Mary Mostert
The 2004 election - - American interests vs international socialism?
By Mary Mostert
On February 13, 2003, more than a month before President Bush authorized the U.S. Military to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom, six members of the Democrats “Progressive Caucus” in the Senate introduced a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Massachusetts to stop the President from “waging war against Iraq absent a Congressional Declaration of War.
The Progressive Caucus is not merely a group of left-leaning Democrats. It was founded by and supports the agenda of the (Democratic Socialists of America) which states it is “largest US affiliate of the Socialist International (SI) the worldwide organization of 140 socialist, social democratic and labor parties. The SI has the distinction of being the largest political organization in the world.”
This is not merely a homegrown American political club. It is part of the worldwide Socialist Movement. And, the Socialist International is very busy right now demanding “that the UN must play a central role in building democracy in Iraq.” Why? To create a socialist state in Iraq, that’s why.
The lawsuit’s complaint, filed by Representatives John Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the Progressive Caucus, John Conyers, (D-Michigan), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Jim McDermott (D-Washington) and Jose E. Serrano (D-New York), says it is “to prevent the President from launching a military invasion of Iraq, absent a congressional declaration of war. (According to John Bonifaz, the attorney for the group) "A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional. It is time for the courts to intervene."
Should Americans care about this one way or another? Only if it bothers people that there is a very determined underground movement to discredit the President of the United States in order that someone who is acceptable to the Socialist International beat George W. Bush and win the U.S. Presidency in 2004. Lots of socialist money will be available for that very purpose.
With that background, the comments expressed on Fox News Tuesday night by Rep. John Conyers takes on a somewhat heightened concern. Sean Hannity asked Conyers if, after the fierce gun battle between American troops and Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Qusay and Uday, he could find anything good to say about President Bush. Conyers couldn’t. He merely accused the President of “assassinating” the gun-toting Husseins.
Sean Hannity showed his exasperation with Conyers’ responses, but still did not seem to connect Conyers’ negativity towards the president, which includes not only the lawsuit but also a well-financed and orchestrated effort to impeach President Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft. (The Articles of Impeachment) conveniently already drawn up by President Lyndon Johnson’s former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, accuse Bush, among other things, of:
3) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression.
And:
6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.”
The President of the United States is now subject to the whims of the United Nations, an body unelected and uncontrolled by the American people? Somehow, I don’t think so.
In the 227 year history of the United States of America, we have had five declared wars: The War of 1812, the Mexican war of 1847 when Congress “recognized a state of war” existed, the Spanish-American War 1898, when Congress declared war on Spain following a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in the harbor at Havana, World War I on April 6, 1917, in response to German attacks on America and World War II, when the United States declared war on both Germany and Japan when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
George Washington, who chaired the committee that WROTE the Constitution, issued a presidential proclamation or executive order to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in August of 1794 without even discussing it with Congress. . He stated in that order: “it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress” those resisting the payment of the Whiskey taxes.
However, in 227 years, presidents of the United States have ordered the “militia” of (the United States 234 times) to take action against foreign troublemakers.
The first instance in which an American president sent the army or navy abroad occurred in 1798-1800 when John Adams sent the US Marines to capture a French ship that was attacking Americans and their property. The second use of the U.S. Army and Navy overseas without a declaration of war occurred from 1801-05 when President Thomas Jefferson fought an undeclared war with the Barbary states by sending the US Navy to in response to terrorist attacks and the seizure of the U.S.S. Philadelphia and its crew by Barbary pirates.
Unfortunately, so many Americans, especially those writing for TV, radio and newspapers, appear to have so little knowledge of history, both American and World history, that it has been possible for the World Socialists, with high placed Socialists in the U.S. Congress and key propagandists in the U.S. and World media, to launch an amazingly successful propaganda attack against President Bush with almost no challenge from anyone in the media.
It’s one thing if a majority of the American people vote to choose people approved policies and candidates backed and financed by the International Socialists. It will be quite a different matter if they choose socialism unwittingly through deception, which, in my opinion, is what’s going on in our media these days.
© Mary Mostert
On February 13, 2003, more than a month before President Bush authorized the U.S. Military to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom, six members of the Democrats “Progressive Caucus” in the Senate introduced a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Massachusetts to stop the President from “waging war against Iraq absent a Congressional Declaration of War.
The Progressive Caucus is not merely a group of left-leaning Democrats. It was founded by and supports the agenda of the (Democratic Socialists of America) which states it is “largest US affiliate of the Socialist International (SI) the worldwide organization of 140 socialist, social democratic and labor parties. The SI has the distinction of being the largest political organization in the world.”
This is not merely a homegrown American political club. It is part of the worldwide Socialist Movement. And, the Socialist International is very busy right now demanding “that the UN must play a central role in building democracy in Iraq.” Why? To create a socialist state in Iraq, that’s why.
The lawsuit’s complaint, filed by Representatives John Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the Progressive Caucus, John Conyers, (D-Michigan), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Jim McDermott (D-Washington) and Jose E. Serrano (D-New York), says it is “to prevent the President from launching a military invasion of Iraq, absent a congressional declaration of war. (According to John Bonifaz, the attorney for the group) "A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional. It is time for the courts to intervene."
Should Americans care about this one way or another? Only if it bothers people that there is a very determined underground movement to discredit the President of the United States in order that someone who is acceptable to the Socialist International beat George W. Bush and win the U.S. Presidency in 2004. Lots of socialist money will be available for that very purpose.
With that background, the comments expressed on Fox News Tuesday night by Rep. John Conyers takes on a somewhat heightened concern. Sean Hannity asked Conyers if, after the fierce gun battle between American troops and Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Qusay and Uday, he could find anything good to say about President Bush. Conyers couldn’t. He merely accused the President of “assassinating” the gun-toting Husseins.
Sean Hannity showed his exasperation with Conyers’ responses, but still did not seem to connect Conyers’ negativity towards the president, which includes not only the lawsuit but also a well-financed and orchestrated effort to impeach President Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft. (The Articles of Impeachment) conveniently already drawn up by President Lyndon Johnson’s former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, accuse Bush, among other things, of:
3) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression.
And:
6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.”
The President of the United States is now subject to the whims of the United Nations, an body unelected and uncontrolled by the American people? Somehow, I don’t think so.
In the 227 year history of the United States of America, we have had five declared wars: The War of 1812, the Mexican war of 1847 when Congress “recognized a state of war” existed, the Spanish-American War 1898, when Congress declared war on Spain following a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in the harbor at Havana, World War I on April 6, 1917, in response to German attacks on America and World War II, when the United States declared war on both Germany and Japan when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
George Washington, who chaired the committee that WROTE the Constitution, issued a presidential proclamation or executive order to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in August of 1794 without even discussing it with Congress. . He stated in that order: “it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress” those resisting the payment of the Whiskey taxes.
However, in 227 years, presidents of the United States have ordered the “militia” of (the United States 234 times) to take action against foreign troublemakers.
The first instance in which an American president sent the army or navy abroad occurred in 1798-1800 when John Adams sent the US Marines to capture a French ship that was attacking Americans and their property. The second use of the U.S. Army and Navy overseas without a declaration of war occurred from 1801-05 when President Thomas Jefferson fought an undeclared war with the Barbary states by sending the US Navy to in response to terrorist attacks and the seizure of the U.S.S. Philadelphia and its crew by Barbary pirates.
Unfortunately, so many Americans, especially those writing for TV, radio and newspapers, appear to have so little knowledge of history, both American and World history, that it has been possible for the World Socialists, with high placed Socialists in the U.S. Congress and key propagandists in the U.S. and World media, to launch an amazingly successful propaganda attack against President Bush with almost no challenge from anyone in the media.
It’s one thing if a majority of the American people vote to choose people approved policies and candidates backed and financed by the International Socialists. It will be quite a different matter if they choose socialism unwittingly through deception, which, in my opinion, is what’s going on in our media these days.
© Mary Mostert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
