H.con.res.107.ih

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Mar 11, 2012.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

    On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Obama administration would seek “international permission” before engaging in war in Syria. Besides the possibility that it is merely a ruse — as there is growing evidence that the United States may already be covertly involved in Syria’s war — for the United States to seek permission from other nations to go to war is unconstitutional. For that reason, Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C., left) has just introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, calling for the impeachment of the President if he declares war without congressional approval.

    Jones's resolution, which calls upon the U.S. House — with the Senate concurring — to prevent President Obama from starting yet another war without Congress declaring war. HCR 107 states:

    Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

    Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

    The Obama administration has openly rejected the constitutional requirement of seeking congressional approval for U.S. military engagement.

    SOURCE

    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday that the Obama administration would seek "international permission" before intervening military in Syria's civil war. Both men left open, however, the question of whether the approval of Congress would be either sought or required. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) pressed Panetta repeatedly on that question, but failed to get a definitive answer.

    "We're worried about international legal basis, but no one's worried about the fundamental constitutional legal basis that this Congress has over war," Sessions protested. Referring to the last year's bombing raids by the United States and United Nations allies in Libya, Sessions said: "We were not asked, stunningly, in direct violation of the War Powers Act, whether or not you believe it's constitutional, [the Libyan raids] certainly didn't comply with it. We spent our time worrying about the UN, the Arab League, NATO, and too little time worrying about the elected representatives of the United States," Sessions said. "Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a No Fly Zone in Syria, without congressional approval?" he asked Panetta.

    SOURCE

    The sense of congress

    I have to laugh every time I see “It is the sense of Congress” as a prelude to some statement made by congress. There is not one of us out here who believes for a minute that Congress has any sense at all, of anything, at any time. So absorbed in their own self-enrichment, so arrogant in their disregard for the people they were sent to the District of Criminals to represent, these same individuals were just informed that essentially…….their services were no longer needed.​

    < snip >

    Why did these Senators, including Jeff Sessions, sit there and take this? Why did not one of these arrogant, self serving jackasses leap from their seats and demand the immediate arrest of these two traitors?​

    The answer is simple actually. Congress no longer has the power or authority to object to anything, or to assert themselves. Whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, congress has for years, shot itself in the foot so many times by initiating, acquiescing to, and constructing global agreements that forfeited our sovereignty and along with it their own power and authority; they have rendered them selves useless. Every time they voted against us, the people they were supposed to represent, they brought them selves one step closer to being out of a job. Panetta and Dempsey just handed them their pink slip.​

    As for that bill by Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina? Not one co-sponsor. Not one supporter in that collection of bloated, self serving congressmen.​


    Now the questions:

    • Why should we, the American public, continue to finance the military on any level if it is no longer subject to US control?
    • Since Panetta and Dempsey have declared that our military is now under control of foreign organizations and agents, will they allow service members to choose whether they want to continue in service to a foreign organization or be relieved of any further obligations?
    • Will the United Nations and NATO now assume all costs of military actions?
    • Will these foreign organizations that Panetta and Dempsey have subjected our military to, now assume all costs associated with military expansion, including funding the military industrial complex?
    • And finally, considering the failure of “congress” to defend the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, which I assume includes domestic enemies working for foreign organizations but collecting a paycheck from US taxpayers; will congress voluntarily step down and acknowledge their complicity in this treason against these United States?
    SOURCE

    In case you hadn't heard.
     
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Not quite as exciting as the corporate sponsored dog and pony show we all refer to as the "election" process I know but still it needed to be posted.

    Global fascism. I just can't quite get comfortable with the idea. How do you folks do it?

    Sapper Old chum. How's your comfort level these days? Still saving the world from the "terrorists" I presume. Can't be easy though I mean who can keep track of them? One day they're fighting against us and the next we're training and supporting them. Must be confusing for a military man.

    Ah well, I know you're awful busy following the globalist's orders and all so I'll leave ya alone. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #2 poncho, Mar 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2012
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    Poncho, you're a true patriot. :thumbs:
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Why should we, the American public, continue to finance the military on any level if it is no longer subject to US control?

    Because international agreements take precedent.

    >Since Panetta and Dempsey have declared that our military is now under control of foreign organizations and agents, will they allow service members to choose whether they want to continue in service to a foreign organization or be relieved of any further obligations?

    No because they will still be on the US payroll.

    >Will the United Nations and NATO now assume all costs of military actions?

    No.

    >Will these foreign organizations that Panetta and Dempsey have subjected our military to, now assume all costs associated with military expansion, including funding the military industrial complex?

    No

    >And finally, considering the failure of “congress” to defend the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, which I assume includes domestic enemies working for foreign organizations but collecting a paycheck from US taxpayers; will congress voluntarily step down and acknowledge their complicity in this treason against these United States?

    The USA has not had an enemy since 1946.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Obama has also openly rejected the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen. So we have an illegitimate president that uses illegitimate "international" authority to take us into illegal wars while congress does nothing but pass laws to restrict our freedom and favor the people that are looting our treasury.

    How do you all square with that? Doesn't the law matter anymore?
     
    #5 poncho, Mar 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2012
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are only two "kinds" of US citizen, natural born and naturalized.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No so Bill there is also dual citizenship. Obama is a dual citizen and this is exactly the type of citizen the framers of the constitution did not want occupying the White House because one can never be sure where their loyalties lie. That's why they stipulated anyone running for the office of POTUS must be a natural born citizen. Meaning born of two American citizen parents. Not one American citizen and one British subject.
     
    #7 poncho, Mar 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2012
  8. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Sessions acted shocked at the answer but one wonders if it's a staged reaction. Neither the house nor the senate have actually done anything about this, nor will they. Just like Obama's recent non-recess appointment - they will complain, but they will not act. Ditto the sheeple.
     
  9. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,227
    Likes Received:
    615
    Man at Work

    [​IMG]
     
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Officially the US does not recognize dual citizenship. For a non-natural born person to become naturalized he must renounce his old citizenship.

    A child of immigrant parents must declare his US citizenship at age 18 and renounce all other citizenships. There have been recent stories about young people who have lived here most all their lives and now are being forced to return to Mexico or wherever even if their parents have become naturalized US citizens.
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Congress could refuse to fund these unconstitutional interventions but I highly doubt they will. Those whom they serve, the international banksters and global corporitos who benefit from these "wars" wouldn't take kindly to their profits being cut off.
     

Share This Page

Loading...