It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rep. Nadler: Obama 'Absolute Monarch’

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Link


Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., voiced his displeasure in the strongest terms on the floor of the House Thursday. Congress must restrict funds for the Libyan operation, he argued.

"We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch," Nadler said. "And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don't want to become an empire instead of a republic."

Nadler stressed that he wasn’t just talking about Obama.


Rep. Nadler could not have been more correct on this. For decades now the control over the issue of war has been drifting into the hands of the executive. We can see a few instances of that prior to World War II but the first real showing of executive control over war began with Harry Truman when he justified the intervention in the Koreas not because Congress gave him the war vote rather the United Nations did. That was the first war the United States engaged in without direct authorization from the Congress that I know of.

Ever since Truman set that precedent all of our Presidents have become emperors some more than others. Dwight Eisenhower was a man who did not particularly support war efforts so much of the US foreign meddling came through CIA coups under his President. John Kennedy was a staunch foreign policy hawk and that was one of the main differences between Kennedy and Nixon in the 1960 Presidential Election. Johnson was also a foreign policy hawk about the same as his predecessor. Nixon was not a military hawk or a dove he just followed in the tradition of a more intervention type of Eisenhower. Ford had too short of a presidency to really leave a mark. Carter was a moderate-to-dove on foreign policy issues. Reagan began the Neoconservative movement in America which solidified itself under the Bush, Sr. administration. Bill Clinton supported the intervention in the Balkans. George W. Bush was the Neoconservative of his time, supporting a war just about anywhere but he at least still addressed Congress about war prior to any engagements. Now Barack Obama is a carry on of the JFK-LBJ interventionism which Bush, Jr. also belonged too.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
WOW!

Calling it like it is...in public yet. Absolutely fantastic and hopefully now that it's out there others will follow and voice their opinions as well.

This Prez can be taken down if more stand up. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

SnF



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
There is a monarch involved with the Lybian war, but it is Saudi King Faud to teach Gadaffi-types a lesson.
Queen Elisabeth could also perhaps be supporting too.
Obama is the puppet only...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Founding Fathers specifically created the separation of powers because they had had enough of a monarchy.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Very true Misoir. Most people want to only point at Obama or Bush but it has been going on for a few generations. Part of the problem for them (the presidents) being that they had no real threats that they could effectively respond to, but at the same time needed to keep playing by the playbook established at Stone Mountain.



new topics

top topics
 
10

log in

join