WND – by Garth Kant and Chelsea Schilling
Americans are slamming at least 22 members of Congress with thousands of phone calls and emails, urging lawmakers not to approve a military strike on Syria – by a margin of as much as 499 to 1.
A national debate is raging on Twitter. Tweets and statements from members of Congress – both Democrat and Republican – show tremendously strong opposition to President Obama’s call for an air strike on Syria:
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., tweeted, “Calls and emails from my constituents is 100 to 1 AGAINST getting involved in Syria. The American people are speaking.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said 99 percent of the calls his office oppose an attack.
Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said, “Constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted, “My phones are blowing up, and an overwhelming amount of constituents oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria.”
Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., tweeted, “Syria constituent calls 489-2 against.”
Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.V., said of “about 1,000 calls to my office, maybe 5 are for.”
Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said calls and emails to his offices are 600 to 9 against striking Syria.
Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., tweeted, “FYI: Received 75 calls/emails from constituents today so far on Syria. All 75 opposed to military action.”
Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he is getting swamped with phone calls and on-the-street comments from constituents telling him to oppose a strike on Syria.
Rep. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “I’m told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky.”
Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas: “I have received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents expressing strong opposition.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., tweeted, “My office has been inundated with constituent phone calls and emails about Syria. Virtually unanimous opposition to military intervention.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tweeted, “So far about 500 emails regarding Syria. 499 say NO and 1 say YES go to war” and “Hundreds of calls to our Provo and Washington, D.C., office. So far not a single call in favor of bombing Syria.”
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted, “The phones in my office are ringing off the hook and mail is flowing in. Almost all of the people are opposed to intervention in Syria.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tells WND his office is hearing the same overwhelming opposition to intervention.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said, “I don’t know a member of Congress whose e-mails and phone calls are in favor of [bombing Syria.]”
Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., said 96 percent of his emails and phone calls are from constituents who want to express their opposition to military action. He said, “Overwhelmingly, we are hearing pushback from our citizens against military intervention in Syria.”
Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said he’s heard no support from his constituents for striking Syria: “I have not had a single person, not a single person, in over 92 Facebook posts just a little while ago in a question we posed, having a single constituent or a South Carolinian saying let’s go to war in Syria.”
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said “a very high percentage” of the constituents contacting his office have been against U.S. involvement in Syria. He estimated that 90 percent of more than 1,000 calls and emails from Americans have been urging him not to support intervention.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, “I can tell you that in my office, the phones are bopping off the hook there. And almost unanimously people are opposed to what the president is talking about.”
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing he and his constituents say “not just no, but heck no!” to Syria intervention.
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., tweeted, “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our armed forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”
Members of the military post photos of themselves to Facebook in protest of Syria action (Photo: Armed Forces Tea Party)
(Photo: Armed Forces Tea Party)
(Photo: Armed Forces Tea Party)
Meanwhile, U.S. men and women in the military are taking to social media to anonymously demand that the Obama administration refrain from sending them to fight Syria.
Uniformed military members posted photos of themselves on Facebook with paper messages covering their faces, declaring:
- “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al-Qaida in a Syrian civil war.”
- “I didn’t sign up to kill the poor for the rich. No war in Syria!”
- “Obama, I will not deploy to fight for your al-Qaida rebels in Syria. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!”
- “I didn’t join the Navy to fight for al-Qaida in a Syrian civil war.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/calls-to-congress-244-to-1-against-syria-war/#64JXre2mbs2KCATk.99
If congressmen listened to their constituents this war wouldn’t happen, but unfortunately, they take their orders form whomever has the photos of them corn-holing little Johnny, so the war will commence shortly.
I would like them to stop those perversions, but as far as the photographic proof goes, I really don’t care. We know that blackmail is one way things get done in Washington, and surely they all knew this, too, before they decided to run. (??)
However…. I am going to bet that worse things are threatened than revealing the photos. And it is a lot easier to be brave for oneself, than to also have to worry about protecting one’s family against evildoers. How do you get past that, and still be able to do your elected job?
If one cannot carry out the lawfully required duties they then step down due to family obligations. That is how “you get past that, and still be able to do your elected job?” Since that person can NOT do the elected job, that person steps down.
One does NOT assist in the destruction of one’s nation and the people that one was put into office to represent.
I do not disagree, Cal. This harsh reality though leads to a greater percentage of psychopaths in government. Are you saying that the only people who should be in office, should not have families (not even parents)? Or should be willing to knowingly sacrifice those family members for their country? It is one thing to be willing to put your own life on the line (relatively easy), and another to knowingly put your child’s, or mother’s, or brother’s life on the line, through your own actions.
This is a serious question for me — not meant in an obstructionist way. But truly who are the people who can do these elected jobs, given the realities (the psychopaths who make the risks very personal)? Or maybe phrase a different way: what does it take to make the average person (most people are average) willing to put aside those very real human desires to protect their families (or innocents), in order to fight for deeper principles without blinking? And how can we cultivate that quality, if that is what it takes to get the job done?
Isn’t it past time for ACCOUNTABILITY from “our” representatives?
Let’s start with the US Constitution and ALL that is in PURSUANCE THEREOF it being the Supreme LAW of this land. That is correct, LAW.
Guess what? Every state’s Constitution is the highest law within that state EXCEPT when US Constitution and ALL that is in PURSUANCE THEREOF is Supreme – the feds are supreme only when carrying out their constitutionally assigned duties in a constitutional manner. The states are supreme every time EXCEPT when the feds are carrying out their constitutionally assigned duties in a constitutional manner that is in conflict with the state(s).
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it very clear that the US Constitution sets LIMITS on those who serve within the federal government: “… a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”
To bind them down while in public office, they are required in Article 6 to take the Oath to the US Constitution (and also to the state Constitution when it applies). A solemn vow before God, the Oath is sworn [or affirmed] to support and defend the Constitution (s) to strengthen the contract that those that serve or work within the federal and state governments are lawfully required to take and KEEP. It was written into the Constitution to bind public servants down from the tempting mischief inherent in government’s granted power, and to give them accountability to “We the People”.
It is a part of the lawful, binding contract that must not be broken or they can be fired. (Yes, fired, no election needed to remove them from office. There is an election needed to replace them.) Our nation’s founders designed the infrastructure of governance to protect the “unalienable rights” of “We the People”.
How does this apply here? Lets start with…
US Constitution, Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.
The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allotted time of two years of supporting a “standing military” is a misappropriation of funds (misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person’s estate, or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another’s assets (a fiduciary duty)). It is a felony – a crime punishable by a prison sentence.
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” is really straightforward. There can be no misunderstanding of the words used as an excuse for disobeying that duty. NO standing army except in times of war, and ONLY the congress can declare war.
*War must be declared by congress to be a lawful war the US military are used to fight in. War cannot lawfully be “declared” against a tactic such as the “war against terror” or the “war against drugs”; both are not wars and not even the congress can declare a war against a tactic. (*War defined: ‘Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations’. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/war). Clause 12 was put in as a duty of congress because, as James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution warned: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare”.
That is right, it is a felony that is being committed. Let’s go back to the word “accountability” (In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, LIABILITY, and the expectation of account-giving).
So now that we know that this is a felony crime being committed we can stop them by requiring their arrest and prosecution for that crime.
Since we also know that the only time any US president can go to war is when the congress declares it. Ahh, but someone brings up the The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1], a federal law.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is intended to check any US president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict WITHOUT the consent of Congress. This provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad ONLY by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “A NATIONAL EMERGENCY CREATED BY AN ATTACK UPON THE UNITED STATES, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” (* statutory authorization – explicit authority by statute. All bills, laws, statutes, etc MUST be in PURSUANCE of the US Constitution to be lawful)
It would not be lawful if our forces are already over there attacking them, assisting the terrorists (Al’Quaida, etc) now being called “rebels”; and some ours unlawfully over there get killed or injured because their NOT (would not be) lawfully there in the first place. This means that “… CREATED BY AN ATTACK UPON THE UNITED STATES, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” would NOT apply here.
Unfortunately the fact that they have been, and are, following unlawful orders makes them accountable for the crime(s) along with the president, and anyone else – including military brass, Pentagon and anyone else in or out of his adminstration supporting this (Yes, Boehner, McClain, etc that does mean you have two felonies written about in this comment so far).
When any within the three branches of the state or federal governments do not carry out the duties as they are required to by the US Constitution and the State’s constitution – both being backed by a solemn oath – remove them as no longer meeting the LAWFUL requirements of the position they are occupying. They have broken the contract that lets them occupy the position they are in. Replace them with someone who will carry out the legitimate governmental duties. Prosecute those who deserve it.
If it takes a constitutional Sheriff to do this task because of resistance to giving up the position, then so be it (Since the other “Law enforcement agencies”- federal and state – abdicated their first and most important duties). If that sheriff needs to use the (trained) militia to carry out an arrest – it is the Sheriff’s right and a rightful aspect of his duty.
It is past time to hold congress to its assigned duties!
It won’t matter, as Congress exists to serve the Israeli death machine and Wall Street.
Remember the last time Congress got deluged with calls, back in October 2008, urging those slime balls to NOT bail out the banks?
That worked well, didn’t it?