Lawfully Confronting Members of Congress
Members of congress have three options:
1. Prosecute the president with impeachment;
2. Face prosecution for not enforcing the laws of war.
3. Suffering combat losses.
Options To Resolve Disputes
There are two broad categories to resolve disputes. One is the preferred: It is through the courts and civil society.
The second is when civil society and the institutions of government fail. The less peferred in open combat using deadly force.
The two options:
Members of Congress have been implicated in failing to enforce the laws of war against the President. Nuremburg is precedent for lawfully enforcing the laws of war against civilians, contractors, military personnel, and government officials.
Members of Congress do not have the option not to enforce the law. All decisions to delay enforcement of the laws of war is not a political act of discretion, but a willful act not to enforce the laws of war.
Remind all Members of Congress: Unless they prosecute the President with impeachment, that Member of Congress may be prosecuted for war crimes -- failing to use all legal options to enforce the laws of war.
Members of Congress may not pretend that the consequences for failing to enforce the laws of war are discretionary, or something they can agree not to enforce or assent. Rather, if they argue that they will not enforce the law; and they will not be subject to the law for failing to enforce the law, then they may be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters.
War crimes prosecutors have the option to seek the death penalty.
Members of Congress must accept they have to decide whether they will fully assert their oath and prosecute the President for war crimes; or whether, through their inaction, they will be prosecuted.
There is no statute of limitations. If Congress believes that they can pretend this will not happen, then they are mistaken.
The US refuses to constrain itself. This is a decision. The American legal community is choosing to not enforce the law. They may be disbarred.
A system of governance that will not regulate itself, will expand without constraint, ignoring: Reality, resource constraints and the law. Hitler and Napoleon did the same when they expanded into Russia.
Today, the Congress appears unwilling to regulate the President through all lawful options. Despite crocodile tears over the loss of rights, the House and Senate have assented to this President's illegal activity. They refuse to shut down funding for illegal efforts. Illegal warfare against Iran has been left on the table; but the tools to regulate this President have been removed.
This is impermissible.
Congress has a leadership problem. It has a problem with its General counsel. The legal community ignores its oath. The laws of war apply.
This Congress must assent to the precedent of Nuremburg. Civilized nations must assert the rule of law now. Delays cannot be explained away, but are evidence of complicity.
The excuses for inaction are meaningless. They are not based on accountability, but a decision to not do what must be done.
The President has redefined the Supreme Law, pretending he is not subject to the rule of law. This President pretends the fundamental law is debatable. It is not.
Congress is in error for not now, immediately, and swiftly taking lawful action to prosecute this President for his recklessness.
The question does not turn on what the President can or cannot do; but whether Members of Congress can or cannot be prosecuted for refusing to do what they have no choice: To fully assert their oath to protect the Constitution.
The issue isn't an election timeline, or what may happen between now and 2008. Once Members of Congress choose to not stop, but directly or indirectly enable this President’s war crimes, those war crimes are eternally subject to prosecution. There is no statute of limitations.
These war crimes are attached to Members of Congress.
Members of Congress have a finite lifetime. One consequence for war crimes was execution. Another consequence for enjoying life is dying of old age. Sadly, there is a third option: That of option combat where US government officials become the target of lawful reciprocation and attacks.
Members of Congress must face a difficult question: How do they wish to die.
___ A. Will it be peacefully, having fully asserted their oath, and enjoying the fruits of liberty;
___ B. Will it be after a life on the run, being hunted by war crimes prosecutors;
___ C. Will it be after lawful execution by a war crimes tribunal; or
___ D. Will it be after being lawfully attacked in retaliation for their decision to not enforce the laws of war, and the object of foreign fighter attacks.
If one has to be advised what the preferable choice, they are unfit to be called leaders.
B, C, and D are not acceptable, civilized, or lawful: Yet, Members of Congress have not chosen A.
Inaction, indecision, and a desire to avoid confrontration is not lawful.
They must choose. This President chose incorrectly. He has confronted our Agenda: Our Constitution.
Congress must decide now whether it is with We the People and the Constitution; or with the President.
Regardless the decision of Members of Congress, the Constitution and We the People remain on the table. We are the agenda.
Members of Congress have an oath. They have a duty to protect this document.
Sadly, the recklessness of this Congress has impermissibly sent a signal to the world that nothing will be done; at worst, the Congress will go out of its way to interfere with enforcement of the laws of war.
It is hoped that the word community accepts that there are deadlines, and that the rule of law must be enforced.
Members of Congress must decide what side of the Constitution they are on; what legacy they would like to lead; and sadly, how they would choose to ultimately leave this earth.
It is preferable that peace prevail, and that civilized society might enforce the law against the President. Yet, despite this legal obligation to enforce Geneva, Members of Congress have chosen not to assert their oath; have avoided going to the well of the House; and have actively blocked We the People from discussing this issue in our states.
When confronted with these options, Members of Congress have chosen to pretend that they are above the law; or that they have something else to do. Indeed, they choose to not to what they should, preferring to do something else.
Their oath exists for something else. It binds them to act when they would prefer otherwise. The oath is intended to compel them to act and do something they are not inclined to do on their own.
Sadly, their oath means nothing. Their promise to defend the Constitution has blinded them to remain loyal to something else. IT doesn't matter why.
The way forward is for We the People to lawfully confront the Members of Congress and force them to choose:
A> Where do they stand on Geneva;
B. What is their position on enforcement of Geneva;
C. When do they plan to prosecute the President for war crimes;
D. What evidence do they have of efforts to thwart enforcement of Geneva;
E. When will they stop We the People from enforcing the Geneva Conventions;
F. What evidence do they have that they, as Members of Congress, have been complicit with efforts to thwart enforcement of Geneva against the President;
G. When do Members of Congress play to give up their loyalty to the DNC or GOP and put their loyalty to the Rule of law, Constitution, and Geneva Conventions.
The options are:
A. Agree to prosecute the President; or be prosecuted;
B. Enforce the Geneva conventions; or have the Conventions enforced against them;
C. End illegal warfare; or have illegal warfare imposed on them
D. End what is impermissible; or have impermissible things done to them in retaliation for war crimes.
Members of Congress must choose whether they are going to join We the People and the Constitution; or whether they are going to side with the illegal rebellion and this President.
The right answer is to enforce the laws of war and join We the People and this Constitution. The wrong answer is for Members of Congress to do nothing, remain silent, not act, and fall to assert their oath to prosecute this President.
The Choice is one that Members of Congress are making every day. They have access to legal counsel. They are presumed to make fully informed decision related to their oath, 5 USC 3331 obligations, and the laws of war.
Either they will do their job; or the laws of war shall be fully applied to them as defendants. If they resist, oppose, block, or thwart lawful efforts to enforce the laws of war against the President, then they may be prosecuted for war crimes. Members of Congress who say the laws of war do not apply, but continue to support this President’s illegal warfare with appropriations, may, under the laws of war through the principles of reciprocity, be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters.
Please ask your Member of Congress to review their legal options. They have an oath to the Conventions. Their job is to fully assert their oath. They have an obligation to ensure they fully do what is required to assert 5 USC 3331 and enforce the Geneva Conventions against the President.
If they refuse, fail, or do not act as required, then they may be prosecuted for war crimes.
The options are on the table: Enforce the law; or have the law enforced against you. Prosecute the President; or remain eternally subject to prosecution for war crimes. Act now to enforce the rule of law and Geneva Conventions, or face the prospect that you may be hunted until you pass away.
Bluntly, Members of Congress have to make a decision: What kind of further they want, not for their children or the Rule of law, but for themselves. If they like to live on the run under the cloud of war crimes prosecutions, they can continue what they're doing -- nothing. If they would like to face the prospect of lawful execution for refusing to act to end war crimes, they can continue what they're doing. If they would like to possibly face the prospect of foreign fighter attacks on their homes, their place of work, and the Institution they love, they should continue doing what they are doing: Nothing.
However, there is another way. It is called reading the oath of office, setting aside one's loyalty to a party, reviewing one's Constitutional duty, and asking whether they do or do not have it with them to dare to enforce the laws of war against the President. IF they do, then that act may be considered a mitigating factor; if they choose to prosecute the President, there may be consideration over whether they should or should not be spared their lives by a war crimes tribunal.
Members of Congress are leaders, but they are also stewards as an example for the laws of war. However, they are not the sole authorities to choose who will or will not be subject to prosecution.
US Attorneys have the power to prosecute Members of Congress. The evidence before us suggests the US Attorneys have been reckless. War crimes prosecutors can replace them.
The federal government is not the only option. State attorney generals have the option to prosecute a sitting President, empanel and organize grand juries, and enforce the Conventions against Members of Congress, counsel, and others in the legal profession. They too have not done their jobs.
The problem for Members of Congress is that they cannot be sure that the evidence will not be provided to war crimes prosecutors; or that foreign fighters will not have legal standing.
Members of Congress have argued that they have another agenda. No, their agenda is nothing other than what they took an oath. Foreign fighters have a clear agenda: To lawfully use force to impose grave damage on unlawful combatants, foreign powers, and legitimate military targets.
The American legal community has well shown it is not willing to enforce the laws of war, much less successfully advise anyone to wage lawful warfare. At best the lawyers have assented to absurd plans; at worst, they're complicity with acts of war.
What the American lawyers say is of little interested to war crimes prosecutors. Their frivolous excuses is evidenced that there are no mitigating circumstances.
On the Table
Members of Congress must accept that the issue is less about the Constitution or the rule of law or the Constitutional agenda, but about their individual choice they make today in how they would like to leave this earth.
Either way, they will not be here in 200 years. But We the People and the Constitution shall outlast them.
It is time Members of Congress be lawfully, peacefully confronted and asked a simple question: How do they wish to leave this earth; and what kind of legacy do they want to leave?
It would be preferable if they left the earth having fully done heir job to enforce the laws of war and defend this Constitution; as opposed to having been the lawful target of war crimes prosecutors and combatants seeking to impose the laws of war through the threat of execution and mortal combat.
Members of Congress must decide whether they will enforce the laws of war against this President and review the evidence; or whether they, with their decision not to enforce the laws of war, will accept they sealed their fate the moment they took their oath, but recklessly engaged in a course of conduct to do the opposite of what they promised: Fully enforce the Supreme Law, Constitution, and Geneva Conventions against the domestic enemy in the oval office.
Geneva permits what remains on the table: The lawful execution of Members of Congress if they are adjudicated and found guilty of having committed war crimes. One factor is whether they did or did not fully assert their oath; or whether they made excuses to block We the People from doing what we could to protect the constitution and enforce the laws of war against the US Government.
Either this dispute is resolved peacefully through the courts and legal process; or, as this Congress appears to prefer, the resolution of this dispute is taken to the battlefield. IF Congress chooses to put itself above the laws of war, and not stop illegal warfare, Congress alone will have eternity to hide, but it cannot escape final judgment.
IN the end, either they will be awfully destroyed through open combat; or they will be lawfully executed for war crime; or they will be exonerated because they chose to assert their oath today.
There is no statue of limitations. Congress must decide whether it wants to hunt the President; or whether the Congress wants to be hunted until it assents to the rule of law, is subdued, or it is lawfully destroyed in open combat.
The rule of law shall prevail. The error was for the DOJ and White House counsel to believe that noting could be done. They miscalculated. Their livelihoods are in doubt. Their tenure on planet earth uncertain. And their discretion to call themselves an attorney not certain. They may be disbarred; and if found guilty of falling to fully assert their oath, lawfully executed for failure to end war crimes.
It's on the table: Confront the President through prosecution; or face a life of hardship, brutal punishment, and ultimate death if convicted of war crimes. Congress appears to have a hard time understanding their choice is not difficult. War crimes prosecutes and tribunals confronted by people, such as these Members of Congress, who appear to have a problem understanding their jobs are likely to conclude that the only reasonable solution is to swiftly impose the death penalty. They have failed to respond to the threat of death to assert their oath. Having failed to what they promise, they are not fit to walk earth or call themselves civilized. They belong with the ashes, the dirt, and the rubble they have left in their wake.
Meanwhile, the rule of law shall prevail, outlast them, and memorialize those who dared to assert their oath to defend what nobody can take away: Our Constitution.
Congress must decide whether it is with the Constitution and We the People; or whether tit would like to face the war crimes tribunal or open combat.
Those are the options for Congress. Those are on the table. Regardless what they choose, We the People shall continue to defend this Constitution, make it stronger, and seek ways to transform the Constitution into something that will ensure this does not happen again.
Congress refuses to enforce this Constitution. It is denied the power to have input to the New Constitution.
Congress must choose. The law exists. The President must be prosecuted. Otherwise, Members of Congress shall be prosecuted. If they do not agree or refuse to cooperate, the alternative is open combat. The choice is between civility and barbarism. Either way, the rule law, even in combat, shall apply. This rebellion by this President shall end. Whether Congress chooses to cooperate is less important than their acceptance and recognition that they have no real choice. It doesn't matter if they don't understand this or accept this. The issue is they freely took an oath to put the Constitution first, but have refused. This is not permissible.
They shall assent to Our Agenda, of We the People: The Constitution.
That is the table. We the People may lawfully deny them a seat.
This has not started. Congress will wish that it had heeded the rule of law, not done what it is doing. More evidence of their refusal to enforce the laws of war. Goodling resigned because of the e-mails. Members of Congress can be prosecuted for war crimes over the same e-mails.
Goodling's life has changed. So has the destiny of Members of Congress.
We the People won when we debated and agreed to This Constitution. TI doesn't matter what Members of Congress choose. Their fate is sealed. They have been complicit with war crimes. The issue is whether they will cure the problem with a prosecution; or whether they are forced to be prosecuted for the same.
There is no escape from Our Agenda: The Constitution. We the People are the rule of law. Members of Congress have defied Our Will. We the People have the power to prosecute, punish, and lawfully delegate to foreign powers the authority to wage war against this Congress and lawfully destroy it.
Congress must decide whether it will Accept Our Agenda as they took an oath to do. If they refuse, their oath is meaningless. Their promises are without foundation. They are unfit to be called civilized. The next question becomes whether they are fit to retain life connected their soul; or whether they shall be lawfully deprived of their life, breaking the link between what they value and what they cannot change.
We the People have the power to, on an inclination alone, let the sword of justice slip, slicing the throats of Members of Congress, and lawfully enforce the Laws of War. The evidence of their war crimes cannot be changed. What can be changed is whether they can act now, soon, and immediately make a good case that they have done their moral best to assert their oath. We the People are willing to listen, as long as their words -- like their oath -- are matched with action, not excuses. There is hope. Out of self interest some are inclined to choose life than naively believe they will fare batter than Goodling.
Goodling's troubles have not yet begun. She's allegedly complicit with war crimes, as are these Members of Congress. Anything the Congress has done to get e-mails can be done with the Members of Congress e-mail in re not asserting their oath; or blocking efforts by the States to discuss impeachment proclamations.
The sword of justice is at the throats of the 535 Members of Congress. We the People without warning can let that sword fall, slicing the throats, and fatally wooding the Members of Congress under lawful prosecutions of war crimes.
Members of Congress may perhaps understand the power of We the People: The power to delegate life or death to Members of Congress based on what the Members of Congress choose. We have the power. We may lawfully impose lawful sanctions for war crimes on Members of Congress and adjudicate the death penalty. There is nothing Members of Congress can do to stop this, but one thing: Do first what may be done to them -- enforce the laws of war.
Congress must choose whether it wants to do its job; or have the implications of their choices applied to them. It is preferable if these issues were amicably resolved through the courts, legislation, and civil process. However, if Members of Congress pretend that nothing will happen, foreign fighters stand ready to wage war and impose reciprocal and retaliatory violations on Members of Congress, DOJ Staff counsel, and the White House Staff.
All Presidential orders to prevent enforcement of the Geneva Conventions are not lawful. Congress has no lawful authority to wage war to avoid enforcement of the laws of war. Congress may not lawfully raise an army to defend itself from enforcement of the laws of war.
All Congressional orders, directives, rules, agreements, or contracts to avoid enforcement of the laws of war have no force, cannot be enforced, and are null and void.
Congress has no power to defend itself against enforcement of Geneva. All resources used to avoid Geneva are evidence that Congress is choosing not to do what it shall: Assent to Our Agenda and Our Will: The Rule of law, Supreme Law, Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions.
The odds are not in the favor of Congress. They believe otherwise.
It could be fatal. IN the end, it will be fatal. We the People have not gone away, nor have their requirements on Members of Congress to prosecute this President, apply the lessons of Nuremburg, and demonstrate the United States is a civilized country that will enforce the laws of war.
Congress refuses. The laws of war may be applied to them, either at a war cries tribunal, or in open combat permitting like retaliation and reciprocal violations.
We the People may do this. The error is for Members of Congress and Staff counsel to not focus on this agenda: Our Constitution, but pretend they have something else to do. Bad decision. Reckless. Evidence of having not fully asserted one's oath. 5 USC 3331. War Crimes, Nuremburg.
Our agenda: The Constitution.
Surrender now. Enforce the law. You have no other option. It shall prevail, regardless your decision. In the end, you shall assent to the rule of law: The Constitution shall prevail over all things, in life, and in death.