Congressperson Rohrabacher: almost all House Republicans assess US war in Iraq as unlawful, immoral

hyperlinks and interview live at source: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m6d27-Congressperson-Rohrabacher-almost-all-House-Repu...

In the interview below, Southern California Republican Congressperson Dana Rohrabacher is reported by Judge Andrew Napolitano as admitting the “emperor has no clothes” obvious: US war in Iraq is unlawful and almost all House Republicans know it.

The war in Afghanistan is also Orwellian unlawful, with all 9/11 “justifications” now correctly understood as obvious lies upon inspection of the uncontroversial government-disclosed facts.

Yet, 85% of members of Congress continue to fund these unlawful wars. Nobel Peace Prize recipient and US President Obama not only continues these wars, but escalates them into new territories along with torture, indefinite detention, extrajudicial assassination, and the same lying and war-mongering rhetoric against Iran that preceded unlawful wars into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

What’s required is public demand to end unlawful wars and either initiate full criminal arrests and prosecutions, or a Truth and Reconciliation process to more quickly split the monsters orchestrating these unlawful policies from those willing to stand with the US Constitution and inalienable rights.

Perhaps Congressman Rohrabacher will take a leadership role in this “Scrooge conversion” to return US government under the law.

The following links are my best efforts to document and prove US Orwellian unlawful wars, rigged-casino economics, and destruction of our US Constitution.

Academic paper: Open proposal to higher education

Citizen advocacy and comprehensive resources: Government by dicts

Thanks to Alex Jones and Prison Planet for the original reporting.

Comments policy: Examiner.com allows the writers to moderate comment discussion. My moderation is for a professional level of discourse based on facts. I welcome questions and comments that are civil and pertain to the article topic. Here, readers are welcome to argue for any inaccuracy of factual claim and/or need for inclusion of other facts. Readers are welcome to interpret facts however they wish and welcome to any policy position. They are not welcome to misrepresent facts. Facts are objective, measurable, and independently verifiable.

In addition, almost all laws are intended to be clear in letter and spirit. War laws are exceedingly clear. Therefore, comments that lie about the meaning of war laws will be deleted. For explanation of the conservative meaning of these laws that for 65 years have outlawed wars of choice not in self-defense of another nation’s armed attack and/or authorized by the UN Security Council, read my article, “US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them.” Any argument that US wars are legal must counter that information or is subject to immediate deletion. Any comment that is rude is subject to immediate deletion. For details, see “Terms of Use” from Examiner.com linked at the very bottom of this page.

That is how freedom looks. Freedom is not an allowance of whatever, whenever, however. We censor behavior of drivers beyond strict limits, censor many behaviors as fouls and out-of-bounds in sports. We censor people in relationships and business from certain acts, and can fire them upon violation. You censor in your place of business those who distract and/or damage your work. You fire destructive people from relationships, and would never invest your time or money for a sport that did not strictly censor behavior.

Our government is paradoxically based on censorship: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” means any behavior outside constitutional limits is forbidden. This is the paradox of freedom: freedom is only realized within limits.

In these articles, I write for the highest level of factual accuracy and will manage comments with that commitment. Comments and questions are welcome ONLY from those who chose factual integrity.

Please consider that I’m among hundreds of writers who have documented our own government’s disclosure of propaganda programs to support their wars. My articles are subject to such propagandistic attack from comments that use typical rhetorical fallacies to distract readers from the facts. I invite readers to sharpen their ability to discern such propaganda. They are characterized by a combination of: denying facts without evidence, ignoring key facts in lies of omission, lying about verifiable facts as lies of commission, diverting attention through unsubstantiated belief in an alleged expert, irrelevant data, straw-man attack that distorts the facts, ad hominem attack of insults to the messenger, vile comments to repulse readers, “sock-puppets” of multiple personalities to appear of a bandwagon support, trying to pass non-factual statements as legitimate alternative perspectives, and comments that distract through focus on minutia.

I will use such comments to point-out the propaganda or delete them at my discretion. Again, all relevant and polite questions, and factually accurate comments are welcome. And again, all non-factual comments described above are also subject to immediate deletion.

As a professional educator I’m in agreement with my experience and research: we learn best from multiple perspectives in mutual commitment to understand the facts, see those facts from diverse points-of-view, and consider various policy proposals of what we should do. But professional factual discourse always rejects non-factual propaganda.

A predictable line of propaganda to fallaciously attack my documented facts is to call them “un-American.” This is Orwellian-absurd, as America is literally the support of the ideal of unalienable rights and the US Constitution, which my work proves are disgracefully destroyed by current political and economic US “leadership.” Indeed, the US was founded by our Fathers who took such a stand against their subjugation by the British and passionately wrote for future generations of Americans to defend their rights against such propaganda to surrender their freedom. I will point to readers to consider the advice of our Founding Fathers upon such predictable propaganda of calling a stand for rule under US law and against “emperor has no clothes” violations of US laws as “treason.”

"But now, after having once and for all put to the test the judgments of men, I here again approach these same questions regarding God and the human mind, and at the same time treat the beginnings of the whole of first philosophy, but in such a way that I have no expectation of approval from the vulgar and no wide audience of readers. Rather, I am an author to none who read these things but those who seriously meditate with me, who have the ability and the desire to withdraw their mind from the senses and at the same time from all prejudices. Such people I know all too well to be few and far between. As to those who do not take care to comprehend the order and series of my reasons but eagerly dispute over single conclusions by themselves, as is the custom for many-those, I say, will derive little benefit from a reading of this treatise; and although perhaps they might find an occasion for quibbling in many spots, still it is not an easy matter for them to raise an objection that is either compelling or worthy of response."

- Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, 1641, "Preface to the Reader." This book is usual reading in college philosophy courses today. Descartes is considered the founder of modern philosophy, the founder of analytical geometry (which led to calculus), and a founder of the Scientific Revolution. Descartes was well-known in his age, but highly controversial. His work was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633, and his books put on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1663. The University of Utrecht condemned his work in 1643, where he had previously taught.

For those involved in support of US government-sponsored disinformation in whatever versions of Operation Mockingbird that are active, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to create. National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future. Another option is becoming a whistle-blower; Project Camelot is a popular venue for people in sensitive positions. Ultimately, I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation process to exchange full truth for no prosecution, explained in detail at the link. Please consider the wisdom of your own “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of building a brighter future for all humanity rather than propagandizing for your controlling, manipulating, and loveless “masters’” psychopathic policies of violence and suffering.

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”

Los Angeles County: We’re home to 10 million people and are the media capital of the world. If we are to build a brighter future, the broadest picture must be communicated. Los Angelinos will play leading roles in communicating these issues’ importance to all humanity and in context to the economic and security concerns of local communities and families, as I explain above. These issues are ongoing “current events” of literally trillions of our collective dollars that directly effect billions of human beings, around the world who we touch in L.A.’s media market and where so many of us have family and friends, and locally with the per household tax burden for trillions of our collective dollars. Current US wars cost every L.A. County household ~$30,000 to $50,000 in long-term costs; over $100 billion total. To put this in perspective, California’s state budget deficit is $20 billion; the source of unemployment cutbacks and shortages of services. The economic theft to L.A. County is also conservatively in the hundreds of billions; don't believe me, confirm here. The most important impact on our local communities are often the broadest topics.

What interview?

I clicked on the link, but did not see any interview with Rohrabacher there.

the source is Judge Napolitano's testimony

The interview is Alex Jones of Judge Napolitano reporting what Rohrabacher said to him, as I wrote in the article. I ran with it to encourage people to invest the time to actually look at war laws and discover the wars are nowhere close to lawful.

War....What is it good for?

Democratic political consultant, Bob Shrum, advised John Edwards to vote for the Iraq War in 2003 if he planned on running for President in 2004. He believed that America would not elect a President who had voted against a popular war. We have to remember that when the war in Iraq started in 2003 that Bush's approval rating was 70%. If WMD's were discovered and there was no insurgency it would have faded from peoples minds. However, that did not happen and the Iraq War was a lodestone around the Bush Presidency for the rest of his term.

If only politicians were guided by principles not power. But then I'd be asking for something that never was and never will be.

"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants. Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004."

- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17594267/

Legality vs. National Security

As Is wrote in June 2009:

"Will the new administration in Washington, D. C. bring a change to America’s foreign policy, and bring our military forces home to protect the Republic? As long as the real reason for the so-called War on Terror is shrouded in a veil of official silence, the foreign policy of Bush II will continue unabated, leaving America insecure at home." -- The World Trade Center Attacks in Perspective (www.DNotice.org)

You see, the United States is in a death struggle with the USSR/China. The legality of the wars in both Iraq AND Afghanistan means nothing when compared to the national security of the United States. However, here's the irony. The idiots who sent us over to Iraq and Afghanistan are actually doing the Soviets a favor; the Soviets want our military forces out of America.

During the Cold War there was suspicion of communists in the Democratic Party's ranks, well the KGB can also blackmail/recruit Republicans!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

maybe, maybe not...

Death struggle over currency value maybe, but I doubt over oil as the US crushes one legitimate energy breakthrough after another. We can prove war lies and unlawful war, but what's really happening to drive policy requires complex and multiple hypotheses.

The Crush

synergist,

if energy breakthroughs are being crushed, then all nations are in on the crushing.

What was that positive news that came out on Cold Fusion some months back? Maybe you can do a blog entry.

Anyway, good news for gun owners today. Adds an obstacle towards the USSR/China's plans for North America.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

that was good news on guns and here's an energy link:

Fred Burks kicks ass on his website wanttoknow.info. Here's an article specific to cold fusion: http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intelligence-Examiner~y2010m6d22-Energ...

He has links to his comprehensive data on suppressed energy breakthroughs.

Money for Nothing, Energy for Free

synergist,

Thanks!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

You are right! http://wanttoknow.info/

http://wanttoknow.info/
You are right! I just checked this site out. It has some great stuff.
Fred Burks - Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton

David Ray Griffin Speaking About Legality of Wars

Hello Truthseekers & Truthtellers,
David Ray Griffin sent me an e-mail on this subject and he has also posted this on 911truth.org and Global Research.

911Truth.org, June 26, 2010 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100626132302769). Originally at Global Research, June 24, 2010 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891).

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question

Take Care Matt

Thanks

I was in Vegas last week. I should of looked back farther on the blog pages.
Matt