News Flash! Is Bombing Iran Just? Is It Legal?

This message comes from NPR sponsor Paramount Plus and the new original series The Madison.

Taylor Sheridan's most intimate story yet.

The Madison follows a family raised in a world of digital distraction,

forced by tragedy to truly see one another and come together.

Starring Michelle Fyfer and Kurt Russell, The Madison, new series streaming now, only on Paramount Plus.

This is Monica Perez.

I have for you today a news flash.

I normally have this as a premium feature and actually I did put it in the premium feed last night

and then I'm very shortly thereafter.

Somebody asked me to please put it in the free feed because nobody's talking about this.

It's very important that it shouldn't be behind a paywall.

I totally agree.

And actually, there was a development since I dropped it that the Senate declined to or voted down

a resolution to require Trump to get the authorization of Congress.

They can't do that.

You don't need a resolution to require authorization.

That doesn't make this constitutional.

But it probably does give a green light for a much longer war, which is unfortunate.

I hope you do find this to be a valuable listen.

I will obviously be doing more of these.

I know this thing is going to drag on.

And unfortunately, that's the way it is.

But I think it's very important to always keep as a touchstone these timeless principles.

Also, over the next few days, I will be doing a cognitive dissidents with a parallel

mic and her voice, very interested in what those guys have to say.

And I'm sure the developments will keep coming.

So that'll be a worthwhile listen as well.

Thank you.

Hey, y'all, it's Monica.

I have to do a news flash on what's happening in Iran.

We're bombing Iran, together with Israel.

And this is up there with COVID for being just an in your face that we have absolutely

no control of our government.

Or anything, what our tax money is used for anything.

There's so many things wrong with this.

If this is the kind of thing where if you really let yourself think about it, dwell on

it, sink in, first of all, if you didn't already know, you know, if the scales are not already

fallen from your eyes, it would be enough to make you lose your mind.

But even if the scales have fallen from your eyes, it's enough to make you depressed.

And it's hard to not feel depressed and powerless when your country is violating the law of

nations, is killing people, is bombing, is violating the sovereignty of someplace else,

is violating basic moral and legal tenets to which they are absolutely bound to be held

by their mandate, by their authority, all of that.

It is, it's simply, it's over, it's so over.

But how do you keep laughing?

How do you keep, well, first of all, this, there's just been such an onslaught of revelation

of how truly powerless we are when it comes to the, the big forces that shape the world

as far as controlling them.

We are not powerless in that we do have control of ourselves, of our souls.

We have the ability to influence our families and our children and each other.

And this may just be a test, and this is not, this is not our realm to control.

But you have to balance that resignation and stoicism with the objective judgment.

You have to judge this morally and legally and articulate it and acknowledge it because

if you don't, then you actually even lose your ability to say, I do not consent.

And these basic principles of morality and law are, are what we have to hand down to

the next generation so that they can not consent, not be a part of it, not be persuaded.

And I've, I noticed this is the problem with these cults of personality people will let

the person they trust, Trump, in this case, convince them because they trust him that

this is okay, that it's good for us, that there's justification, but there isn't.

And I want to go through that now.

So what are they saying is the justification?

Well, just the specific is the US and Israel started real bombing of Iran and they claim

to have taken out the top 49 leaders or something like that.

So assassinating all the top leadership, bragging about that, their bombing, I think they're

up to police stations now.

They started this February 28th, which was Friday.

Of course, it wasn't in the newspaper until Monday.

So I get the Wall Street Journal at home and I get a Saturday edition and it wasn't

not in that.

So any kind of like written down on a piece of paper, what this is all about was not available

for more than 48 hours.

So I heard just at a memory, the explanations here, the justifications were, Trump said

they were going to strike first.

They weren't meeting our demands or negotiating regarding their nuclear program.

They tried to kill Trump.

I heard them sound fox today.

They are a threat to our ally, Israel, because they fund Hamas and Hezbollah, which are

the Gaza and Lebanese resistance against Israel.

They need to, oh, this was Marco Rubio said this, they need to destroy, we need to destroy

their conventional weapons capability, less to use those conventional weapons to protect

their nuclear program, so they exert sovereignty.

By the way, their nuclear program is nuclear energy.

They do not have a nuclear weapons program.

The idea is that they could, because they have the opportunity to enrich uranium, because

they have an energy program, but that's what it's about.

You know, all this stuff is like several degrees removed, yet the idea is it's a just war

because the threat was imminent, which it isn't.

I just, CBS News said that the, that in Trump's first live public remarks on the operation,

he offered four reasons for the campaign.

I'm just reading this directly from what they're saying, destroying Iran's missile capabilities,

whatever that means.

I mean, that could just be defense annihilating Iran's navy, what rights are they have to

do that, preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

What rights are they have to do that?

Israel has nuclear weapons.

We have nuclear weapons.

Iran is not an aggressive nation, does not, has not progressed on other nations, unlike

Israel, unlike the United States.

The only country who ever used nuclear weapons was the United States.

The only government that has ever attacked the United States is our own on 9-11, ensuring

the regime, and if you don't believe that's of about 9-11, that's fine.

It doesn't matter.

It's not germane to this conversation.

This conversation is even on their own terms, does what they say check out, and if it checks

out, is it a justification for war, morally or legally, and is the method of a unilateral

decision by the executive branch legal?

The fourth thing was ensuring the regime can't continue to arm fund or direct terrorist

armies outside its borders.

I mean, American exceptionalism meant that the US is an exception to the law of nations,

which means they're an exception to having to respect other people's sovereignty.

They use terrorism themselves.

That's the US is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

I think that's in evidence.

If you don't know that, you're probably not listening to this.

But if you wanted to share this with a friend, and they're like, what are you talking

about?

Do some research.

We can talk about those stated goals.

What do I think the real purposes are of this, the real reason they're doing this?

And that is absolutely positively not justifiable by morality or law.

I'll tell you that.

But the reason they give reasons that aren't the real reasons is they want to, they need,

they're not so depraved as a body, like the citizens, that we don't require a moral

or legal justification for this.

So they want to tell us itself defense or there's a moral purpose.

On the right, we understand moral purposes as being like non-aggression.

On the left, they'll say things like humanitarian blah, blah, blah, because they have that weird

right-brained way of thinking of things.

But the left-brained way, the right politically is, or like a American right, which was like

a classical liberal thing, is non-aggression.

You just can't do anything.

You cannot take military action, like a libertarian, the non-aggression principle.

You cannot use violence unless you're defending yourself, like really actually in the moment

defending yourself, or very, very nearly.

So if, if troops are amassing on your border, that's an act of war.

If, if there's a blockade around your country, that's an act of war.

If another country eliminates the 49 top members of your government, so if they killed the president,

the vice president, all the cabinet, all the leadership of the House and Senate, they

killed all of those people, the Supreme Court, that would be an act of war.

So these are acts of aggression, invasion, aggression, attack, as aggression, like these

are things that are established as acts of war.

Even if you have, if you are a victim of an act of war, you cannot necessarily, if you

want to look at the tenets of a just war, can't necessarily go to war on the St. Augustine,

like I think is credited for codifying the tenets of a just war, not because he wanted

to restrain, it's, it's restrain governments, it's because he was arguing against a Christian

concept of strict pacifism.

So he was being pro-war.

So this is, as pro-war as you can get, is the tenets of just war.

So if you're not passing the tenets of just war, you're really off base.

So I'm going to read to you the tenets of the just war.

Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15

a month plan that I've been enjoying.

It's not just for celebrities, so do like I did, and have one of your assistance assistants

switch you to Mint Mobile today.

I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Up front payment of $45 for three month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required.

Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees

extra, feeful terms at mintmobile.com.

First, I'll tell you what I think the real reasons are for this stuff, and I'm not positive

what all of the reasons are, but we remember Wesley Clark saying there were seven countries

and I think seven years, which this was 27 years ago, so it wasn't really seven years.

However, you know, oh, dead Yinnon, I think, wrote this in the 80s, so it's happening even

though it took longer than was expected.

So, Wesley Clark rattled off the countries Iran was last, and I think they are last.

It was seven countries in five years.

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

The mission accomplished sounds like, buddy, very nice.

Anyway, but why?

Because they could, because they went from a bipolar world order to a one, you know,

pole like a one, one hegemon, the US for how long ever long that lasted.

And what they did with that was immediately abused their power.

So you could say, so there, I think there are two ways of looking at what's really going

on here, either it's Israel controls Trump and they have expansionists, goals to reclaim

the biblical borders of Israel, and that's it.

Or you could say Israel's just being blamed for a geopolitical move that wants to control

the Middle East, wants to control oil, if the world is breaking up into East and West,

we want to put the line not on this side of Iran or this side of the Middle East, but

on that side.

So so the Empire, the US UK, Israeli Empire controls the Straits of Hormuz and the oil

and has it either to choke off China and those guys or to negotiate with them for rare earths

or, you know, to stop the chip war, chip race or whatever, I don't know.

So those are a couple of reasons.

I know around this time, right before this all happened, there were articles in the newspaper

like on the day this happened as Iran was negotiating, I'll read you a little bit about

that in a minute, negotiating to get rid of its enriched uranium, told Russia, like,

will you buy it?

This is part of the negotiations with Trump.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal that said there AI and the energy and whatever

that's going to be needed for that is putting pressure, big time pressure on uranium supplies.

So it could have to do with a deeper need for commodities that we're in competition

for with other countries.

I guess Iran has some.

Maybe if they needed it urgently, they could get it from them urgently, which would contribute

to the timing.

I don't think it's the big underlying reason.

But also Trump is the only one who could really get this done.

They've been trying to hit Iran for the longest time.

I've been saying, I just retweeted something from 2019 that said, hey, they're going to

take Trump as a rogue president.

They want to maintain this illusion of democracy here, the solution of a representative

of public and the two party system, they want to maintain that so they can, they want

to take a guy like Trump, call him rogue, distance him from either party and say he did

this.

He was owned by Israel or whatever, he did this.

And then when he's gone, he's like, the scapegoat, he gets squared away and you can go back

to the way it was before.

And President Newsom will have to finish this war, but he doesn't have to take blame for

it because he didn't start it.

So they would, this would be the time.

And like, who knows what'll happen after the midterm elections.

So it's possible that this was just that moment in time after COVID, after Venezuela, after

all the things that the international power elite has done that has proven that we really

cannot resist them, they're on a roll, basically.

So I think, I think it could be all of those reasons.

I actually think it probably is all of those reasons.

The only thing I ever really worry, wonder about is where does the cooperation begin and

the, and the conspiracy, where does the cooperation, the conspiracy end and the competition begin.

So Russia, China, nobody called BS on COVID or ISIS or the moon landing, really.

I mean, I know Russians don't believe in the moon landing, but like you don't have these

Edwards note in, like you don't have this pull back the curtain thing on the big ones.

And you got to wonder, I mean, they're all cooperating, they're all moving towards

the same things.

Is there competition at the level one wrong down from that?

Is that part of that?

Or did they all agree this is the best way to change the world to reshuffle the world?

I don't know, I don't know where, where those lines are drawn, that I do not know, but

I think everything contributes to this being what big T, they want.

And what you can be sure is there might be some them versus them, but there is most definitely

us versus them because this is the move of a pathocracy of a government that does not

serve us, that serves only itself or other interests.

This isn't going to make us great.

This makes me feel insecure.

It makes me feel like they have just pulled away the blanket of the veneer, the facade,

or whatever was remaining of our legitimacy as a government by and for the people.

So it's not for us, we don't control it.

And because of that, we're vulnerable to the destabilization that comes when it's might

versus might makes right rather than modeling respect for sovereignty.

And that worries me.

We've already lost so much domestically and foreign, but this is just whatever, the foreign

policy version of COVID in my opinion.

So let's talk about the tenants of a just war.

There are seven of them.

I've told them to you before I will run through them pretty quickly.

A just war can only be waged as a last resort, while nonviolent options must be exhausted

before the use of force can be justified.

Trump said negotiations weren't making progress.

I have, I'm going to read you some passages about how negotiations were making progress.

Do a war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority, even just causes cannot

be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority

sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deemed legitimate.

Trump was elected as on a peace platform.

The people I know who voted for Trump voted for him because they, he said he would end

Ukraine and he has not done that.

And as matter of fact, he brought us Iran.

And for all the people of TDS and act like, well, what did you expect from Trump?

And you just admit that Biden gave us Ukraine.

That's as significant a war as this so far anyway.

It's as as easily led to World War III.

So I'm just sick of that.

If you think that one side is not as corrupt as the other, look at those two wars, those

two presidents.

And I would say, are they, do they have the sanction of the people?

Do they have a mandate when they're always elected for the opposite?

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.

This is so important.

For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause,

although the justice of the cause is not sufficient to justify the war.

Further, a just war can only be fought with quote, quote, right intentions.

The only permissible objective of a just war is to redress that injury.

And we have not suffered any harm that the harm that they suffered harm.

We killed Soleimani.

We, Trump killed Soleimani ordered some soldiers to do so.

They have put, there's many, many things, sanctions, which is an act of war totally unjustified.

Many reasons that they would want to redress, address, try to redress wrongs, not us.

For a war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.

That's an injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

Yeah.

So you're not allowed to just kill yourself.

That's a tough one to swallow.

Five, ultimate goal of a just war is to reestablish peace.

More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that

would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

Look at World War II dropping the bomb.

The only thing that Japanese asked for before we dropped the bomb was they wanted to keep

their emperor in place.

He was divine to them.

We dropped the bombs and afterwards accepted that condition.

It was not unconditional surrender, the exact same condition.

So those two bombs absolutely unjustifiable under any circumstances.

The violence, this is really important.

This is number six.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.

States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective

of addressing the injury suffered.

That's why the Gaza slaughter, tens of thousands of people killed there cannot be justified

even if October 7th was not a false leg, which clearly was.

You cannot kill every man, woman and child that you can hunt down because of a couple of

hang gliders in the desert.

I just, and even if they took 1200 people, even if they killed 1200 people, it's so

just proportionate as to be unjustifiable.

The weapons used in war, this is number seven, must discriminate between combatants and

non-combatants.

That's why a nuclear weapon is absolutely unjust.

Civilians are never permissible targets of war and every effort must be taken to avoid

killing civilians.

The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate

attack on a military target.

Those are the principles of just war.

Other principles that we live by the non-aggression principle, same thing.

Israel invented the idea of a preemptive war, which we used to just call aggression.

This is what Trump is saying.

We're doing a preemptive war.

They were going to strike first.

No evidence of that.

It would be insanity for them to do it.

They were absolutely negotiating.

They did not want this to happen and they were negotiating on things that they had absolutely

no requirement to.

They're entitled to a nuclear energy program and God knows they're entitled to any kind

of weapons that would defend them against aggression from Israel and the U.S. and the U.K.

is always part of that.

Maybe we're all beards for them.

But yeah, how else are you supposed to defend yourself?

Think of Tesla.

Tesla said he wanted to invent a weapon that would be so powerful that even a little guy

could use it and that would end war.

And potentially if you read the report from Iron Mountain, the nuclear weapon should

have ended war.

If everybody had one, it would have ended war.

So the idea that self-defense is the only thing that really in our lizard brains or our

moral spark or divine spark can accept is this self-defense as the justification for war.

This is why we have false flags.

This is what I'm worried about.

I'm worried about an attack that they're going to blame on Iranians or whatever.

And then they're going to say, well, that's why we get to go in there.

But we already started it.

What else can they do?

And the same thing with 9-11.

Either our own government did it to us, which seems right or Israel or whatever, or it

was blowback from the stuff that we had been doing over there.

But if you cannot, if they can't fight with conventional weapons, they're going to

do that.

I'm not saying it's just or not.

I'm just saying that in their minds, that self-defense, and if they do it, we will

still be spun to us as a reason not to cease our aggression, but to multiply it.

Right now, new fan duel customers can get up to $300 back in bonus bets every day

for 10 days.

And if it doesn't win, you'll get up to $300 back in bonus bets every single day

for 10 days straight.

You can even mix things up with same game parlayers for a shot at a bigger payout.

Fan duel.

It's time to dance.

21-plus in president's lexates, bonus bets are non-withdrawable and expire seven days

after receipt.

Tokens are received in increments of one per day, restrictions apply.

See terms at sportsbook.fandal.com, gambling problem called 1-800-Gamlor.

The thing Trump is saying is that they try to assassinate him.

So that would be a cause of war or a defensive maneuver.

And another thing besides the false flags that is also like a fallacy is when they say

they killed American soldiers or American interests abroad or whatever.

If you have property abroad, if you've made an investment abroad, if you send soldiers

abroad, they are outside the purview of American territorial defense.

You cannot expect the U.S. government to go into a foreign country and protect you or

you stuff.

Don't go over there and don't send U.S. troops over somewhere and say by them getting

killed on foreign soil, it's a justification to attack that country.

Absolutely not.

Think about it.

Would you expect I ran to come over here and bomb us because we held there people even

in Guantanamo, which may even be arguable, but that's not what we expect.

That's not what we would tolerate.

We wouldn't say, yeah, that had every right to do that.

Okay, let's read some of these articles.

I remember reading these articles like a week or two ago.

Speaking while they're sitting at the table, they're going to give their enriched uranium

to Russia.

Trump has said that they were not negotiating that it wasn't going to happen that they were

going to strike.

Listen to these articles.

One, I think they all came from RT, Russia today, but they quote the financial times

and the Wall Street Journal.

So this says, this was from February 27th, the day before the attack.

I remember reading this.

That's why I found the article.

The US and Iran have concluded their third round of indirect nuclear negotiations in

Geneva, with both sides describing the discussions as the most intensive yet mediated

by Oman, the talks produced an agreement to continue technical level consultations in

Vienna starting Monday, followed by another political round within the week.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi characterized the session as quote, one of the most serious

and longest rounds of negotiations to date, noting that good progress was made on both

the nuclear issue and sanctions relief.

However, he acknowledged that differences of opinion persist on some issues.

Omani Foreign Minister Badar al-Basudai Boussaidi, who shuttled between the two delegations

stated that discussions had concluded after significant progress, the meetings which stretched

across morning and afternoon sessions, totaling roughly six hours, also saw the participation

of IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi as a technical observer.

Omani Foreign Minister Badar al-Boussaidi, who shuttled between the two delegations, stated

that discussions had concluded after significant progress, the meetings which stretched across

morning and afternoon sessions, totaling roughly six hours, also saw the participation

of IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi as a technical observer.

All right, from February 26, which was two days before the bombing, people familiar with

the matter told the FT on Thursday that Tehran is considering pitching a potential quote,

commercial bananza to Washington involving oil gas and mining projects, but is not yet

made any formal offer.

A senior US official told the outlet that no such proposals had been discussed.

Iran is looking at Venezuela as a case study, one source said, referring to Trump's push

for US companies to secure oil deals in the Latin American country after US forces kidnapped

President Nicholas Maduro last month.

What this says to me is they recognize that these guys are extortionists.

I mean, it's just the Trump thing, I can't stand, it bums me out because the people with

TD has really glow, would you expect it?

It's like, you know what?

I did expect it.

I did expect it.

I expect it from all of them.

This is so petty, it's so blatant, and it's so, it interferes with our policy.

I know this stuff with Biden and China and everything did to behind the scenes, and it's

hard to actually uncover, but this and every single little area of pardons and law firms

and universities, and although I think universities should be cut off completely, anyway, that's

fine with me, but the manipulation to get policies enacted in private enterprises, quasi-private,

I guess, in the case of universities.

But these guys recognize that Peola might be in order and, you know, thinking about

Smandley Butler and talking about war, and I think I saw, maybe it was a John Adams quote

about war, people benefit from war, the military industrial complex benefits from war.

The defense industry spends so much, the energy oil gets the subsidy, which is we just

attack countries who aren't charging too much for oil, finance, obviously, this all leads

to debt.

So, and the opportunities for rebuilding, like Haliburton and defense industries and all

of that, those opportunities are worth money.

And if anyone is in the habit of doing that, it's Trump.

And I saw when he wrote this executive order that he could take over permitting in Al-Tedina,

the first thing I thought was, it's just too big a political opportunity not to want

to take it over so you can sell it.

So you can get your under the table money from Blackstone.

I don't know what's going on with that, but this is a clearly established pattern with

this guy.

And it's dangerous for us.

Okay, I got one more from February 18th, 10 days before the bombing.

Iran has indicated that it may send some of its enriched uranium to a third country,

such as Russia, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing US, Iranian, and regional

diplomats.

Iranian officials also suggested that they might pause enrichment for up to three years

and floated a proposal to set up a regional consortium to produce fuel plates from enriched

uranium for domestic use, according to the report.

Teams from the US and Iran met for Omani-mediated talks in Geneva on Tuesday.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, if you've never heard him talk, he's really

old school statesmen and he's pretty shoots from the hippies.

It's really fun to watch.

He confirmed this month that Moscow was ready to accept uranium from Iran if Tehran approved.

Quote, the initiative remains on the table.

At the same time, we must remember that the stockpile belongs to Iran.

Yeah, they're, they always, Russia will often cite justice, moral and legal justice because

it serves them.

I'm not saying they don't violate it or whatever, but you can often look to them to tell you

the moral position because as the West violates it, of course, you're going to say you're

going to want to take the moral high ground.

That's helpful.

All right, so that's the moral situation.

What about the constitutional one?

The constitution does not give the president war power.

It doesn't even make him commander in chief unless called into actual service.

The way it works is it's well established.

At the time of the constitution, by the founders quotes, I could read it on it.

There's a great, there's a great article.

It's by Michael Mahari and it's, it's going to be in the show notes, but he talks about

the constitutionality of war, the war power is act.

They intentionally did not want the person making the decision for the war, the person

who's executing it.

That is not the way they wanted it.

They especially did not want it in the power of one person.

It was too ripe for abuse.

Let me see if I can find the, this is a James Madison.

It wasn't John Adams.

James Madison, this is in this guy's article of all the enemies to public liberty.

War is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every

other.

War is the parent of armies from these proceed debts and taxes and armies and debts and

taxes are the known instruments for bringing them many under the domination of the few.

In war two, the discretionary power of the executive is extended.

Its influence in dealing out offices honors and emoluments is multiplied and all the means

of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes

and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war and in the degeneracy of

manners and of morals engendered by both.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

So it's extremely dangerous.

It is an invitation for corruption.

It's a moral hazard and it should not be in the control.

The decision should be in the same hands as the control for how all that stuff shakes

out.

It gets bombed, who gets paid off, you have to separate them out because it creates

the exact moral hazard that we have fallen into right now and read the constitutions just

short.

The congress has the power and if it calls the president into actual service, which it absolutely

has not, it has not declared war.

It has not called him into actual service.

This is totally illegal.

What he's doing, totally illegal.

Now they will say the war powers act of 1974 is what gave, gives the president, whatever

90 days, a free 90 day ward and a given time.

Not true.

And if you try to research the war powers act, the controversy around it, the legal thing,

it'll say, if you look up the unconstitutional 99 out of 100 of the references, I'm thinking

just based on how hard it was for me to find this great article by Mahari, is they will

say that it restricts the president too much.

It's unconstitutional because it restricts the president.

Absolutely not true, not true.

It's unconstitutional because it delegates the power of making the decision over whether

to make an aggressive move.

It delegates it.

The congress delegates it to the president.

Congress has no right whatsoever to delegate its power.

That is why administrative law is wrong and federal regulations are wrong.

Congress says, oh, the president can make these laws.

No.

The president cannot make those laws.

The congress cannot delegate because the congress is our agent.

Congress does not have actual rights.

They are our agent.

So we have delegated our rights to Congress.

Congress cannot in turn delegate those rights without getting permission from us, which

would mean rewriting the constitution.

It's, there's no way to do this.

And that is why the war power is act in itself is unconstitutional.

The only thing that that controls here is Congress needs to make a declaration of war.

There's no two ways about it.

I will, I will end it here.

I guess I would just say I have more about like what's actually happening, duration,

reach, the scope you may have heard me say on a recent, many recent things, but like

just a month ago with Mr. Yemen, I talked about why Iran and my theory has been for a while

now that if you target Iran, the entire Middle East gets brought into it.

If you target Jordan or Lebanon, which Israel's invading right now or bombing, you don't

have to bring everybody else.

But exactly what I said would happen would did happen.

And 15 countries are on a list by the United States.

I was released overnight saying evacuate these countries, Americans need to leave these

countries because all 15 countries are involved.

And Trump had the audacity to say, let's see, I wasn't going to get into this.

Let me just say this one thing.

Trump said the Arab governments had expected the US to handle the situation.

We're not planning to play a major role.

We were surprised, he said, adding that those countries are now aggressively fighting

after being targeted.

They were going to be very little involved and now they insist on being involved.

I posited probably a year ago, at least, that the purpose of Iran would be to involve

them all so that the US, the empire, whatever, could have complete control of the Middle

East, that this is a perfect way of doing that.

It is a stepping stone to that.

So that's it.

And I would just say, let's see how this unfolds.

I mean, there will be opportunities, maybe I'll finish that, bring it up to more like

current events with another new slash.

But for right now, I just wanted to address the fundamentals of a just war and the constitutional

requirements for war, neither of which this meets by a long shot.

Anyway, stay posted.

I cannot wait to hear what her way and parallel Mike have to say about this.

We're going to do a cognitive dissidents a few days from now and by then more things

will develop and maybe I'll bring my opinions about what's happening in the here and now.

But I'm really interested in what they have to say.

So stay tuned for that.

And if you would do me a favor, even though you are definitely premium subscribers, so

you're definitely doing your part.

If you haven't already, please give me some review on iTunes.

I just want a few more reviews to get me over, I think, 300.

It's not a lot to ask.

So please do.

Thank you very much.

And don't let it get you down just, well, what did my mother say?

Ask yourself, why do I have to give?

Pray for world peace and enjoy everything.

I know it's not easy to do that right now because the burden of financing this, it's pretty

serious.

It's pretty serious, but we're under duress and they steal it at gunpoint.

They steal the fruits of your labor at gunpoint by these bombs.

So you're not really directly responsible, but it's still, it's still sad.

It still makes you, you can make you sad.

So try to enjoy and, uh, I'm pray, thank you very much, this is Monica Perez.

President Barack Obama.

Virginia.

We are counting on you.

Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to raid the next election and wield

unchecked power for two more years, but you can stop them by voting yes by April 21st.

Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let voters decide not politicians.

Vote yes by April 21st.

Paid for by Virginians for fair elections.

USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and side ticks or auto and

home insurance.

With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10% tap the banner to learn

more and get a quote at USAA.com slash bundle restriction supply.