SM1'S BLOG 4 U: One Citizen Speaking...

Monday, September 2, 2013

One Citizen Speaking...

SYRIA: CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE (2013)

Posted: 02 Sep 2013 04:33 AM PDT

Can you just imagine the President’s request to use force against Syria as implemented by the current Congress?

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent chemical weapons attacks launched against the people of Syria.

Whereas, the ruling regime of Syria, according to our assessment, appears to have used chemical weapons against the population of Syria, resulting in an unknown, but estimated, number of deaths that appear to be the result of the use of chemical weapons of an unknown nature and using an unknown delivery system , and

Whereas, the President, in an off-TelePrompTer moment issued an apparent threat against the ruling regime of Syria to the effect that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line that must not be crossed or else there will be “consequences;” and

Whereas, the belief the the ruling regime of Syria used such chemical weapons and violated the President’s verbal red line, makes it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to protect the reputation of the President of the United States and the credibility of the United States as a world power; and

Whereas, even though Syria poses no threat to the President of the United States, the United States, and/or United States citizens, the ego of the President must be assuaged by some action that shall be dutifully reported by the world’s progressive mainstream media in glowing terms.

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force in Syria.”

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against the ruling Syrian regime, in order to prevent any future laughing at the President of the United States or disparagement of the United States as a “paper tiger.”

(b) IN SPECIFIC.—That the President is authorized to order the firing of Cruise Missiles at a multiplicity of targets within the foreign sovereign nation of Syria in order to restore the credibility of the President of the United States and publically assuage his bruised ego. Such strikes are limited to ONLY those areas away from the storage and use of chemical weapons; Russian military assets and/or personnel; Syrian civilian targets that may now be housing Syrian military assets and personnel; and any other target that might generate unfavorable media coverage in the United States. And, under no condition, is Bashar Hafez al-Assad, President of Syria and Regional Secretary of the Syrian-led branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party or his family to be harmed.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved by a weak Congress unwilling to take decisive action against the ruling regime of Syria lest the ruling regime of Syria be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood or representatives of al Qaeda.

The actual 9/11 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force …

Public Law 107–40 - 107th Congress - Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized 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, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

Approved September 18, 2001. <Source>

Bottom line …

Somehow the Congress, especially the progressive socialist democrats who scorned President Bush for attacking a Muslim dictator and leader of his nation’s branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (Iraq Region) and who employed chemical weapons against his own people in Iraq should not confuse and conflate that use of military force with with President Obama’s plan for attacking a Muslim dictator and leader of his nation’s branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (Syria Region) who employed chemical weapons against his own people in Syria.

Unless this attack is part of a covertly-planned strike on Iran, there is absolutely no justification for the use of military force in Syria.

-- steve

An infographic to help you understand what Obama means when he speaks of "equality of outcome"

Posted: 02 Sep 2013 12:55 AM PDT

According to progressive socialist democrat theory, the government needs to offer the HAVE-NOTs the opportunity to become the HAVEs using wealth redistribution – in exchange for voting the progressive socialist democrats into power.

It’s your money that is being given to “have nots” by means of taxpayer subsidies.

-- steve

CONFORMING OUR AGE TO THE CONSTITUTION

Posted: 01 Sep 2013 09:24 PM PDT

Why should we conform our Constitution to the age, rather than conform our age to the Constitution?

Our forefathers, being more inclined to view an expanding government as self-serving and increasingly evil over a period of time, built a system of checks and balances that were designed to protect all citizens from a corrupt, tyrannical government. Knowing that, at some point in time, that the government might reach such a critical mass as to operate on behalf of itself and those who support it; constantly enlarging its scope and authority.

The progressive socialist democrats would have you believe that the tenets of political correctness, moral equivalency, multiculturalism, and situational ethics demand that we conform our Constitution to the age, rather than conform our age to the Constitution.

This is little more than political expediency that excuses political wrongdoing on behalf of a supposed greater good – a good that is interpreted and promoted by self-serving, power-hungry politicians and their special interests.

This is little more than the political expediency that erases individualism and the personal responsibility that mandates the morality of knowing the difference between good and evil; right and wrong.

What we have here is an unconstitutional government.

Starting with the leadership of the executive branch who spends millions to avoid producing the core documentation proving his eligibility for office and explaining the inconsistencies in his documentary history.

An Executive Branch that routinely usurps the Constitutional Authority of Congress to make laws, while selectively enforcing only those laws that convey power and privilege to themselves and their special interest friends.

A Congress that is so divided as to be useless, except to confer upon itself perks and privileges that would have ordinary citizens arrested, arraigned, and tried for corruption.

And, a Judiciary who routinely manufactures rulings out of whole cloth, parsing words to ignore the broader meaning of the whole. Clearly believing they are above the law in ruling the unconstitutional as being constitutional. Allowing that they are unlikely to be overridden by a Congress so divided and at war with itself as to be preoccupied with corruption and trivia.

It appears that we have a confluence of corruption and evil ... all based on the theory that the ends justify the means; the means having been pre-determined to be the furtherance of international socialism, as to allow the end, fair or foul, to be employed without check or consequence.

The problem with the GOP, it is acting like the Taliban when it comes to matters of religion and personal choice ...

It appears that there are those in the GOP who are continually inserting religion into politics and thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That is, many GOP politicians are promoting an attempt to create law based on religious precepts. Where one group holds life sacred and worthy of political and legal protection, another group holds that women, rather than the state, should maintain control over their own bodies and reproductive rights. A divisive issue that should never be discussed.

Both groups are dead wrong. The issue, as it is currently stated, is not one where the federal government has any right to consider. Not only does the federal government lack the constitutional authority to impose rules and regulations relating to an individual’s God-given right of choice when it comes to reproduction, they lack the constitutional and moral authority to coerce human behavior into conforming with the political beliefs of the majority in what is a most personal and private decision.

The government need not provide funding for issues that are clearly matters of personal choice based on terms and conditions, warrantees and representations in legislation. If anything, the GOP should steer clear of the issue and concentrate on the broader constitutionality of government actions.

-- steve