Wow. Just look at this tweet…
So any unethical assholes to write about, so little time.
What do you think: does this creep know how dumb that tweet is? Or is he just counting on the dumb voters who elected him not to be civically literate enough to realize it? We have so many incompetent, irresponsible fools in Congress that it’s hard to keep up with all of them, but this guy is special.
Let’s see:
1. The 25th Amendment is specifically designed for situations where the President of the United States is disabled. The Democratic Party’s delusion that it can be used to remove a President whose policies they don’t like or whose public utterances are annoying is itself unconstitutional.
2. Like so many progressives, Ro wants to criminalize speech. Threatening isn’t a war crime: it’s called negotiation. When Nikita Khrushchev said “We will bury you,” nobody was stupid enough to call it a war crime. But Ro, as I said, is special.
3. Exactly what provision of the Constitution does this moron think prohibits Presidential speech, whether it is threatening or not? Either Rep. Khanna hasn’t read the Constitution, has read it but doesn’t get it, or he’s lying.
4. The argument that threatening to destroy the infrastructure of an enemy is a war crime is being flogged by Democrats now who want to make sure the U.S. loses. If a nation makes a threat only in order to “spread terror” among civilians, that’s a war crime, supposedly (that war crime has never been prosecuted or charged). If the threats are designed to, you know, make the enemy surrender, it’s not a crime. If threats in war are aimed at making the enemy commit a war crime itself (“Kill all the male babies or we destroy your electric plants!”) that’s a “war crime.” If the threat is used to get an enemy to be reasonable and negotiate, it’s copacetic. Mind readers are not admissible in court as expert witnesses.
In any event, neither the United States, nor President Trump, not I, would submit to any international claim that threatening a brutal, dangerous, terrorism-spreading nation like Iran with mass destruction is a “war crime.” A law that is void for vagueness and unenforceable isn’t a law at all. I wonder if Ro knows that.
The anti-American, anti-Trump, anti-military, anti-strength weenies that run the Axis of Unethical Conduct think war itself is a “war crime.” They would love to settle disputes with evil regimes like Iran with a Twister tournament.
Ethics Alarms 
I’ve been watching the series TEHRAN. If the koombyaists of the world don’t believe the reality of irans threat to destroy western culture then perhaps this”fiction” will change their minds. Well done series.
The claim that we need to follow the Geneva conventions may hold for war with signatories but Iran is not a signatory. When rules only restrict the behavior of one side then that is a recipe for losing.
Furthermore. If an adversary puts civilians in harms way to prevent destruction of an asset for their war machine then those civilians are conscripts who are aligned with the adversary and subject to engagement.
Ro Kanna is a publicity seeking demagogue whose intelligence is routinely eclipsed by the developmentally disabled
It doesn’t hold with signatories either. The US signed the stupid thing as a virtue-signaling gesture, so formally withdrawing would by unacceptably provocative. Instead we have treated it with, “Yeah yeah, whatever” since 1942. It’s like Santa Claus.
Wait. Santa Claus is not real? Huh. Next you’re gonna tell me that the Easter Bunny isn’t real. Is nothing sacred?
jvb
What about the tooth fairy? Please don’t tell me that she is not real as well. Wait, are fairies all female?
Whether we as a nation “obey” the Geneva Conventions or not, we still should not engage in wartime actions that are objectively reprehensible.
This is, on a nations-on-the-world-stage scale, 100% analogous to the warning that “Just because something is not illegal, that doesn’t make it ethical.” What we MUST do and what we SHOULD do aren’t always the same.
–Dwayne
I find it rather amusing that MSNBC keeps running a commercial where someone is solemnly reading the preamble to the Constitution.
I suppose they are trying to convince us that they highly regard the actual Constitution and are all about its being followed.
Or perhaps it’s the only part of the Constitution they’ve ever read, and they just think “Wow, isn’t this cool?”
Of course, they’re trying to invoke the cognitive dissidence scale since the actual Constitution is a pretty amazing document.