marched on the Capitol in June 1932 to request early payment of cash bonuses due to them in 1945. The Great Depression had destroyed the economy, leaving many veterans jobless.  Smedley Butler was in attendance.  Butler arrived with his young son Thomas, in mid July the day before the official eviction by the Hoover administration. He walked through the camp and spoke to the veterans; he told them that they were fine soldiers and they had a right to lobby Congress just as much as any corporation. He and his son spent the night and ate with the men, and in the morning Butler gave a speech to the camping veterans. He instructed them to keep their sense of humor and cautioned them not to do anything that would cost public sympathy.  

 

By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton's troopers turned and charged. "Shame, Shame" the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.

 

By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity."  During the conflict several veterans were killed or injured and Butler declared himself a "Hoover-for-Ex-President-Republican."  Public opinion denounced President Herbert Hoover for the resulting bloodshed and helped force him from office.

1. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm
2. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm203.html

The conditions for Adolf Hitlers rise to power, were a direct outcome of the peace conference in Paris. Which I point out was the entire reason in which President Woodrow Wilson dragged us into war. Wilson explained “as head of a nation participating in the war, the president of the United States would have a seat at the peace table, but if he remained the representative of a neutral country, he could at best only 'call through a crack in the door.'”

In a speech calling for war, Wilson argued that the United States would fight for moral principles. The struggle was not merely against Germany in particular, but also against autocracy in general. Wilson believed that democratic regimes were inherently less warlike than regimes in which, as the president described them, grave matters of foreign policy were decided by a ruling cabal that was sheltered and aloof from public opinion.  Ironic that he described how our foreign policy is decided isnt it?

Wilson also spoke of submarine warfare as “a war against all mankind.” This claim is not substantiated by America's experience in later wars. “There is no moral onus for using it in the only way that gives submarines a decent chance for survival against their surface enemies-torpedoing enemy ships without warning. This surprise-attack approach was the policy adopted by the U.S. Navy during World War II. No one, including America's Japanese or German enemies, called the practice a war against mankind.” ~ Thomas Flemin

Wilson also promised that Americans' treatment of ethnic Germans who lived among them would prove to the world that the Unites States had no quarrel with the German people, only with German government. Instead German Americans were harassed and demonized. Symphony orchestras refused to preform works by Beethoven and other German-speaking composers; in many states it became illegal to teach German in schools, and in two states it was illegal to speak German in public. German language books were burned; “disloyal professors were dismissed; and sauerkraut was renamed “liberty cabbage.”

AMERICAS PROVOCATION OF WWII

During the two and a half years of WWII in which the US was not involved President Franklin portrayed himself as trying to keep America out of the war.

“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” October 1940 Franklin D Roosevelt

Several days later: “The first purpose of our foreign policy, is to keep our country out of war.”

While giving lip service to a foreign policy of peace, he was busy behind the scenes making secret pledges to the British, provoking Germany into attacking the United States ( and then lying about it ), and assisting the British in ways that violated the spirit of American neutrality legislation.

Check out the Greer incident, in which a German submarine clearly acted in self defense against a provocation by the US. Winston Churchill confided privately to aides, that the president had made clear to him that he intended to become more and more provocative, and that, in Churchill's words, “everything was to be done to provoke an incident.”

FDR lied to the American people with claims that he possessed a “secret map” showing a Nazi invasion plan for South America. Americans were supposed to believe that Hitlers forces, which could not get across the English Channel, were poised to cross the Atlantic Ocean and take over an entire continent. FDR made the whole thing up.

The argument goes that the American public was to short-sighted to appreciate the threat posed by Nazi Germany. “[I]f Roosevelt had the right to do this, to whom is the right denied? At what point are we to cease to demand that our leaders deal honestly and truthfully with us?” ~ FDR biographer John T. Flynn

FDR also provoked the Japanese, by authorizing the sale of weapons to the Chinese in 1937. FDR conveniently avoided the neutrality legislation by refraining from finding a war to be in progress in China. By 1941 FDR froze Japanese assets in the US, and coordinated boycotts of key goods, especially oil, which Japan needed to acquire from abroad. FDR then refused to negotiate with the Japanese.

“We in the embassy, had no doubt that the Prime Minister would have agreed, at his meeting [ which fell through] with the President, to the eventual withdrawal of all Japanese forces from all of Indochina and from all of China with the face-saving expedient of being permitted to retain a limited number of troops in North China and Inner Mongolia respectively.” ~ Joseph C. Grew, American ambassador to Japan

Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary, that the question had come down to how “to maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot.”

The administration was “doing everything they can to get us into the war through the Japanese back door.” ~ President Hoover 1941

WWII AFTERMATH

WWII was won at a cost of fifty million lives and unimaginable destruction. Germany, Italy, and Japan were defeated, to be sure, and their fascistic and militaristic governments overthrown. By 1949 China was under Communist tyranny of Mao Tse-Tung, perhaps the greatest mass murderer of all time. American interventionists who had sought to oust Japan from China, discovered that indeed something worse than Japanese control of China. The US and Britain discovered the price of siding with Stalin, which was having to live with the consequences of a hostile Soviet Union.

FDR spoke favorably about the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. He claimed that freedom of religion was a fundamental right in Stalin's Russia, even though he knew it had virtually ceased to exist under the violently atheistic Communist regime. When former US ambassador spoke frankly to FDR about the true nature of the Soviet Regime and of Stalin himself, just before the president was about to meet with Stalin and Winston Churchill at the Tehran Conference of 1943, FDR replied:

“Bill, I dont dispute your facts. They are accurate. I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry [Hopkins] says he's not, and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country. And I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.”

Regarding the Yalta conference of February 1945, Admiral William Leahy, who had been there, later told FDR that the arrangement agreed upon was “so elastic that the Russians can stretch it all the way from Yalta to Washington.”

“Based on his comments to Cardinal Spellman and other Americans, and from his explicit giving of a free hand to Stalin in Poland and the Baltic States at the Tehran Conference, in fact FDR really did not give a damn whether the people in these countries got anything more.”

In order to persuade Stalin to enter the war against Japan, FDR granted the Soviet Union control of Manchuria, the province of China whose occupation by Japan in the early 1930's had provoked the wrath of American interventionists. There Stalin was able to provide safe haven for the Chinese communists and outfit them with captured Japanese military equipment, thus paving the way for the Communist takeover of China in 1949.

Among the most egregious and shameful examples of placating Stalin was Operation Keelhaul. As part of the Yalta agreement of 1945, Russian prisoners of war liberated from German camps by British or American troops were returned to Russia, just as American and British POW' liberated by the Russians were returned to their respective countries. But unlike British and American prisoners, the Russian prisoners did not want to go home. They would have to be coerced or tricked into doing so. Although this decision might disturb some, it is certainly no more difficult to understand than Churchill's decision to side with the mass-murdering Stalin against Hitler. The Russian soldiers tried to free their country of Communism. And in order to ingratiate themselves to Stalin, FDR and then Truman betrayed at least a MILLION anti-Communist Russians by delivering them into the hands of the Soviet dictator. Repatriation of Russian POWs turned out to be a ghastly and grisly process. Some of the men simply committed suicide rather than return.

This was also carried out on American Soil. About 200 Soviet nationals were among the prisoners of war at Fort Dix, New Jersey, in mid-1945; they and been in German uniform when Americans captured them. They were taken prisoner with the solemn promise that under NO circumstances would they be repatriated to the Soviet Union, where they faced certain death. That promise was betrayed so that the American president might be faithful to Uncle Joe. They were tear-gassed and forced aboard a Soviet ship, at which point the stunned men fought with all their strength, and even began to damage the ship's engines to the point at which the vessel was no longer sea worthy. Later they then drugged their coffee with barbiturates, and in a comma like sleep were returned to Russia.

FINAL COMMENTS

We sure have done a great job of propping up a murderous regime in Europe, of which lead to the Cold War, which has lead our current problems. We sure are good at creating our future enemies.

I would also like to know if we are attacking Libya for “humanitarian reasons”, why has the US turned its eyes from Zimbabweans persecuted by President Mugabe, Chechens threatened by separatist conflict with Russia, Tibetans subjugated by the Chinese Communist government, Rwandan Tutus slaughtered by the Hutus, Soviet citizens under Stalin and his successors, the horrors of Chairman Mao Zedong's Great Leap forward and Chinese Cultural Revolution, etc?

Nothing in the text, subtext, purpose, or spirit of the Constitution authorizes the government to coerce or employ its citizens to assist in securing liberty or self-government to foreigners in a foreign country by military force or otherwise. The only morality known to the United States government is honoring the Constitution—An imperative that is not discretionary. When the United States secured its independence from Great Britain, not a single American statesmen insinuated that the nation would be made safer by seeking to transform the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese Empire, or the Russian or French Despotism's into democracies. The Founding Fathers knew that democracies could easily become as belligerent as the worst of tyrannies. ~ Bruce Fein

Also here as a great video describing the difference between how we should Constitutionally handle an non-state aggressor vs a state aggressor. Letters of marque and reprisal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFjEGst1yZg

Here is Ron Pauls thoughts on Libya:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R325K6alVlA
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3coOk1bLmd8

The preceding quotes and information was taken from several sources:

1. American Empire Before the Fall ~ Bruce Fein
2. Politically Incorrect Guide to American History ~ Thomas Woods
3. The Making of America ~ W Cleon Skousen
4. The Debates in the Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution ( Volume 1-5 ) ~ Jonathan Elliot
5. Federalist Papers
6. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm203.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Later_years
8. http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w201.html  "The War Machine on the East River"
9. 
   http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/the-imperial-presid
   ent.html  "The Imperial Presidency."

Lucas Marshall

VA 4th Region Coordinator

Campaign For Liberty