Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Senators Open letter To Iran


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Patrick Buchanan is living in a liberal dream world. Somewhat like Nelville and his appeasment to Adolh Hitler.

What America needs is a Winston Churchill.  

​Buchanan is one of the few remaining old school conservatives.

What America needs is leadership that thinks rationally, constitutionally and for the best of the country; not those which base their positions on emotions, political expediency, polls, personal enrichment, Party politics and such things.

Conservatives were once cautious about the military option. All other options were considered first. It's the neo-cons and liberals which are more prone to war, not actual conservatives.

Do we invade Iran even when our own intelligence agencies tell us Iran has no nuclear weapons program? When Iran is no direct threat to America? When, if Iran were to suddenly present a sudden danger, we could strike Iran within a matter of hours? When, if faced with sudden danger, Israel is more than capable of fending off any Iranian threat?

Why plunge our nation into another bankrupting war unless such is clearly necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Korea built their bomb from a 5MW Nuclear Power Plant and the simplest form of centrifuge technology of the time. Iran has the spent fuel rods with which to extract and enrich the nuclear material.

​Iran had some of that, which they never enriched for weapons purposes, and which they turned over as a part of a previous deal. What they have now is under inspection and monitoring.

Today we still have a nuclear armed North Korea which hasn't yet nuked anyone even after all the cries that as soon as they had a bomb they would nuke South Korea, Japan and/or America.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and they haven't, as fearful screams once bewailed, nuked each other or anyone else.

It's typical that each nation which does pursue nuclear weapons does so as a deterrent, not for use as an offensive weapon. It's understood, even by power hungry dictators, that using a nuke will virtually guarantee their own destruction.

If we are really concerned about nukes and danger to America we should be dealing with China. China has outright said they are willing to risk nuclear war with America and wouldn't hesitate to nuke Los Angeles as a warning if America pushes China in a wrong way. China, the greatest threat to America, the nation poised to dominate the world this century, is building a massive, modern, excellent military using American money. While America is steadily borrowing money from China to pay for wars against third rate countries, China is building a war machine which she intends to use to push America out of the way when China decides to expand.

Our countries long lack of leadership with an America First vision has placed us in a very vulnerable position which grows worse with each passing year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senators-probably-broke-law-with-iran-letter/ar-AA9BIdI?ocid=iehp

The act bans U.S. citizens from engaging “without authority of the United States” in “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government ... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senators-probably-broke-law-with-iran-letter/ar-AA9BIdI?ocid=iehp

The act bans U.S. citizens from engaging “without authority of the United States” in “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government ... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”

​To make matters worse, they undercut efforts by their own Party to garner support for actual legislative measures to deal with this issue. While they denounce the president for conduct they believe outside the bounds, they themselves went outside the bounds. Not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I understand that Patrick Buchanan is (supposed to be), a conservative.

My post still stands. Buchanan is acting like he is in dream world of our liberal demcratic friends.  

​How is it a dream world to attempt to contain a potential problem through means other than war? Do you believe waging war against Iran is America's only course of action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to the heart of the problem...

We (Christians) so often put forth:

2 Chronicles 7:14King James Version (KJV)

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Yet this has become little more than a saying or unpracticed motto. Rather than obeying what this calls us to, we all too often say "we need this!, Now let us elect a Republican president and all will be well!" Or, more recently, I heard so many Christians bringing this verse up and then declaring how if the Republicans were elected to control Congress the devil would be thwarted and good government would prevail. So far, Republicans have continued to cave on points they claim to stand for and have continued to act just as they did before. Should we be surprised when, though many proclaim to be Christian (as do most Dems) they don't live as such?

Electing secular, worldly and false Christians to office isn't the answer. Short of a great revival or awakening America will continue the downward spiral as did all previous power nations.

While there are plenty of external threats, our greatest threat is internal and it's spiritual, not political.

For the most part, American Christians are unwilling to do what God has called us to do. Instead we prefer to take action on our own through politcal action, social action and such things. God tells us to go with Plan A, which we may give some lip service to, but then we come up with a Plan B and Plan C which enables us to feel as if we are really doing something. We ignore God's Plan A, go with our own plans and then feel spiritual when we pray "God, bless our efforts" and then sing "God Bless America". God will richly bless doing things His way, but He isn't inclined to bless us when we go our own way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​Buchanan is one of the few remaining old school conservatives.

What America needs is leadership that thinks rationally, constitutionally and for the best of the country; not those which base their positions on emotions, political expediency, polls, personal enrichment, Party politics and such things.

Conservatives were once cautious about the military option. All other options were considered first. It's the neo-cons and liberals which are more prone to war, not actual conservatives.

Do we invade Iran even when our own intelligence agencies tell us Iran has no nuclear weapons program? When Iran is no direct threat to America? When, if Iran were to suddenly present a sudden danger, we could strike Iran within a matter of hours? When, if faced with sudden danger, Israel is more than capable of fending off any Iranian threat?

Why plunge our nation into another bankrupting war unless such is clearly necessary?

 

 

Back to the heart of the problem...

We (Christians) so often put forth:

2 Chronicles 7:14King James Version (KJV)

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Yet this has become little more than a saying or unpracticed motto. Rather than obeying what this calls us to, we all too often say "we need this!, Now let us elect a Republican president and all will be well!" Or, more recently, I heard so many Christians bringing this verse up and then declaring how if the Republicans were elected to control Congress the devil would be thwarted and good government would prevail. So far, Republicans have continued to cave on points they claim to stand for and have continued to act just as they did before. Should we be surprised when, though many proclaim to be Christian (as do most Dems) they don't live as such?

Electing secular, worldly and false Christians to office isn't the answer. Short of a great revival or awakening America will continue the downward spiral as did all previous power nations.

While there are plenty of external threats, our greatest threat is internal and it's spiritual, not political.

For the most part, American Christians are unwilling to do what God has called us to do. Instead we prefer to take action on our own through politcal action, social action and such things. God tells us to go with Plan A, which we may give some lip service to, but then we come up with a Plan B and Plan C which enables us to feel as if we are really doing something. We ignore God's Plan A, go with our own plans and then feel spiritual when we pray "God, bless our efforts" and then sing "God Bless America". God will richly bless doing things His way, but He isn't inclined to bless us when we go our own way.

I'm having some difficulty merging the two of these comments; between "what America needs is leadership" and "God tells us to go with Plan A" Who suggested we go to war with anyone, did Buchanan? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

I'm having some difficulty merging the two of these comments; between "what America needs is leadership" and "God tells us to go with Plan A" Who suggested we go to war with anyone, did Buchanan? 

​Some are upset at attempts by Obama to reach some form of deal with Iran. Some have been calling for war with Iran for over a decade now.

Buchanan suggests if a deal can be reach it's better to try that while keeping a very watchful eye upon Iran to make sure they abide by the deal. This while knowing if necessary the military option could be resorted to swiftly.

The above two quotes you referenced were in answer to two different things. One being that America doesn't need a Churchill but rather leadership which puts America's best interests first. The second in regards to American Christians referencing God's "Plan A" while refusing to abide by that in favor of pursuing their own plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, the parts of your comments below are what caused my question.

“What America needs is leadership that thinks rationally, constitutionally and for the best of the country;”

 

“Electing secular, worldly and false Christians to office isn't the answer.”

 

If the public servant “leadership” thinks…constitutionally, then by law, no one can require public servants “leaders” to be Christians. My personal preference would be that they are Christians but, in accordance with God’s word we must submit to the U.S. Constitution for choosing public servants for an office or trust.

 

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, the parts of your comments below are what caused my question.

 

 

 

If the public servant “leadership” thinks…constitutionally, then by law, no one can require public servants “leaders” to be Christians. My personal preference would be that they are Christians but, in accordance with God’s word we must submit to the U.S. Constitution for choosing public servants for an office or trust.

 

 

 

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3

 

​The Constitution is set forth to set the parameters of the government. It serves to tell us what the government is to do, and not do. The government, leadership, is to govern in accord with the Constitution and thus can't set forth a religious test as a qualification for government office. That doesn't mean individual voters can't have their own personal "tests" regarding religion and other matters in forming their decision upon what sort of candidate to vote for, or not vote for.

The point of this portion of the Constitution was to prevent any "religion" from becoming an established national religion whether by de jure or de facto.

If we are following Christ then every aspect of our lives is to governed by Christ, including our politics. That doesn't mean we could only vote for an established, mature in Christ IFB pastor for a governmental leadership position, but it does mean our voting decision should be based upon the Lord's leading rather than something else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The point of this portion of the Constitution was to prevent any "religion" from becoming an established national religion whether by de jure or de facto.

 

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This article was not written to "prevent an established national religion." It's pretty straight forward, in that, there is no requirement of any religious affiliation when holding any of the public service offices oulined in the U.S. Constitution. The intent of this English language phrase is to not exclude on the basis of any or no religious preference. 

Back on topic, now that I've looked more closely at the U.S. Constitution, I don't believe the President has any power to enter into agreements with Iran or any other nation without the approval and oversight of the U.S. Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

This article was not written to "prevent an established national religion." It's pretty straight forward, in that, there is no requirement of any religious affiliation when holding any of the public service offices oulined in the U.S. Constitution. The intent of this English language phrase is to not exclude on the basis of any or no religious preference. 

Back on topic, now that I've looked more closely at the U.S. Constitution, I don't believe the President has any power to enter into agreements with Iran or any other nation without the approval and oversight of the U.S. Congress.

​Reading the writings of the Founders helps explain most of the "what and why" of that which is in the Constitution. At the time of the Constitution some States still had State religions and there were some who argued for something along the lines of a national religion. The Founders saw the danger in this which is why they specifically added this to the Constitution. Later, as States found out, it was complicated to have a State religion and/or religious "tests" one must pass to qualify to hold State positions so they eliminated such from their State.

A great deal of what presidents do go well beyond the authority/power given them in the Constitution. Any deal the president makes with another nation, which doesn't receive proper congressional approval, isn't legally binding upon the American government. This is what halted President Wilson's post WWI plans; congress didn't approve what he had accomplished in Europe.

Obama is more interested in playing to his base and looking for legacy points than he is in what's legal. Once Obama leaves office, even if the courts and/or congress strike down any deal he makes with Iran, his illegal amnesty executive orders, all or part of Obamacare, he will be able to say, "I tried, I did my part." This will guarantee him higher speaking fees as well as possible opportunities not only on the national level, but international as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...