Yesterday the House Voted Support For US Troops Attacking Iraq.
Council on Foreign Relations member Richard Gephardt, House Democratic leader said, "We must send a strong message, the strongest possible message, to Saddam Hussein that domestic politics will never, ever affect our resolve" This summer Council on Foreign Relations member Gephardt told an American Television audience that the day was soon coming that the United States would have to become part of an international regime.
Council on Foreign Relations member outgoing House Speaker Republican Newt Gingrich said, "No matter what our debates at home, we are as a nation prepared to lead the world," I rise to say today to Saddam the United States can both govern itself and lead the world simultaneously."
The resolution passed 417 to 5.
Council on Foreign Relations member William Clinton and his fellow CFR members planned and carried out the Iraq attack to coincide with the Holiday season. America's Council on Foreign Relations, Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs, and their branch organizations in other nations don't want Peace on Earth, they want a state of perpetual warfare to maximize profits from media, medicine, munition, energy, and food industries directed by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and their branch organizations in other nations.
American's are being fed pap.
We are told that "our" government is taking into consideration Iraq's religious observance. Why isn't "our" government taking into consideration America's religious observance? Why are we sending American troops to kill and be killed at a time when they should be home with their families observing their own religious beliefs?
We are told that the Iraq attack is necessary to protect America's "national security interests." Isn't the threat to our "national security interests" much greater than just Iraq? Aren't China, Pakistan, and North Korea, a part of the same threat? If President Clinton is so concerned about the development of weapons of mass destruction why did he sell Communist China key military technology?
Shouldn't the "threat" be debated in Congress, and clearly defined? Shouldn't alternate solutions to the "threat" be discussed and placed before the American people, so they understand exactly what the "threat" is and what options are available? If military action is necessary, shouldn't such action be debated and voted on by congress?
Has Iraq attacked America? What National Emergency allowed Clinton to Declare War on Iraq without the consent of congress? The war powers clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, expressly requires authorization by Congress before the President can engage in acts of war, unless there is a direct attack upon the United States. Clinton violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that was enacted by Congress over President Nixon's veto to prevent a repetition of the Vietnam War scenario, where Americans were misled by repeated presidential lies, misrepresentations, deceits and falsehoods.
If the House really wanted to support American Troops they would vote to bring them home and add an Amendment to the Articles of Impeachment to the effect that Clinton should be impeached for violating the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and is therefore in violation of his constitutional oath required by Article II, Section 1 to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
If the House really wanted to support American Troops it would add an Article of Impeachment, that the role of other Council on Foreign Relations members in President Clinton's administration in aiding and abetting the President in violating his constitutional oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, be investigated.
The Reuters's article that follows has been updated to identify Council on Foreign Relations members mentioned in the story:
> WASHINGTON (Reuters 12/17/98) - The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday briefly set aside its deep partisan divisions over [Council on Foreign Relations member ] President Clinton's impeachment to approve a resolution of unequivocal support for U.S. troops carrying out attacks on Iraq.
> "We must send a strong message, the strongest possible message, to Saddam Hussein that domestic politics will never, ever affect our resolve," [Council on Foreign Relations member ] House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri said. The resolution passed on a vote of 417 to 5.
> As the House was praising the courage of U.S. troops and voicing support for the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the United States and Britain resumed raids on Iraq.
> "No matter what our debates at home, we are as a nation prepared to lead the world," [Council on Foreign Relations member ] outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich said during the House debate, adding that the Clinton administration needed to make a clear commitment to replacing Saddam's government.
> "I rise to say today to Saddam the United States can both govern itself and lead the world simultaneously,"[Council on Foreign Relations member ] Gingrich, of Georgia added. The debate on articles of impeachment against [Council on Foreign Relations member ] Clinton had been planned to occur Thursday but was put off at least a day due to the air attacks.
> The Senate was not in session to vote on a similar resolution of support but senators of both parties issued statements of support for the U.S. military action. One of the most conservative Republicans, Sen. John Ashcroft of Missouri, urged Clinton to make the latest air strikes part of a "sustained, long-term policy to bring about a change of government in Iraq."
Visit the Roundtable Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807
Title-50 War and National Defense § 783 states - "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."
The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense § 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of their branch organizations in various nations throughout the world. That is totalitarianism on a global scale.