Comments by "Tim Trewyn" (@timtrewyn453) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
45
-
23
-
20
-
19
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
From Webster's Dictionary of 1828:
1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
Example: It is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. Ezra 4:19.
It follows reasonably that the writers of the 14th Amendment defined "insurrection" in the manner above. Indeed, the last sentence indicates "insurrection" to be a slightly more general and encompassing term that includes sedition or rebellion as explained in the definition. When a piece of legislation does not define all its terms, legislative rules typically resort to a recognized dictionary definition. Or is the legislature required to establish an official state definition of every word to be used in its documents? Well yes, and that is why they adopt a recognized, publicly dictionary. It is legislative and legal negligence not to do so. And how are people to better understand each other without some reliance on a common language of well-defined words.
4
-
4
-
4
-
While the Senator makes some good points, I think he mischaracterizes the destination of $60 billion for Ukraine. The great majority of that money goes to the US defense industry to manufacture new weaponry for US inventory, while inventory about to expire and scheduled for decommissioning is instead sent to Ukraine. It is aid to Ukraine, but it is not cash to Ukraine. It is material to Ukraine. He also mischaracterizes the motivation of his fellow Senators. Stopping Russia in Ukraine means US troops will not have to stop them in Moldova or Romania or the Baltics or Poland or Finland. Also, delaying munitions deliveries to Taiwan increases the likelihood of a Chinese invasion. Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had a potent air force with several hundred F-16s and the munitions and services that go with them? He would be hurting a lot more if that had been in place. Senator, we are trying to head off foreign leaders who have publicly declared their intentions.
The Senator is also incomplete in his characterization of strategy. He made no mention of sanctions and the realignment of the European economy away from Russia. Sanctions do not themselves end a war and they take time to produce effects. But effects are being felt. The Russian economy is being reorganized into a top heavy defense economy in the style of the Soviet economy. History shows how that worked for them. The strategy is to weaken Russia, discredit Russia, raise Chinese doubt as to its own strategy, solidify NATO, and improve the security of free Europe, Taiwan, and the United States global economy. That strategy is working. It's plain to see. Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has put itself into a self-defeating level of stress.
The Senator lays out no strategy for bringing the conflict to a diplomatic resolution. Russia is pressing its attack. Russia is not stopping. Russia's terms for settlement involve Ukraine surrendering land Russia does not currently occupy, Ukraine staying out of NATO and the EU, and Ukraine demilitarizing. It just tees up Ukraine for future losses. If he wants a fast, diplomatic solution, I am afraid the only way to achieve that is a significant Ukrainian capitulation, OR, a form of Western escalation that convinces Putin that he is on a steady trend of losing Ukrainian territory. The latter is perhaps too dangerous for the Senator's temperament. The Senator also, in making his case on Russian oil and gas sales, ignores Ukraine's agency to significantly damage Russia's oil and gas infrastructure, a program it has already begun, perhaps as far back as Nordstream 2.
The Senator sees expanding the "industrial base" as not helpful if we send all the munitions made to Ukraine. Who were we going to use the munitions on? And is it not an improvement in capacity if a larger industrial base can make more munitions? More munitions can bring the war to a more favorable end for Ukraine. The Senator is indirectly advocating capitulation.
In essence the Senator dismisses the superior population numbers and industrial capacity of Ukraine's friends vs. Russia and its friends. He acknowledges Russia's team, but is dismissive of Ukraine's team. He projects the same fatalism that is used in Russian propaganda. Are you ready to absorb millions of Ukrainians, Senator?
As for time for debate, the selection of specific materials to be shipped to Ukraine has been the subject of months of dialogue between the Ukrainian military and NATO defense ministers. I don't think the Senator's expertise exceeds theirs. To the extent that there are certain clauses affecting the execution of the funded programs and monitoring the integrity of those programs, proper objects of the Senate's attention, again I would think that long ago standard language and procedures were formulated and should be found in the bill. How long does it take to confirm that? Time is of the essence on the battlefield. Yes, Senator, people are dying out there. Could we expect you to be keeping up on this for their sake?
3
-
3
-
3
-
From Webster's Dictionary of 1828:
1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
Example: It is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. Ezra 4:19.
It follows reasonably that the writers of the 14th Amendment defined "insurrection" in the manner above. Indeed, the last sentence indicates "insurrection" to be a slightly more general and encompassing term that includes sedition or rebellion as explained in the definition. When a piece of legislation does not define all its terms, legislative rules typically resort to a recognized dictionary definition. Or is the legislature required to establish an official state definition of every word to be used in its documents? Well yes, and that is why they adopt a recognized, publicly dictionary. It is legislative and legal negligence not to do so. And how are people to better understand each other without some reliance on a common language of well-defined words.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3