Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

We Need a Congressional Declaration of War

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe Cooper

unread,
Nov 23, 2015, 9:15:23 AM11/23/15
to
Nobody wants war, but war has been thrust upon us – exactly what FDR said
after Pearl Harbor. Under the United States Constitution (Article I,
Section 8), there is one and only one provision for times like this. No
president can be allowed to ignore the constitutional power of the U.S.
Congress to declare war. No Congress can evade its responsibility to
take a public position – and having just four senators and four
representatives act on behalf of all the others is the worst kind of
evasion of responsibility. The Founders wrote Article I, Section 8
because they understood that a declaration of war was the most serious
responsibility. The Congress must recover its constitutional power and
responsibility.

If the U.S. Congress declares war against ISIS and its kind, the usual
media hysterics will accuse us of aggression. Well, now they also have
to accuse François Hollande, Vladimir Putin, and even B.H. Obama, who has
been waging war for seven years without being asked to take
responsibility for it.

The usual media targets – conservative Americans and Israelis – have
turned out to be right. This is a watershed moment. "There is a time in
the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads to fortune." This is
such a time.

It's a fair guess that a lot of Muslims have been living in fear of the
fanatics next door and would be secretly glad to see the United States
and the civilized world act decisively. Our vacillation and weakness
have empowered the killers and weakened the rest. But we have to take an
unmistakable stand, and the U.S. Constitution, in its wisdom, gives us
the right way to do it.

In the Middle East, Jordan and Egypt will join a credible coalition
against ISIS-type jihad, because they themselves are threatened with
extinction. India, the biggest democratic nation in the world, has
suffered from almost 1,000 years of jihad attacks. Under decent American
leadership, the anglosphere can come together again and join the fight
against the worst abusers of human rights since the Nazis and Stalin. We
may not agree on much with Vladimir Putin, but we have a common enemy.

That is the emerging alliance. You can raise questions about any of
countries. It's safe to assume that self-interest is the bottom line.
Putin and China have waged serious war on their domestic jihadis, the
Chechens and Uighurs. ISIS is reported to have many Chechens and Uighurs
in its ranks, and Russia and China want them neutralized and never going
back home.

That is in their best interest and ours.

Israel has fought its domestic jihad and a large Fifth Column, which
always acts in cahoots with the Western left-jihadist alliance that is
making war.

There is no way to win without naming and shaming the Fifth Column.

The single strongest step is for the United States Congress to reclaim
its constitutional power to declare war.

1. When Obama, in cahoots with Nicolas Sarkozy, decided to overthrow
Libya's Gaddafi, there was no decent explanation to Americans or the
world.

Mr. Obama just giggled in a reporter's face when he was asked about the
War Powers act, which requires explicit notification to Congress within
60 days of any U.S. military action.

That moment of presidential contempt should stay in our minds forever.

It means the end of effective constitutional government if it is allowed
to stand. The U.S. government must come back to a sane balance of power,
and any official who resists that must be impeached.

A declaration of war defines the enemy, who has been attacking us since
9/11 and before. It provides legal grounds for defining "treason in time
of war." It divides the sheep from the goats and puts them all on
notice.

American tradition is to avoid legal accusations of treason when
possible. The betrayal of U.S. nuclear secrets to the Soviets was one
case that actually came to trial. But we never want to risk destroying
the national consensus, except in the worst cases. Normally we follow
Lincoln's advice: with malice toward none, with charity toward all.

And yet, a declaration would spell out a genuine dividing line and
proclaim to the world that we now recognize allies and enemies "foreign
and domestic."

Naming and shaming is an essential step, because we have been deeply
penetrated by jihadist enemies, as four-star USN (ret.) Admiral James
Lyons has said at the National Press Club, in an unmistakable warning to
the nation.

For our friends who are in deep denial, Adm. Lyons's brief talk is a
must. It says all we need to know. The admiral is not a caricature of
the left – he does not love war, but he does love truth, and he has
dedicated a life of service to this country.

Every one of us can watch the video and read the words. It is the very
least we can do.

2. We have a scofflaw president and administration. Because a sitting
president can always count on about a third of the voters, impeachment is
not going to happen.

What is happening today is the first stage of telling the truth. To
prepare for national recovery, we must keep explaining the real situation
every time another jihad attack happens – every time the savages commit
another crime against humanity. Liberals are always playing dumb,
pretending they don't get why the latest massacre was committed.

The answer is always the war theology. Always, always, always. It's not
poverty. It's not the unfairness of life. It's not any of the usual
rationalizations. For jihad killers, it is always God's command, and
that's all there is to it. Listen to them say it every single time.

Jihad is one of the five Pillars of Islam, and it's a strict obligation
for all believing Muslims. The only "out" is to interpret jihad as an
inner struggle. But that doesn't apply to ISIS, al-Qaeda, or Iran.

Violent jihad cannot be tolerated by civilized peoples.

Don't let anybody get away with John Kerry's blabber that you can
"rationalize" some jihad murders but maybe not some others. There are
good crimes against humanity and bad ones. No. Kerry is a clown, still
desperately running after that Nobel Prize. For the U.S. SecState to
utter such words makes us the laughingstock of the world. Hillary, too.
They are dangerous fools in office.

There is no substitute for telling the truth, and you have the most
powerful tool to do so at your fingertips. Failing to use your personal
power is a dereliction of responsibility.

This means you and me, and all of us.

3. A New Media is standing up, with worldwide reach. Give them your
strong support, and keep them honest. They are our foremost tool to
bring down the Bodyguard of Lies.

Americans have allowed the Old Media to turn against our national
security, but today you have the tools to resist them. We are not
helpless. This is no time to abandon the struggle.

4. A declaration of war proclaims a national consensus.

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is an eloquent model.
Jefferson did not name Britain in the Declaration. He appealed to decent
human opinion everywhere. As a political document, the Declaration
worked magnificently. Its majestic language appealed to readers in both
Britain and France. We did not label England as the enemy – the
complaints were aimed at King George – and as a result, many Englishmen
had no qualms about supporting us.

Edmund Burke responded to the Declaration by speaking up on behalf of the
colonies in the English Parliament.

If we declare war against ISIS and its ilk, all the other jihadist gangs
will have to take heed, including the nuke-hungry mullahs. The
Constitution give us a powerful symbolic tool to draw a line, one that
friends and enemies must take seriously.

Obama's red lines are a joke. A U.S. declaration of war is not.

5. A Declaration does not automatically commit us to any particular
military action. It says that we are dead serious, and by direct
implication, that any group is either for us or against us.

In World War II, the U.S. declared war on Hitler and Imperial Japan. But
soon as the enemy surrendered, we treated them "with malice towards none,
with charity toward all." Think of the Marshall Plan, and the economic
success of Germany and Japan, supported by the United States.

By the same token, if the Saudi faction that has been funding and
supporting jihad against us continues on its murderous path, a
Declaration of War defines it as the enemy.

Even the Iranians are bound to see a declaration of war as a threat to
their secretive killing of American soldiers. The mullahs are a
different branch of jihad, but we don't have to care. Point a gun at us
in time of war, and our military will act.

We can stop endless hair-splitting by liberals and enemy propagandists,
who secretly want this country to be defeated. After a declaration of
war, is doesn't matter what they call themselves. What matters is what
they do. For the United States, it made no difference if the enemy was
Nazis, Italian fascists, or Japan. They were enemies.

In the same way, a constitutionally serious America doesn't have to split
hairs about this or that enemy label. Jihad has a thousand names, but we
don't care which kind of hat they are wearing today.

The Founders understood there would be times like this. Thomas Jefferson
sent U.S. Navy ships to put down the Muslim pirates of Libya. Article I,
Section 8 was written for these exact circumstances. It is badly needed,
and Congress must do its job.

Source: http://bit.ly/1kPSSFB

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)

Gronk

unread,
Nov 29, 2015, 11:27:08 PM11/29/15
to
Joe Cooper wrote:
> Nobody wants war, but war has been thrust upon us – exactly what FDR said
> after Pearl Harbor. Under the United States Constitution (Article I,

Pearl Harbor was when another *country* attacked us.

Governor Swill

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 2:08:08 AM12/1/15
to
On 9/11, another country *did*.

Swill
--
"The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone.
Security also lies in the value of our free institutions.
A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous
press must be suffered by those in authority in order
to preserve the even greater values of freedom of
expression and the right of the people to know." - Judge Murray Gurfein on the Pentagon Papers

Gronk

unread,
Dec 6, 2015, 11:47:59 PM12/6/15
to
Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:27:07 -0700, Gronk wrote:
>
>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> Nobody wants war, but war has been thrust upon us – exactly what FDR said
>>> after Pearl Harbor. Under the United States Constitution (Article I,
>>
>> Pearl Harbor was when another *country* attacked us.
>
> On 9/11, another country *did*.

What country was that?

Domitius Corbulo

unread,
Dec 7, 2015, 4:05:25 AM12/7/15
to
On 911 Radical Muslims attacked the WTC & The Pentagon. The capital for
Muslims is a city in Syria, though the people who hijacked the airplanes
to attack us came from several countries in the Middle East. Does
naming a specific country matter to you and why?

I believe that congress should declare war on Radical Islam who has
openly attacked us. It seems they would prefer to sit in judgement of
whatever the President does or doesn't do. So what is your preference
regarding a declaration of war?

Governor Swill

unread,
Dec 8, 2015, 12:32:15 AM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:05:23 -0500, Domitius Corbulo <cor...@gmx.com>
wrote:

>On 12/6/2015 11:47 PM, Gronk wrote:
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:27:07 -0700, Gronk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Nobody wants war, but war has been thrust upon us – exactly what FDR
>>>>> said
>>>>> after Pearl Harbor. Under the United States Constitution (Article I,
>>>>
>>>> Pearl Harbor was when another *country* attacked us.
>>>
>>> On 9/11, another country *did*.
>>
>> What country was that?

Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 were Saudi nationals, 1 was Egyptian, the
other three came from other Saudi peninsula nations. Bin Laden was a
Saudi national and the money he collected and funneled into Al Qaeda
came from Saudis.

There remains no doubt in my mind that whether or not the King himself
or his government officially sanctioned it, 9/11 was clearly a Sunni
Arab attack on the United states.

>On 911 Radical Muslims attacked the WTC & The Pentagon. The capital for
>Muslims is a city in Syria, though the people who hijacked the airplanes
>to attack us came from several countries in the Middle East. Does
>naming a specific country matter to you and why?

Differentiate, please. They weren't "radical Muslims" in the same
sense as Daesh which seeks to establish an Islamic Empire. These were
Islamists with a specific goal: To remove the US from sacred land in
Saudi Arabia. The bases were removed after 9/11 and other Al Qaeda
attacks in Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda has since withered, it's primary
purpose gone and its leadership destroyed.

>I believe that congress should declare war on Radical Islam who has
>openly attacked us. It seems they would prefer to sit in judgement of
>whatever the President does or doesn't do. So what is your preference
>regarding a declaration of war?

Seems unnecessary at this point but I would favor such a statement
made in conjunction with other target nations (Europe, Russia, India,
China, Australasia, Africa) if the Sunni states do not themselves
bring this problem to an end.

That said, our traditional concept of war simply won't work. We're
dealing with a stateless and decentralized enemy. San Bernardino
proved that all one has to be is a radical Muslim to launch terror
attacks. No direct connection to any terror group is needed.

It should also be noted that such attacks do nothing to damage us -
they can only instill fear - but if we succumb to that fear and
continue to erode our freedoms and rights in exchange for security
govt cannot provide is, they will have one.

Their goal is not to "conquer" the west, but to end the very concept
of freedom of action and individuality upon which western civilization
is founded.

Swill
--
The Democratic Party makes me ashamed to be an American.
The Republican Party makes me ashamed to be a human being. - Clave

Beam Me Up Scotty

unread,
Dec 8, 2015, 11:12:32 AM12/8/15
to
On 12/08/2015 12:32 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> It should also be noted that such attacks do nothing to damage us -
> they can only instill fear - but if we succumb to that fear and
> continue to erode our freedoms and rights in exchange for security
> govt cannot provide is, they will have one.

Liberalism shows that it's an ideology of contradictions....

You ignore your own Liberal fear of guns.

You say guns have to be confiscated to stop your fear because someone
might shoot up a Planned Parenthood or Liberal College but you don't
think Muslim terrorism is a threat or that it needs to be ended to stop
the fear that Muslims will indiscriminately kill in order to get you to
limit our freedoms.

What you seem to be saying is that when it's your "goal" like banning
guns, you can use the idea of fear to limit "our" freedoms but when it's
someone else's goal about a border fence to save our culture, or maybe a
fear of Liberalism corrupting our children that fear is irrelevant.

Liberalism is unsustainable and you prove it everyday.

--
The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions.

Governor Swill

unread,
Dec 8, 2015, 5:45:45 PM12/8/15
to
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:12:22 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 12/08/2015 12:32 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> It should also be noted that such attacks do nothing to damage us -
>> they can only instill fear - but if we succumb to that fear and
>> continue to erode our freedoms and rights in exchange for security
>> govt cannot provide is, they will have one.
>
>Liberalism shows that it's an ideology of contradictions....
>
>You ignore your own Liberal fear of guns.

I didn't say anything about guns at all.

>You say guns have to be confiscated to stop your fear because someone
>might shoot up a Planned Parenthood or Liberal College but you don't
>think Muslim terrorism is a threat or that it needs to be ended to stop
>the fear that Muslims will indiscriminately kill in order to get you to
>limit our freedoms.

How stupid do you plan to get today? Did you just make up some post
in your mind and reply to that? Because so far, you haven't commented
on the post I made.

>What you seem to be saying is that when it's your "goal" like banning
>guns, you can use the idea of fear to limit "our" freedoms but when it's
>someone else's goal about a border fence to save our culture, or maybe a
>fear of Liberalism corrupting our children that fear is irrelevant.
>
>Liberalism is unsustainable and you prove it everyday.

You want to reply to me, reply to me. You want to make up posts to
reply to, fine, you can do that too. Just don't stick my name on
them.

Beam Me Up Scotty

unread,
Dec 8, 2015, 7:26:25 PM12/8/15
to
On 12/08/2015 05:45 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:12:22 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2015 12:32 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> It should also be noted that such attacks do nothing to damage us -
>>> they can only instill fear - but if we succumb to that fear and
>>> continue to erode our freedoms and rights in exchange for security
>>> govt cannot provide is, they will have one.
>>
>> Liberalism shows that it's an ideology of contradictions....
>>
>> You ignore your own Liberal fear of guns.
>
> I didn't say anything about guns at all.
>

That's what I was pointing out how you ignore what you fear and tell
others that their fear is NOT credible, so why then isn't your fear also
"not credible".

Why should we address only your Liberal fears?

Gronk

unread,
Dec 9, 2015, 12:28:56 AM12/9/15
to
Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:05:23 -0500, Domitius Corbulo <cor...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/2015 11:47 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:27:07 -0700, Gronk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> Nobody wants war, but war has been thrust upon us – exactly what FDR
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> after Pearl Harbor. Under the United States Constitution (Article I,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pearl Harbor was when another *country* attacked us.
>>>>
>>>> On 9/11, another country *did*.
>>>
>>> What country was that?
>
> Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 were Saudi nationals, 1 was Egyptian, the
> other three came from other Saudi peninsula nations. Bin Laden was a
>

So Egypt also attacked us?

Governor Swill

unread,
Dec 9, 2015, 2:25:26 AM12/9/15
to
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:26:14 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Obamas.Bra...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 12/08/2015 05:45 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:12:22 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/08/2015 12:32 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> It should also be noted that such attacks do nothing to damage us -
>>>> they can only instill fear - but if we succumb to that fear and
>>>> continue to erode our freedoms and rights in exchange for security
>>>> govt cannot provide is, they will have one.
>>>
>>> Liberalism shows that it's an ideology of contradictions....
>>>
>>> You ignore your own Liberal fear of guns.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about guns at all.
>>
>
>That's what I was pointing out how you ignore what you fear and tell
>others that their fear is NOT credible, so why then isn't your fear also
>"not credible".
>
>Why should we address only your Liberal fears?

What the hell are you talking about? Do you not understand English?
If you're too thick to understand my posts, don't waste your time
replying to them.
0 new messages