US Gov’t Proves Loyalty To ISIS As Bill To ‘Stop Arming Terrorists’ Gets Only 13 Supporters

[Jim1cor13]

There is something horribly wrong with this...in my opinion. Do we just ignore it or call it 'fake news'?

One of the most rational bills ever proposed, barring the Feds from giving money and weapons to child murdering terrorists, has almost ZERO support.

“For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government,” Gabbard said in an interview earlier this year.

The text of the bill is simple. It merely states that it prohibits the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual.

 

The only thing this bill does is prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to people who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the globe. It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given its rational and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would be lining up to show their support. However, one would be wrong.

 

After nearly 5 months since its introduction, only 13 of the 535 members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors. What this lack of support for the bill shows is that the federal government is addicted to funding terror and has no intention of ever stopping it.

 

To add insult to treason and murder, Senator Rand Paul [R-KY] introduced this same legislation in the Senate. He currently has zero cosponsors.

 

LINK

Edited June 21, 2017 by Jim1cor13

[bigwave]

I am right with you Jim1cor13 -

 

I posted a similar article a day or so ago.

 

I can't even complain to my reps here is CA as they are all democrat zero of which I voted for...

[adhoc10]

Since Citizens United has become the established financial organization for getting these folks in office, we the people have less and less voice in what our government decides is the best money making opportunity for these  big bucks supporters. Advertising dollars make a difference in what messages the voting public hears. People are voting for the propaganda they are being fed. Our legislators are hand picked to support the agenda of corporate America. They are doing their job, they just aren't working for the good of the country anymore. 

[Jim1cor13]

Good comments. In my opinion, we have little to no voice left.

 

The best we can do is not be afraid to do what we can on a local level

where people still have some voice left. Also, if we are too afraid to think

for ourselves and only deal with what we want to hear or read, and refuse

to let go of our own preconceived notions and cognitive dissonance, we have already lost.

 

It takes courage and heart to face down tyranny and pursue freedom. Not many willing to

take that path. It is always much easier to just believe the BS we are fed daily.

 

Thanks for the comments

 

 

[adhoc10]

1 hour ago, Jim1cor13 said:

Good comments. In my opinion, we have little to no voice left.

 

The best we can do is not be afraid to do what we can on a local level

where people still have some voice left. Also, if we are too afraid to think

for ourselves and only deal with what we want to hear or read, and refuse

to let go of our own preconceived notions and cognitive dissonance, we have already lost.

 

It takes courage and heart to face down tyranny and pursue freedom. Not many willing to

take that path. It is always much easier to just believe the BS we are fed daily.

 

Thanks for the comments

 

 

Thanks Jim. It has occurred to me that with our ever expanding base of intellectual data, that our usable understanding of that data becomes less and less. Our reliance on labels to communicate further amplifies the miscommunication. The labels prevent understanding in the long term, as they form a type of belief system that poses as knowledge.  For my own sanity, I have gone back to the constitution as a bedrock for our country's governance. The preamble alone is significant. From that alone, it becomes very apparent that we are very much out of alignment with the principles from which we grew. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by adhoc10
comment wasn't coherent

[George Hayduke]

On 6/21/2017 at 3:25 PM, Jim1cor13 said:

One of the most rational bills ever proposed, barring the Feds from giving money and weapons to child murdering terrorists, has almost ZERO support system" rel="">support.

 

It's very possible it is not that the majority of congress wants continued war but that HR 608 is an incomplete bill as written or contains redundancy covered in 18 USC 2339A(b)(1).

 

HR 608 as written only specifies terrorist organizations as such: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual.

 

Why is Rep. Gabbard excluding the already identified terrorist organization listed in Section 219 of the INA?

 

The US Dept of State lists 60 terrorist organizations: https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm  and defines such organizations as: 

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended

1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

 

It is already illegal for any person in the United States to provide assistance to the Designated Terrorist list so why introduce a watered down bill such as HR 608?.

 

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’

Considering the Laws already on the books, HR 608 doesn't make any sense.  Until I can understand it, I wouldn't support it either.

 

GH

[Jim1cor13]

1 hour ago, George Hayduke said:

 

It's very possible it is not that the majority of congress wants continued war but that HR 608 is an incomplete bill as written or contains redundancy covered in 18 USC 2339A(b)(1).

 

HR 608 as written only specifies terrorist organizations as such: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual.

 

Why is Rep. Gabbard excluding the already identified terrorist organization listed in Section 219 of the INA?

 

The US Dept of State lists 60 terrorist organizations: https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm  and defines such organizations as: 

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended

1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

 

It is already illegal for any person in the United States to provide assistance to the Designated Terrorist list so why introduce a watered down bill such as HR 608?.

 

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support system" rel="">support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support system" rel="">support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’

Considering the Laws already on the books, HR 608 doesn't make any sense.  Until I can understand it, I wouldn't support system" rel="">support it either.

 

GH

 

Hi George

 

Great comments and points, thank you.

 

As far as I can tell, and according to the simple wording of the bill, she is targeting "federal agency funds". If I am understanding this correctly, 

it goes beyond the "any person" to include the entity of the Federal Gov. i.e., "federal agency funds".

 

This was in result of what she learned when she went to Syria. Apparently Rand Paul submitted a very similar bill earlier this year

and had zero support. Perhaps the point could be what you stated, but her intention it appears was to target "federal agency funds".

 

Thanks again, I guess we will see where this goes. i think she has great potential, and her background is no nonsense. At least she is trying

to make others aware of what we are not being told.

[Jim1cor13]

5 hours ago, adhoc10 said:

Thanks Jim. It has occurred to me that with our ever expanding base of intellectual data, that our usable understanding of that data becomes less and less. Our reliance on labels to communicate further amplifies the miscommunication. The labels prevent understanding in the long term, as they form a type of belief system that poses as knowledge.  For my own sanity, I have gone back to the constitution as a bedrock for our country's governance. The preamble alone is significant. From that alone, it becomes very apparent that we are very much out of alignment with the principles from which we grew. 

 

Agreed adhoc10. Very well and thoughtfully stated apart from any biases or the labels you mention. Thank you

[George Hayduke]

Thanks Jim - Gabbard is definitely not your run of the mill Democrat; if she keeps leaning to the center as fast as she has been, she might be mistaken as a Libertarian.

[Jim1cor13]

4 minutes ago, George Hayduke said:

Thanks Jim - Gabbard is definitely not your run of the mill Democrat; if she keeps leaning to the center as fast as she has been, she might be mistaken as a Libertarian.

 

You may just be right my friend. 

 

I think she is an honorable person, and definitely not a part of the "swamp" in my opinion. Thanks George, I hope you are doing

well.

[Whatshername]

1 hour ago, Jim1cor13 said:

I think she is an honorable person, and definitely not a part of the "swamp" in my opinion.

 

I hope you're right Jim.   One thing I noticed... call me jaded but whenever I see language that includes "ISIL"... I see red flags.  The 'Islamic State of Iraq and Levant' is a phrase used only by the obummer regime.  It isn't what the people in the Middle East call them (Daesh) nor is it what they call themselves (IS).  It is an insult to Israel.  Sorry but I wouldn't consider any legislation that used that phrase... and I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who uses it.  JMO