November 12, 2013
Dear Stan,
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding military intervention in Syria. I appreciate hearing your concerns and welcome the opportunity to respond to your comments.
As you know, it became evident to the international community on August 21, 2013 that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people as a direct response to civil unrest. Evidence of the use of chemical weapons has been confirmed by United Nations inspectors.
There has been recent debate in Congress as to whether or not the United States should act unilaterally with military action to address President Assad's crimes against innocent civilians.
The use of chemical weapons in Syria – or by any other country – is entirely unacceptable and undeniably tragic, but I have always believed that we must seek to exhaust all diplomatic solutions prior to the use of force.
I am pleased that President Obama chose to consult Congress on the issue of authorizing military force against Syria. I had signed a letter to the President along with many of my colleagues urging him to seek prior authorization from Congress. As we have seen in recent years, using military force against another country is a decision that requires serious consideration and open debate and it is entirely appropriate for the people's representatives to carefully weigh the options.
As you may know, there have been steps toward a diplomatic solution and I am pleased with the recent commitment made by Syria to give up its chemical weapons program and submit it to the United Nations. On September 26, 2013, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, including the U.S. and Russia, reached an agreement on a resolution to require Syria to give up its chemical weapons. Any deal must include thorough oversight, strict compliance, and incontrovertible verification.
As diplomatic efforts move forward, I will continue to review all options available. I have greatly appreciated hearing from my constituents on all sides of this issue—these thoughtful letters, emails, and phone calls have helped shape my consideration of this decision. Rest assured that I will take your views into account as we continue to consider this issue in Congress.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Your comments help me to better represent the people of our Congressional District. Please stay in touch, and if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to email me through my website at www.lowenthal.house.gov or call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-7924.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Lowenthal
Member of Congress
|
--
Nov. 12
Dear Rep. Lowenthal,
Thank you for your response to my email of enquiry regarding U.S. military intervention in Syria - or anywhere, for that matter.
I appreciate your thinking, and actions, on the subject. However, you didn't directly address the issue of constitutional authority, appeared to skate right by it, as it were; viz: Who has the constitutional authority to declare/take the nation to war, and who does not.
But you appear to be a reasonable man; even if you are a member of the same political party as the current executive, I trust that you will be involved in raising, and carrying through with, this reasonable issue in Congress - which should be, in its essence, a bipartisan issue.
Cordially,
'Stan' Stanfield
P.S. The Internet has carried some evidence that it was not the Syrian government that used a chemical weapon in that suburb. It was the rebel forces; trying to draw the U.S. into the battle, mindful of Obama's announced, and widely publicized, red line. (Would Assad be that stupid???)
Be careful of propaganda in this regard, by those - ALL of those who want to drag the U.S. into that war. Which is not even a civil war. The opposition includes - perhaps even consists mainly of - foreign fighters. Including al-Qaeda, may Congress be reminded.
Over, and over again, if necessary.
--
2) from teaparty.org: 'Only 5 enrollments completed in D.C. Obamacare exchange' - Nov. 11 (orig. posted on Politico, Nov. 10)
Kari Smith · Top Commenter · North Loup Scotia High School
This is hilarious watching Obama's signature legislation self destruct. The only thing good here is it really does show Obama to be a jacka$$, he can be their poster boy. What is not funny is the decimation of our health care system and people losing and not being able to afford ins. now.
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · 3 hours ago
--
3a) from activistpost.com: 'Did the FED Kill JFK?" - Bill Still.com video - Nov. 11
Anonymous said...
JFK signed an Exec. order to end the Fed in June 1963. It only took LBJ and the Rothschilds five months to murder him. LBJ was just another puppet. JFK was the last president to issue real money the way it was supposed to be done. Now Okenya is just printing money, to keep the banksters rolling in cash, and crushing what is left of the middle class.
Bill S. nixes that idea in the video. Whatever: There is a video iv w/LBJ's mistress where she says he was involved in it w/some powerful men, esp. Texas money, who were going to miss out on big bucks if JFK put the kibosh on the Vietnam war, as he was just in the process of doing (particularly bec. of having been warned by Gen. MacArthur not to get involved in a mud-sticking land war in Asia). Who were in cahoots w/the Mafia, who were unhappy w/the Kennedys' pressure on them; also, w/some elements of the CIA, who were MOST unhappy w/JFK for withdrawing the air cover for their thus-failed landing in Cuba (attempted overthrow of Castro; see 'Bay of Pigs fiasco'). E. Howard Hunt admitted as much on his deathbed. And investigators like Prof. Jim Fetzer have continued to uncover hard evidence that JFK was not assassinated by LHO/a lone gunman from up and behind.
I hope a LOT of all this comes out in this anniversary period of that atrocious era-marking event.
---
3b) from 2012: What's the 'real' truth?: 'JFK Assassination: CIA and New York Times Are Still Lying To Us' - Nov. 12 - (orig. posted at Alternet.org, by David Talbot)
(David concentrated on reporting on two books, both of which came to the conclusion that 'LHO did it after all'; also time was given to the book by a SS agent who felt that he accidentally fired off a round that killed JFK. Thus my response)
kibitzer3 says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
There are other plausible angles on the JFK assassination story than the ‘accidental shot’ theory, which doesn’t take into consideration a whole host of auxiliary aspects; including:
the mysterious stand-down order just before the parade through the streets of Dallas for the SS bodyguards not to ride shotgun on the presidential limousine (to their obvious surprise, as captured on video); the constructed sniper’s nest on the 6th floor corner of the SB Depository Building, to implicate LHO (who was standing in the entranceway of the bldg at the time, deep investigation into that scene has shown); the slowing down of the limo in the (crossfire) kill zone, and evidence that at least one shot was fired through the car’s windshield from in front; significant differences between what the ER medicos in Dallas observed in the way of JFK’s head wounds and what was chronicled by the Autopsy medicos in Bethesda; as to that: the mysterious time gap between the arrival of Air Force One somewhat near Bethesda Naval Hospital & the observed unloading of the casket from it (in the dark, except for the tv cameras & lights all situated and trained at the normal exit door) and ‘its’ arrival at Bethesda Hospital’s unloading dock (I put ‘its’ in quote marks because there is evidence that the body arrived there in a different casket from the one unloaded from AF1. This discrepancy includes the allied one of JFK’s body then being in a body bag, which it was not when it was taken from Parkland Hospital – forcefully, by the SS, against the law, as remonstrated for by the Parkland authorities – to be loaded onto AF1 for the trip to the East coast, and the ‘official’ autopsy, under the auspices of TPTB); and I could go on, and on. Including the involvement of E. Howard Hunt in the hit (disgruntled CIA agents, for JFK having called off the air cover for their failed beach landing in Cuba and attempted overthrow of Castro. See ‘Bay of Pigs fiasco’); and LBJ’s mistress’s video iv [in which she stated], to her knowledge, his involvement with the perps, including rich Texan businessmen hoping to get even richer by the involvement of the U.S. in a war in Vietnam, which JFK was in the process of pulling the plug on.
And it gets even murkier than all that, including the involvement of the Mafia in the hit. All in all: a shocking, outrageous, damning story, of America’s fall from grace. If it was ever long there, from its inspired inception. A terrible tragedy, indeed. In more ways than one.
--
4) from activistpost.com: 'The rise of the Psychiatric State under Obamacare' - Jon Rappoport - Nov. 11
(We'll all be zombies under medication soon, once ObamaCare is in full swing; which is The Plan)
Zak Bush said...
My anxiety disorder is not bullshit though and I've tried everything under the sun to fix it. If any of you have an idea that I haven't yet tried please tell me, I'm dying here. So far I've tried, God(Christ), yoga(years of intense practice 45 minutes a day), Krishna, Xanax, Klonopin, exercise, homelessness, Vast Vast soul searching, eating right, vegetarianism, marijuana, CBD's, alcohol, new jobs, moving, rehab, sex, isolation, community, fun activities, self love, self hate, running(10 miles a day for a year), weight lifting(similar pattern as last), prison, hard drugs(IE heroin), methadone, family, cats and dogs, music, playing music, painting, writing, oh god I could do this all day and still I sit here filled with angst, wishing I could just feel the same, as I used to, years ago, but I try and try and hope and hope but each year my panic rises and escalates to a new high previously un-imagined, hoping someone knows the answer someone knows how to fix me.
…
Michael Cerrone said...
Hey Zak, try colloidal gold. It has helped me with my anxiety. Research its effects online. It dates back to the Egyptians and helps to calm the nerves, increase IQ and hand-eye coordination, as well as help with weight management. The gold I drink is called Medigold and it can be bought on Amazon for about $36 for a month supply. It's incredible, trust me. Read the reviews
Stan said...
Zak: Anxiety etc. are symptomatic of a condition of stress, often caused by faulty diet (esp. with our modern over-processed foodstuffs). Treatment: protein/non-restricted calories, linoleic acid, several minerals (esp. magnesium, found in good amounts in green leafy veggies & nuts/seeds), vitamins A, C, E, and esp. the B Complex - the whole Complex. (Get a high-stress 'B' dosage supplement, and go to real, non-GMO, whole-wheat bread.) Cut out any alcohol; don't get your calories from that source.
Find a good naturopath, who has been grounded in the research likes of Adelle Davis. (Her 'Let's Get Well' is my bible; also her 'Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit' is good, if a bit dated by now, for up-to-date research.) The high-speed roller milling process of our wheat (stripping the wheat germ and the balanced B complex) and white sugar are the big culprits in particular in our modern state of dis-ease. But there ARE answers to the manifold conditions that have resulted from these short-sighted activities. DON'T GIVE UP. You don't HAVE to suffer. Keep checking info out. Best wishes.
---
5) from trevorloudon.com: 'Trevor Loudon Interviewed by Ginni Thomas of the Daily Caller' - by Trevor - Nov. 10 (posted by CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog - Nov 11
Stan says:
Fair commentary, Trevor; thank you for all your good work for this country. BUT -
You need to research our Constitution further, as to why its Framers put in it the requirement for a candidate for the office of the presidency – and that particular federal office ONLY (with the VP office added later) – to be a “natural born citizen” – NOT just a ‘citizen,’ whether native born or naturalized. It was because the person occupying that office would ALSO be the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces; and they didn’t want anybody in that position to have CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES – like a DUAL CITIZEN would. And that’s why Obama was an ineligible candidate – and is an ineligible, and thus illegal, president. And that’s why Ted Cruz can’t be a candidate for that office – as I say: and that particular office ONLY (plus the office of the VP now as well; added later in case the VP needed to move into the top job, for whatever reason).
The hard evidence for that reading of the matter is 3-fold: 1) the letter at the time of the Constitutional Convention to G. Washington, Chair of the Convention, by John Jay – later to become the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. of A. – drawing his attention to the desirability of the requirements for the office of the president to include that form of citizenship; 2) the fact that Alexander Hamilton made a proposal to the Convention that a candidate for that office be merely a ‘citizen’ – and it was REJECTED; and 3) the known familiarity of the delegates at the Convention (especially their ‘grand old man,’ esteemed elder Benjamin Franklin) with E. de Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations,’ which made the case for a “natural born citizen” being a person born on the soil (jus soli) of two citizen parents (jus sanguinis). Lawyer Mario Apuzzo (puzo1.blogspot.com), who has studied this matter in depth and posted his findings in depth on his website, makes a clear case that the delegates were going by American common law – Natural Law – and based on de Vattel’s take on this matter, not English common law; under the latter of which it speaks of ‘natural born SUBJECTS’ as needing only the father being a British citizen. The delegates to the convention coming up with a constitution for a republic of freemen – sovereigns, not subjects – would hardly be going by English common law, as some Obamabots have tried to make a case for, to get around Obama’s ineligibility.
I urge you to research this matter. You are misleading your audiences and readers by suggesting that Senator Cruz would make a good president. Yes, he undoubtedly would. And. there’s a little matter standing in the way of that suggestion.
It’s the law of the land. Aka the Constitution.
Which has gone through enough trashing already. As you have indicated.
But take heart. Wouldn’t it be fitting justice for Sen. Cruz to announce that he will not be running for the office of the presidency, because he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen – and neither is Mr. Obama???
Anyway – first things first: the clarifying of this issue.
Other than that, I have great respect for the research that you have put in, regarding all this. Indeed: As America goes, so goes Liberty. And for the world, let us not forget.
--
22tula says:
I agree with Stan. Here I posted links to all (that I could find) of George Washington and John Jay Letters ~ scroll down. The 2 letters: John Jay and George Washington’s response is posted on October 22, 2013 @ 9:57am
http://22tula.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/george-washingtons-annotated-copy-of-the-constitution-and-bill-of-rights-1789/
Stan says:
Excellent links. Thank you, 22tula, for this service to the readers. And the nation.
John Jay’s Correspondence and Public Papers
4 Volumes ~ 1745 -1829 Constitutional Convention John Jay’s Letter to George Washington dated July 25, 1787 (Volume 3). https://archive.org/stream/correspondencepu03jayjuoft#page/250/mode/2up
Jay to George Washington, New York, 25th July, 1787
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the command-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural-born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay
George Washington’s reply to Jay’s letter is missing from these public papers. But George Washington’s reply can be found in his papers: pages 138 & 139.
 Pg. 139 “Thank you for the hint contained in your letter and with best wishes for Mrs. Jay, and great affection for yourself…. Your most obedient servant G Washington” George Washington http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage014.db&recNum=144
Hey, Friends of Liberty: We're being called.
---
…and a late entry:
from newswithviews.com: 'Memo to Supreme Court: Greece [NY] Is Not Congress' - Attorney Michael Anthony Peroutka - Nov. 13 (posted Nov. 12)
(An argument against the federal government having the power to determine free speech issues)
Nov. 13
Dear Michael,
Precisely what I wanted to know many years ago, when I started looking into all this 'constitutional' stuff seriously. Here's what I found out:
The terms of the Bill of Rights got 'incorporated' by the SCOTUS as applying FROM the federal government TO the States via the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause. I kid you not. Even Judge Robert Bork, in one of his otherwise stellar books, accepted the 'doctrine' of 'incorporation' as settled law.
As near as I could trace it, it started with a ruling in the very early 1940s when a state fined and/or jailed a person for burning (or otherwise defacing) the American flag, as a declared political act in objection to the declaration of war, and the SCOTUS upheld his appeal to their court on the basis of the 'free speech' content of the First Amendment.
I was outraged that even such a conscientious conservative as Judge Bork didn't want to argue this issue, feeling it was too established. As far as I am concerned, the 14th Amendment did NOT turn the Constitution on its head, and say, in effect,
"The powers formerly reserved to the States shall now reside in the federal government."
If THAT amendment had been proposed at the time, I am sure that it would never have passed. But here we are, in our time, saddled with 'settled law' on the issue. Only it is not so clear-cut; and occasionally decisions are made by the SCOTUS that muddy those waters. Hence the widespread attitude about 'my constitutional rights,' with so many citizens not understanding the federal concept - that they need to secure such rights in their state constitutions, for the Constitution, as you said, applies TO Congress; not to the States.
What a mess. And then there is the Second Amendment, which clearly, by its wording, assumes a natural right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. Which of our rights are inherent, as a free people, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and which need to be secured by our state constitutions??…
'Tiz a puzzlement, to this sincere citizen. This freeman - this sovereign in his own right. Not a subject...
Sincerely,
'Stan' Stanfield
Long Beach, CA
---
|
No comments:
Post a Comment