Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

Honest question - did you even read his statement in the link I provided? Can you not see why people might think he was suggesting the "imminent threat" was nuclear weapons and not (solely) ballistic missiles? Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution) we wouldn't have to bounce around like a ping pong ball with what he really meant.

---

He actually said "imminent threats" which incorporates nuclear ambitions, enriched materials, drone programs, ballistic missile programs, etc.

Congress has been briefed multiple times. The WPA is viewed by every POTUS to be unconstitutional and SCOTUS has never weighed in, so any further required "buy in" from Congress is a buncha hooey.

The reasons for the military action and the objectives have remain UNCHANGED since Feb 28th. Period.

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

Honest question - did you even read his statement in the link I provided? Can you not see why people might think he was suggesting the "imminent threat" was nuclear weapons and not (solely) ballistic missiles? Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution) we wouldn't have to bounce around like a ping pong ball with what he really meant.

---

Quote:

---

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted "Death to America" and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and innocent people in many, many countries.

Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel. In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lanes. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

From Lebanon to Yemen, and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous October 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal. Something like the world has never seen before.
Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested.

---

This was his speech before he mentioned a nuclear weapon.

If you want to conflate it, feel free...

But, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.

BTW, he also said THIS about a nuclear weapon:

Quote:

---

Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with, nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.

---

Sounds exactly like he KNOWS they don't have and are not armed with nuclear weapons

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

Honest question - did you even read his statement in the link I provided? Can you not see why people might think he was suggesting the "imminent threat" was nuclear weapons and not (solely) ballistic missiles? Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution) we wouldn't have to bounce around like a ping pong ball with what he really meant.

---

He actually said "imminent threats" which incorporates nuclear ambitions, enriched materials, drone programs, ballistic missile programs, etc.

Congress has been briefed multiple times. The WPA is viewed by every POTUS to be unconstitutional and SCOTUS has never weighed in, so any further required "buy in" from Congress is a buncha hooey.

The reasons for the military action and the objectives have remain UNCHANGED since Feb 28th. Period.

---

The bolded is true. Carter, Clinton, Obama, and auto-pen all rejected it (and used the military without getting permission from Congress).

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

Honest question - did you even read his statement in the link I provided? Can you not see why people might think he was suggesting the "imminent threat" was nuclear weapons and not (solely) ballistic missiles? Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution) we wouldn't have to bounce around like a ping pong ball with what he really meant.

---

Quote:

---

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted "Death to America" and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and innocent people in many, many countries.

Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel. In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lanes. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

From Lebanon to Yemen, and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous October 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal. Something like the world has never seen before.
Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested.

---

This was his speech before he mentioned a nuclear weapon.

If you want to conflate it, feel free...

But, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.

BTW, he also said THIS about a nuclear weapon:

Quote:

---

Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with, nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.

---

Sounds exactly like he KNOWS they don't have and are not armed with nuclear weapons

---

So now your argument isn't the "imminent threat" of nuclear weapons or current ballistic missiles today but retaliation for what they did years ago (up to almost a half century ago) and more recently Israel? That's a justification for unilaterally taking this country to war? How is what they did in days gone by, to us or Israel, an "imminent threat" this year?

And "Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat."...how long did it take him to mention missiles?

In your opinion, was there an "imminent threat to us to justify this? If so, what was that imminent threat? My original response was to a different poster who suggested (in my view at least), that the "imminent threat justification didn't exist just our "ability to remove" one. I responded with Trump's own statement, not even three sentences in, that it was about an imminent threat. So what was the "imminent threat" in your opinion?

AggieCVQ said:

---

You literally said there were no imminent threats earlier in this thread. You are just playing goalie at this point.

---

Huh?

Perhaps you care to share?.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

If we're saying that their missiles and drone represent an imminent threat, when they showed no indication of attacking anyone, then by that definition quite a few countries likely represent a bigger imminent threat. Right? China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. But I guess Cuba will be the next imminent threat we go after.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion.

Page 171

Quote:

---

Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution)

---

1. We are not at war and did not look to Congress to declare as such
2. The Commander in Chief, in this case, has done the same as those before him
3. The WPA needs to be formally declared unconstitutional and struck down

None of the statements are made in favor or against any of the rest of your post, they are just directed at the incorrect assertion quoted.

AggieCVQ said:

---

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion.

Page 171

---

Sigh….imminent threat has been mentioned from the beginning. Seriously, the level of posting frequency on the subject should come with some level of real primary source knowledge of the subject, not what some podcast bros. has mentioned in their latest tweet. Argue the merits all you want, but don't post lies about it not being mentioned from the very beginning. I think an official state department release within 3 days of first strike can be considered the beginning. Rubios statement was absolutely discussed on here when it was made.

U.S. first strike Feb 28.

U.S. State Department release of Marco Rubio statement March 2nd.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-6

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

Honest question - did you even read his statement in the link I provided? Can you not see why people might think he was suggesting the "imminent threat" was nuclear weapons and not (solely) ballistic missiles? Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution) we wouldn't have to bounce around like a ping pong ball with what he really meant.

---

Quote:

---

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted "Death to America" and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and innocent people in many, many countries.

Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel. In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lanes. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

From Lebanon to Yemen, and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous October 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal. Something like the world has never seen before.
Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested.

---

This was his speech before he mentioned a nuclear weapon.

If you want to conflate it, feel free...

But, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.

BTW, he also said THIS about a nuclear weapon:

Quote:

---

Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with, nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.

---

Sounds exactly like he KNOWS they don't have and are not armed with nuclear weapons

---

So now your argument isn't the "imminent threat" of nuclear weapons or current ballistic missiles today but retaliation for what they did years ago (up to almost a half century ago) and more recently Israel? That's a justification for unilaterally taking this country to war? How is what they did in days gone by, to us or Israel, an "imminent threat" this year?

And "Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat."...how long did it take him to mention missiles?

In your opinion, was there an "imminent threat to us to justify this? If so, what was that imminent threat? My original response was to a different poster who suggested (in my view at least), that the "imminent threat justification didn't exist just our "ability to remove" one. I responded with Trump's own statement, not even three sentences in, that it was about an imminent threat. So what was the "imminent threat" in your opinion?

---

WTF?

No. Don't make up **** and try to attribute it to me...

I said:

TRUMP DID NOT SAY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WERE AN IMMINENT THREAT, AND CONFLATING HIS COMMENT THERE WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS WRONG.

Sorry I had to yell, but apparently you're hard of reading.

Hell, AS I POINTED OUT...he even made a comment that they DID NOT have nuclear weapons.

JFC.


There were tons of imminent threats. They have launched direct attacks at Americans and have also launched attacks at Americans through their proxies.

Don't trust Iran. Iran is ASSHO!

How many Americans have to die before you understand Iran is a major ****ing threat to the US?

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

If we're saying that their missiles and drone represent an imminent threat, when they showed no indication of attacking anyone, then by that definition quite a few countries likely represent a bigger imminent threat. Right? China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. But I guess Cuba will be the next imminent threat we go after.

---

JFC.

They HAD been.

Through proxies, mostly, but those proxies were using Iranian weapons and were aided by Iranian military.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

They're trying to conflate that statement

---

Not even sure you're comprehending what you read (presumably), but who is the "they're" you are referring to?

---

People who are conflating imminent threat and nuclear weapon.

I'm quite sure it was clear in my statement.

---

Honest question - did you even read his statement in the link I provided? Can you not see why people might think he was suggesting the "imminent threat" was nuclear weapons and not (solely) ballistic missiles? Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution) we wouldn't have to bounce around like a ping pong ball with what he really meant.

---

Quote:

---

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted "Death to America" and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and innocent people in many, many countries.

Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel. In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lanes. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

From Lebanon to Yemen, and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous October 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal. Something like the world has never seen before.
Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested.

---

This was his speech before he mentioned a nuclear weapon.

If you want to conflate it, feel free...

But, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.

BTW, he also said THIS about a nuclear weapon:

Quote:

---

Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with, nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.

---

Sounds exactly like he KNOWS they don't have and are not armed with nuclear weapons

---

So now your argument isn't the "imminent threat" of nuclear weapons or current ballistic missiles today but retaliation for what they did years ago (up to almost a half century ago) and more recently Israel? That's a justification for unilaterally taking this country to war? How is what they did in days gone by, to us or Israel, an "imminent threat" this year?

And "Just because his speech mentioned a nuclear weapon 4 paragraphs down doesn't mean he said a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat."...how long did it take him to mention missiles?

In your opinion, was there an "imminent threat to us to justify this? If so, what was that imminent threat? My original response was to a different poster who suggested (in my view at least), that the "imminent threat justification didn't exist just our "ability to remove" one. I responded with Trump's own statement, not even three sentences in, that it was about an imminent threat. So what was the "imminent threat" in your opinion?

---

WTF?

No. Don't make up **** and try to attribute it to me...

I said:

TRUMP DID NOT SAY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WERE AN IMMINENT THREAT, AND CONFLATING HIS COMMENT THERE WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS WRONG.

Sorry I had to yell, but apparently you're hard of reading.

Hell, AS I POINTED OUT...he even made a comment that they DID NOT have nuclear weapons.

JFC.


There were tons of imminent threats. They have launched direct attacks at Americans and have also launched attacks at Americans through their proxies.

Don't trust Iran. Iran is ASSHO!

How many Americans have to die before you understand Iran is a major ****ing threat to the US?

---

Sigh - this is tiresome. Let's start by trying baby stepping our way through this....do you believe Iran posed an imminent threat to the US in late Jan 2026? yes or no?

"We knew there was going to be an Israeli action... We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces... and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them... we would suffer higher casualties."


He described the "imminent threat" as the expected Iranian retaliation after an anticipated Israeli strike, rather than saying Iran was independently preparing an imminent attack on the United States.


So:

American military action was tied to anticipated Israeli decisions...

And the "imminent threat" depended on a chain of expected future events rather than an already unfolding Iranian attack?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Paul.Allen said:

---

Never before in modern American history has the relationship between Israel and the US been more questioned and scrutinized. From JFK efforts, to Bill Clinton blackmail, Bush Iraq, and now Trump Iran. The destruction of the water carrying legacy media has allowed it to all be put on display.

Regardless of where you stand on the Iran war, that political fallout is undeniable.

---

People picking up their Palestinian flags to chant river to the see, Israel cannot be is indeed something we have not seen before.

Making claims that Israel indiscriminately kills poor innocent jihadist is a level of propaganda and misinformation that we have not seen in years in this Country.

And the political fall out for those who pick up their cause to eliminate Zionists is something that will hurt a lot of people.

A McCarthy era cleanings of those folks is in order.

---

Was Trump lying when he said Israel kills innocents? When Trump said they knock down apartment buildings to kill one terrorist?

Just because Mike Huckabee says the IDF is more humane then the American Soldier doesn't make this true. All you have to do is look on google maps and see Gaza.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe if he had justified it to Congress clearly and on record and gotten their buy-in (per Constitution)

---

1. We are not at war and did not look to Congress to declare as such
2. The Commander in Chief, in this case, has done the same as those before him
3. The WPA needs to be formally declared unconstitutional and struck down

None of the statements are made in favor or against any of the rest of your post, they are just directed at the incorrect assertion quoted.

---

1) We are not at war? Do you mean currently? What about on, say, Mar 2 2026?
2) That's some sort of excuse?
3) Have you ever read the "WPA"; I mean literally?

This sounds like Bill Clinton describing what "is" is !

AggieCVQ said:

---

"We knew there was going to be an Israeli action... We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces... and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them... we would suffer higher casualties."


He described the "imminent threat" as the expected Iranian retaliation after an anticipated Israeli strike, rather than saying Iran was independently preparing an imminent attack on the United States.


So:

American military action was tied to anticipated Israeli decisions...

And the "imminent threat" depended on a chain of expected future events rather than an already unfolding Iranian attack?

---

I will take this as you admitting that imminent threat has been discussed from the very beginning. This discussion would be more fun if some of you would stop mischaracterizing history at every turn.

Quote:

---

1) We are not at war? Do you mean currently? What about on, say, Mar 2 2026?
2) That's some sort of excuse?
3) Have you ever read the "WPA"; I mean literally?

---

1. No, we are not. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not, nor have they been asked to.
2. No, simple facts. Our current CiC commanded our forces to execute military action as is his authority under Article II of the Constitution. The same authority exercised by both Republican and Democrat presidents before him.
3. I have. Which part are you taking issue with? Although the WPA should be struck down, Congress was notified within 48 hours of use of force and has been briefed and while a concurrent resolution passed both chambers ....

Quote:

---

....the measure constitutes a concurrent resolution, it does not require a presidential signature and lacks legally binding enforcement power.

---

Again, these are just facts around constitutionality/use of force and not weighing in on anyone's opinion of our involvement, actions, or commentary.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

1) We are not at war? Do you mean currently? What about on, say, Mar 2 2026?
2) That's some sort of excuse?
3) Have you ever read the "WPA"; I mean literally?

---

1. No, we are not. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not, nor have they been asked to.
2. No, simple facts. Our current CiC commanded our forces to execute military action as is his authority under Article II of the Constitution. The same authority exercised by both Republican and Democrat presidents before him.
3. I have. Which part are you taking issue with? Although the WPA should be struck down, Congress was notified within 48 hours of use of force and has been briefed and while a concurrent resolution passed both chambers ....

Quote:

---

....the measure constitutes a concurrent resolution, it does not require a presidential signature and lacks legally binding enforcement power.

---

Again, these are just facts around constitutionality/use of force and not weighing in on anyone's opinion of our involvement, actions, or commentary.

---

"1. No, we are not. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not, nor have they been asked to. "

You are not a serious person (/laugh/cry emoticon)

are you the sock of another poster on here?

Are you serious? And I think accusing others, particularly well known poster,s of being a sock is disgusting behavior.

Regardless, Trump has actually complied with the WPA.

Of he had nor, there would be court cases and impeachment.

So you may want to check some notes first.

Quote:

---

"1. No, we are not. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not, nor have they been asked to. "

You are not a serious person (/laugh/cry emoticon)

are you the sock of another poster on here?

---

Words have meaning. The US has not declared war on Iran. The last time we formally declared war was in June of 1942 when FDR decided he didn't want to expand the fight with the axis Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria without a formal declaration.

As a serious person, would it surprise you to know that every president since has entered into conflict, or authorized military force, since our last declaration of war?

Let's assume I am not a serious person, or a "sock" ... would the same hold true for one of our founding fathers? In 1787 Hamilton took aim directly at the concept of limiting the use of our military to a national declaration of war saying that if our national forces couldn't act until a formal declaration, our nation would be vulnerable to initial attacks/invasions.

Federalist 25

Quote:

---

If, to obviate this consequence, it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the raising of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen,that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defence, before it was actually invaded. As the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse, the presence of an enemy within our territories must be waited for, as the legal warrant to the Government to begin its levies of men for the protection of the State. We must receive the blow, before we could even prepare to return it. All that kind of policy by which nations anticipate distant danger, and meet the gathering storm, must be abstained from, as contrary to the genuine maxims of a free Government. We must expose our property and liberty to the mercy of foreign invaders, and invite them by our weakness to seize the naked and defenceless prey, because we are afraid that rulers, created by our choice, dependent on our will, might endanger that liberty, by an abuse of the means necessary to its preservation.

---