Friday afternoon links

re “Green” Suicide in the UK

It reminds me of a scene from the movie Poseidon Adventure where our band of characters meets a group of people headed the wrong way. Gene Hackman screams at them, "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!" trying to get them to turn around, but they walk to their doom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaZb7NlY5Q It's the same with the True Believers in the climate religion.

#1 feeblemind on 2026-02-27 16:12 (Reply)

Green suicide is a deflection concerning the party the Muslims will take over. People best get their shit together.

https://voxday.net/2026/02/27/the-end-of-ideology-in-britain/

It's all about identity and not ideology. That applies to the US as well.

#2 indyjonesouthere on 2026-02-27 17:08 (Reply)

QUOTE:

All Signs Indicate “War Is Coming to Iran”

What's the legal basis for the U.S. President to start a war with Iran?

#3 Zachriel on 2026-02-28 10:15 (Reply)

Same legal basis BHO had for bombing Libya, I guess.

#3.1 feeblemind on 2026-02-28 11:00 (Reply)

feeblemind: Same legal basis BHO had for bombing Libya

Libya: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011). There is no similar Resolution concerning Iran. However, the UN Charter applies, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense (Article 51) or with explicit UN Security Council authorization under Chapter VII.

What are the limits, in a Republic, to the president's unilateral power?

#3.2 Zachriel on 2026-02-28 11:10 (Reply)

JONATHAN TURLEY: Trump strikes Iran — precedent and history are on his side

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-trump-strikes-iran-precedent-history-his-side

#3.2.1 feeblemind on 2026-02-28 14:46 (Reply)

feeblemind: JONATHAN TURLEY: Trump strikes Iran — precedent and history are on his side

QUOTE:

A 2001 AUMF authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Iran ∉ perpetrators of 9/11/2001.

QUOTE:

The 2002 AUMF authorizes the President to use "necessary and appropriate" force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Iran ≠ Iraq.

What about international law? What are the limits, in a Republic, to the president's unilateral power? Or are you arguing the United States has devolved into an autocratic imperial power outside of international law?

#3.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-02-28 15:12 (Reply)

As usual the kiddieZ lame arguments devolve into rhetorical questions.

#3.2.2.1 Zachinoff on 2026-02-28 21:12 (Reply)

A glimpse of why commies like Zach are so dangerous. They love the constitution when they can bludgeon an opponent with it, but give them a UN resolution and the constitution can just piss right off.

#3.2.2.1.1 Rusty on 2026-03-03 16:29 (Reply)

Rusty: They love the constitution when they can bludgeon an opponent with it, but give them a UN resolution and the constitution can just piss right off.

Someone hasn’t read the United State Constitution or the United Nations Charter. International treaties are the Supreme Law of the United States when ratified by the United States Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2; Article VI, Clause 2). Furthermore, no resolution of the United Nations can become binding without the concurrence of the United States (Article 27).

#3.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2026-03-04 07:27 (Reply)

Thank you for making my point for me, dumbass. UN resolutions do not supersede congressional authority, but commies like yourself will use them to justify just about anything.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2026-03-08 10:50 (Reply)

Rusty: UN resolutions do not supersede congressional authority

The United Nations Treaty was ratified under the authority of the United States Senate per its Constitution. It's a promise the United States made to other nations. Nor can any binding resolution pass without the concurrence of the United States. However, the United States could withdraw from the United Nations. No one is forcing them to stay.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-08 11:59 (Reply)

UN charter ≠ UN resolution.

One theme remains true. You commies love your bureaucrats, especially when they give you permission to kill. Did you cackle along with Hillary?

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-08 12:51 (Reply)

Rusty: UN charter ≠ UN resolution.

UN Security Counsel Resolution are enacted under the United Nations Treaty, which the United States ratified in 1945. As long as the United States remains in the United Nations, they have promised to abide by its resolutions, though no binding resolution can be enacted without the concurrence of the United States.

Do the promises of the Americans mean anything? Not even sure what you are arguing.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-08 13:37 (Reply)

I already made my point, moron. You commies love UN resolutions because they are made by unelected bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the American people. You globalist fucks can start a war, impose sanctions, bomb a country, invade a country, or drone some people, and you don't ever have to ask the american people or congress to vote on it.

So spare us your outrage about a POTUS bypassing congress.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-08 15:11 (Reply)

Rusty: You commies love UN resolutions because they are made by unelected bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the American people.

That is incorrect. The American president, the elected head of the United States government, has an absolute veto over any binding United Nations resolution.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-08 20:20 (Reply)

Nope. POTUS has no veto power.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-08 20:47 (Reply)

Rusty: Nope. POTUS has no veto power.

Only the Security Counsel can enact binding resolutions (Article 25 of the United Nations Charter).
The United States is a permanent member of the Security Counsel (Article 23 of the United Nations Charter).
The president has sole authority to direct how the United States will vote on the Security Counsel (United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. §§ 287–287e).
No resolution can pass the Security Counsel over the veto of any member of the Security Counsel, including the United States (Article 27 of United Nations Charter).

United Nations Charter

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-08 21:33 (Reply)

Nope. No POTUS has ever signed a UN resolution. No president has ever vetoed UN resolution.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-08 21:48 (Reply)

Rusty: No POTUS has ever signed a UN resolution. No president has ever vetoed UN resolution.

Now you’re just being silly. Ignoring the citations provided doesn’t make much of an argument.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-08 22:38 (Reply)

And yet, it is true.

You simply can't admit that UN resolutions are crafted by unelected bureaucrats, negotiated by unelected bureaucrats, and voted on by unelected bureaucrats.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-08 23:11 (Reply)

Rusty: voted on by unelected bureaucrats.

That's like saying Trump didn't direct the attack on Iran because his orders were filtered through the Secretary of Defense and then through subordinates in the chain of command.

Let's take an example. In December 2017, the United Nations Security Counsel voted on a resolution condemning Trump having recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The vote was 14-1, with the United States vetoing the resolution.

According to the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, United States representatives to the United Nations must "act in accordance with the instructions of the President transmitted by the Secretary of State." Per law, President Donald Trump transmitted his instructions to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who transmitted the instructions to Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. The Ambassador cast the vote according to United States law, vetoing the resolution.

Now, Trump was elected (through the Electoral College). He appointed the Secretary of State and the Ambassador to the United Nations, who were each ratified by elected members of the United States Senate, per the United States Constitution.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-09 08:38 (Reply)

Yup. Ambassadors and diplomats are unelected bureaucrats. As such, they don't have to answer to congress, or the American people.

As I said, you globalist freaks love it when congress and the American people are ignored. Don't get mad just because your satanic cabal didn't get to add their rubber stamp to the process this time.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-09 14:07 (Reply)

Baby steps:

Rusty: As such, they don't have to answer to congress

So, according to your 'logic', the president didn't direct the attack on Iran, because his orders were filtered through the bureaucracy.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-09 17:06 (Reply)

Military commanders are not bureaucrats.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-09 18:16 (Reply)

Rusty: Military commanders are not bureaucrats.

Where in Heaven did you get that idea? The modern military is highly bureaucratic. How did you think a trillion dollar organization was organized? There’s over 20,000 people working just at the Pentagon, civilian and military.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-09 21:07 (Reply)

The direct order was given to Pete Hegseth.

"Grok, is Pete Hegseth a bureaucrat?"

"Hegseth runs the bureaucracy from the top as a political leader, but he is emphatically not a career bureaucrat himself—he's more of an anti-bureaucracy reformer in that role."

Keep replying, Zach. I'm curious to see how full-retard you can go.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-10 00:22 (Reply)

Rusty (quoting Grok): Hegseth runs the bureaucracy from the top as a political leader

Glad we’re in agreement: The order to direct attacks on Iran engaged a military bureaucracy, while the vote at the United Nations did not.

Hegseth is a civilian who was appointed by the elected president and confirmed by the elected Senate—just like the Ambassador to the United Nations—both of whom are bound by laws and regulations. Nor was Nikki Haley a career civil servant, though she headed a bureaucracy (albeit one not nearly as vast as the military bureaucracy).

The distinction can be made, however. While the military attack on Iran was filtered through a bureaucracy, the vote at the United Nations was not. Nikki Haley voted personally, not directing a bureaucrat in her stead.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-10 08:10 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Grok: Yes, any order from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to initiate or conduct military attacks on Iran (as part of Operation Epic Fury, which began around late February 2026) would pass through layers of the U.S. military bureaucracy and chain of command…Pentagon staff, joint staff planners, intelligence agencies (for targeting), legal reviews (rules of engagement, compliance with law of armed conflict), and logistics/support elements all play roles in planning, authorizing specific strikes, and executing.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2026-03-10 08:12 (Reply)

Trump > Hegseth > Cooper > Commanders > Tactical

Not a single bureaucrat. Accountable to congress.

Contrast with your UN resolution: Written by bureaucrats, debated by bureaucrats, voted on by bureaucrats, not accountable to congress.

You are exploring some unknown depths of dumbfuckery here, Zach. Maybe you should turn back now.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.1 Rusty on 2026-03-10 13:18 (Reply)

I mean, really. I make a truthful, non-controversial statement like "Pete Hegseth is not a bureaucrat" and your brain sputters "While it may be true that Hegseth is a decorated combat veteran and not a bureaucrat per se, we are talking more about a filter, a filtration system of bureaucracy if you will, wherein ideas filter through bureaucratic systems that he actually is involved with I mean how silly of you to assert that Hegseth is not a bureaucrat when there are literally filters of bureaucracy filtering things at this very moment within the military so of course there you go Hegseth is actually a bureaucrat."

I mean, I know you're doing this "I am an angelic being of memory" schtick but maybe today you could just try to forget for once. Cause it just ain't working.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.1.1 Rusty on 2026-03-10 13:31 (Reply)

Rusty: voted on by bureaucrats

Except that's not correct. The vote was made by Nikki Haley, who was no more a bureaucrat than Pete Hegseth. She was Ambassador, appointed by the elected president and confirmed by the elected Senate. This has been said more than once, not sure why you are still confused.

Rusty: Pete Hegseth is not a bureaucrat

We didn't object to your characterization. But we did point out that Nikki Haley was no more a bureaucrat than Pete Hegseth.

Rusty: "Hegseth is actually a bureaucrat."

Whom are you quoting? A bureaucrat is a usually defined as a career civil servant. Regardless, Hegseth is the political head of a huge bureaucracy. While combat necessarily streamlines bureaucratic involvement, there is still a huge bureaucracy involved, such as for logistics and oversight.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-10 13:48 (Reply)

Rusty: "Military commanders are not bureaucrats."

Zach: "Where in Heaven did you get that idea?"

Dumbfuckery.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-10 14:19 (Reply)

Rusty: Rusty: "Military commanders are not bureaucrats."

The Pentagon is full of military bureaucrats. Now, try to respond to the point: Nikki Haley was no more a bureaucrat than Pete Hegseth when she cast the vote in the United Nations. She was acting, according to law, at the direction of the president. Any binding United Nations resolution is subject to veto by the United States, a decision solely that of the American president.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-10 14:32 (Reply)

Nope. I reject your premise.

Pete Hegseth deputy commands the entire US military.

Nikki Haley made speeches.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-10 16:12 (Reply)

Rusty: I reject your premise.

They both have made speeches. They both were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They both worked at the direction of the president.

Your claim at issue (one of several false claims you have made) is that UN resolutions are voted on by bureaucrats. We pointed to a specific example, Ambassador Nikki Haley, who was not a bureaucrat. You have yet to grapple with this fact.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-10 16:36 (Reply)

"They both have made speeches. They both were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They both worked at the direction of the president."

Irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant.

We're talking about who's more of a bureaucrat. Hegseth is deputy commander of the most powerful armed forces in history. He's an anti-bureaucrat.

Nikki made speeches and resolutions. A desk job, which is where the word bureaucracy comes from in the first place.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-10 17:30 (Reply)

Rusty: Hegseth is deputy commander of the most powerful armed forces in history.

You’re right. Hegseth has a desk job running one of the largest bureaucracies on the planet.

But that’s irrelevant to the original point. The president makes military decisions just as he makes decisions about votes on the Security Counsel.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-03-10 20:36 (Reply)

While Haley is a lifelong bureaucrat and Hegseth is a lifelong anti-bureaucrat, the issue that remains pertinent is that one was accountable to congress and one was not, your selective outrage notwithstanding.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-03-11 08:28 (Reply)

A primary feature of a bureaucracy is regulations. The core regulations of the DoD are tens of thousands of pages, while the full military regulatory system is hundreds of thousands of pages.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/DoD-Issuances/

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2026-03-09 22:14 (Reply)

Rusty: While Haley is a lifelong bureaucrat and Hegseth is a lifelong anti-bureaucrat

That's immaterial to their roles during the time in question. {By the way, before becoming Ambassador, Haley was in the South Carolina house (legislature) and then governor (executive)}

The president made the decisions in both cases, not bureaucrats, contrary to your claim above.

#3.2.2.1.1.1.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2026-03-11 09:46 (Reply)

What was the legal basis for the American revolution?

#3.3 indyjonesouthere on 2026-02-28 11:40 (Reply)

Who authorized the "wag the dog" in Serbia and created Kosovo out of thin air?

#4 indyjonesouthere on 2026-02-28 15:34 (Reply)

Re: Gentle parenting. I raised five responsible boys. The trick is not to give them unlimited freedom of choice, but the illusion of it. Good Montessori schools will say "You can choose any work in this room," but everything on the shelves is educational. For parents, it is "What book do you want to read to me?" "What vegetable do you want for dinner?" "What do you think your brother would like to play with?"

I am joking a bit, because it takes enormous energy to stay on top of this every moment, and some situations admit of little choice, such as "Do you want to walk to the car or want to be carried?" Translation: You are going to the car like it or not, dammit. But trickery is your friend. No strategy works forever, but keep bringing out new material.

#5 Assistant Village Idiot on 2026-02-28 22:27 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, February 27. 2026

Friday afternoon links