KING JESUS IS COMING FOR US ANY TIME NOW. THE RAPTURE. BE PREPARED TO GO.
ISAIAH 17:1
1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
AMOS 1:5
5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden:(IRAQ) and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir,(JORDAN) saith the LORD.
JEREMEIAH 49:23-27
23 Concerning Damascus.(SYRIA) Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea;(WAR SHIPS WITH NUKES COMING ON SYRIA) it cannot be quiet.
24 Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
25 How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy!
26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
27 And I will kindle a fire (NUKES OR BOMBS) in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.(ASSADS PALACES POSSIBLY IN DAMASCUS)
COUNTRIES WITH ISRAEL (THE WEST)(SAUDIA ARABIA WITH WEST)
EZEKIEL 38:10-19
10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
11 And thou shalt say,(RUSSIA,ARAB,MUSLIMS) I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,
12 To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.
13 Sheba, and Dedan,(SAUDIA ARABIA) and the merchants of Tarshish,(ENGLAND) with all the young lions thereof,(USA,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,NEW ZEALAND,EU,ENGLAND,ENGLISH SPEAKING shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?
14 Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:
16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.
17 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?
18 And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.
19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;
(COUNTRIES AGAINST THE WEST)(NOTICE GERMANY-TURKEY IN THE AGAINST)
EZEKIEL 38:1-7
1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog,(RULER) the land of Magog,(RUSSIA) the chief prince of Meshech(MOSCOW)and Tubal,(TOBOLSK) and prophesy against him,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog,(LEADER OF RUSSIA) the chief prince of Meshech(MOSCOW) and Tubal:TOBOLSK)
4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,(GOD FORCES THE RUSSIA-MUSLIMS TO MARCH) and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
5 Persia,(IRAN,IRAQ) Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
6 Gomer,(GERMANY) and all his bands; the house of Togarmah (TURKEY) of the north quarters, and all his bands:(SUDAN,AFRICA) and many people with thee.
7 Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them.
AT THE HEARINGS TODAY SEPT 4,13.I HEARD THERES 34 NATIONS AND ORGANISAZTIONS THAT ARE WITH AMERICA ON THIS SYRIA WAR BOMBING. KERRY JUST GAVE THE BIG NAMES. TURKEY, BRITTAIN,FRANCE,CANADA WITH AIDE,THE ARAB LEAGUE,SAUDI ARABIA,THE ARAB EMERITES.WE AMERICA ARE JOING THE 134 NATIONS THAT ARE AGAINST CHEMICAL WEAPONS THEY SIGNED. ITS A WORLD MATTER-NOT JUST AN AMERICAN MATTER.SAYS KERRY.OBAMA SAID MY CREDABILITY IS NOT SHOT.I DID NOT SET A RED LINE-THE WORLD DID.TED POE SAID WE BETTER HAVE SOMETHING IN THIS BILL THAT COMES TO CONGRESS THAT SAYS THAT IF IRAN GETS TO A CERTAIN POINT WITH ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.THEY GET THE SAME PUNISHMENT THAT SYRIAS ASSAD WILL BE GETTING SHORTLY.
R-TOM COTTON WANTS A REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA AND WILL GO WITH THE ASSAD MISSLING THIS TIME.MR GEORGE HOLDING ASKES IS RUSSIA STILL A SUPER POWER.THE ANSWER FROM THE GENERAL-RUSSIA RUSSIA STILL HAS ELEMENTS THAT QUALIFY THEM AS A SUPER POWER.THEY STILL HAVE A INCEDIBLE STATEGIC ARSENAL.BUT A TRUE SUPERPOWER IS MILITARY-AND ECONOMICAL AND DIPLOMATICAL.BUT CONVENTIONALLY I WOULD NOT PUT RUSSIA IN THAT CLASS.MR HOLDING-SYRIA AND RUSSIA ARE ALLIES.IF RUSSIA DECIDED TO STRIKE US IN THAT THEATRE.WHAT ARE THE TOP 3 OPTIONS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STRIKE US IN RETATIATION FOR US STRIKING SYRIA-THERE CLOSEST ALLY.GENERAL.IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL IN THIS SETTING (TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIA.AND LET THE AMERICAN CITIZENS KNOW THE TRUTH.)IN THAT KIND OF HYPOTHETICAL.BUT I HAVE VIEWS I CAN TELL YOU IN A CLASSIFIED ENVIROMENT.MR HOLDING-SO WE CAN SAY THAT RUSSIA WOULD HAVE OPTIONS TO STRIKE US,DO WE NOT.IN RETALIATION FOR US STRIKING SYRIA.GENERAL-RUSSIA HAS CAPABILITIES THAT RANGE FROM CYBER ALL THE WAY UP TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS.(WHICH MEANS YES THEY COULD CYBER-EMP -THEN NUKE US.).BUT AGAIN IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL IN THIS SETTING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
JEREMIAH 51:29-32 (CYBER ATTACK 1ST)
29 And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon,(AMERICA-NEW YORK) to make the land of Babylon (AMERICA) a desolation without an inhabitant.
30 The mighty men of Babylon (AMERICA) have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
31 One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon (NEW YORK) that his city is taken at one end,
32 And that the passages are stopped,(THE WAR COMPUTERS HACKED OR EMP'D) and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.(DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO)
COMPLETE SILENCE AFTER AN EMP GOES OFF
REVELATION 8:1
1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
JEREMIAH 50:3,24 RUSSIA SNEAK NUKE ATTACK ON AMERICA)
3 For out of the north (RUSSIA) there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon,(AMERICA) and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK CYBER,EMP ATTACK,THEN NUKE ATTACK ON AMERICA)
THE SENATE COMMITEE HAS PASSED THE BILL TO ATTACK SYRIA.AND IT GOES TO THE SENATE NEXT WEEK
ONE OF THE LAW MAKERS SAID AT LEAST 25% UP TO 50% OF THE SO CALLED OPPOSITION OR AMERICAS FIGHTERS ARE AL-QUEDA,HEZZBOLLAH AND BROTHERHOOD MEMBERS.SO THAT MEANDS 50% OF THE OPPOSITION ARE ISRAE-WEST HATERS AND AMERICA IS GIVING THEM TONS OF CASH AND WEAPONS TO FIGHT ASSAD.THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1zkSwihbPg
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan — President Barack Obama should either oust Syrian President Bashar Assad or not bother getting involved in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern nation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Michigan audience Tuesday.Rumsfeld spoke in response to a question during a speech at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids.The 81-year-old served as defense secretary under Ford and President George W. Bush."You either ought to change the regime or you ought to do nothing," Rumsfeld said. "Why would you go in and fire a shot across the bow? All it does is make a splash."What have you achieved? What you've probably achieved is the embarrassment of the United States for being feckless and ineffective. The last thing we ought to be sending out is a signal that there is a red line (about chemical weapons use) and we fired a shot across the bow. ... If you decide that it's in our national interest to do anything, it's to change the regime."Rumsfeld said that if the U.S. defers action until the United Nations gives the green light, it means the U.S. "won't do anything" unless Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees.
"The Chinese and the Russians are supporting the use of chemical weapons" with their opposition to intervention, he said.Rumsfeld dismissed the idea that Obama was obligated to go to Congress before attacking Syria."The debate about whether the president has the authority to use force is silly," he said. "When was the last time war was declared? It was World War II. You can't have 535 members of Congress making decisions that a commander in chief needs to make. You just can't do it. It doesn't work."Earlier, Rumsfeld told MLive.com (http://bit.ly/14h6GyV ) that Obama lost a lot of credibility through indecisiveness in responding to the killing last year of America's Libyan ambassador.A militant attack Sept. 11, 2012, on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"You can't be persuasive unless you're believable," Rumsfeld said. "To the extent that a leader says things that in a week or two or three turn out to not be the case — if a leader does that they lose credibility.
"It seems to me that what the people in the White House need to do is recognize that they've lost a good deal of credibility and that's harmful. What they need to do is get people in the room to find out what ground truth is and make sure they're standing on a piece of concrete and not mush."
WAR POWERS ACT-http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
Overview
This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action.The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547). Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548).U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Some examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution, triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60 days had expired.
1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.
1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.
1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.
2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40 (PDF), authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.
2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243 (PDF).
Constitutional Provisions
1. Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8: Gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. Available online.
2. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: President as Commander in Chief. Available online
Back to Top
Legislation
1. The War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (November 7, 1973). Available online. It is codified in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48 of the United States Code. Available online.
2. Authorization for use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September 18, 2001). Available online (PDF).
3. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498 (October 16, 2002). Available online (PDF).
Judicial Decisions
1. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Available online.
2. Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Available online.
RECENT OTHER SYRIAN NEWS
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/america-might-bomb-syria-quick-but-will.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/syria-threatens-surprises-for-western.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/500-syrian-scud-missles-aimed-at-israel.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/hackers-try-to-wipe-israel-off-map.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/iran-zionists-israel-will-burn-i-say-u.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/arab-muslim-countries-scared-if-syria.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/me-and-stockwell-day-fell-virtually.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/france-on-board-with-usa-on-syria.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/update-on-syria-happenings.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/will-obama-attack-today-in-syria-or.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/obama-to-get-vote-from-congress-before.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/syria-brags-obamas-done-before-he-got.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/standstill-in-america-about-syria-till.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/mccain-graham-want-tough-attack-on-assad.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/60-to-90-day-timeline-for-obama-to-take.html
ISAIAH 17:1
1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
AMOS 1:5
5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden:(IRAQ) and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir,(JORDAN) saith the LORD.
JEREMEIAH 49:23-27
23 Concerning Damascus.(SYRIA) Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea;(WAR SHIPS WITH NUKES COMING ON SYRIA) it cannot be quiet.
24 Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
25 How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy!
26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
27 And I will kindle a fire (NUKES OR BOMBS) in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.(ASSADS PALACES POSSIBLY IN DAMASCUS)
COUNTRIES WITH ISRAEL (THE WEST)(SAUDIA ARABIA WITH WEST)
EZEKIEL 38:10-19
10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
11 And thou shalt say,(RUSSIA,ARAB,MUSLIMS) I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,
12 To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.
13 Sheba, and Dedan,(SAUDIA ARABIA) and the merchants of Tarshish,(ENGLAND) with all the young lions thereof,(USA,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,NEW ZEALAND,EU,ENGLAND,ENGLISH SPEAKING shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?
14 Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:
16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.
17 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?
18 And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.
19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;
(COUNTRIES AGAINST THE WEST)(NOTICE GERMANY-TURKEY IN THE AGAINST)
EZEKIEL 38:1-7
1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog,(RULER) the land of Magog,(RUSSIA) the chief prince of Meshech(MOSCOW)and Tubal,(TOBOLSK) and prophesy against him,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog,(LEADER OF RUSSIA) the chief prince of Meshech(MOSCOW) and Tubal:TOBOLSK)
4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,(GOD FORCES THE RUSSIA-MUSLIMS TO MARCH) and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
5 Persia,(IRAN,IRAQ) Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
6 Gomer,(GERMANY) and all his bands; the house of Togarmah (TURKEY) of the north quarters, and all his bands:(SUDAN,AFRICA) and many people with thee.
7 Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them.
AT THE HEARINGS TODAY SEPT 4,13.I HEARD THERES 34 NATIONS AND ORGANISAZTIONS THAT ARE WITH AMERICA ON THIS SYRIA WAR BOMBING. KERRY JUST GAVE THE BIG NAMES. TURKEY, BRITTAIN,FRANCE,CANADA WITH AIDE,THE ARAB LEAGUE,SAUDI ARABIA,THE ARAB EMERITES.WE AMERICA ARE JOING THE 134 NATIONS THAT ARE AGAINST CHEMICAL WEAPONS THEY SIGNED. ITS A WORLD MATTER-NOT JUST AN AMERICAN MATTER.SAYS KERRY.OBAMA SAID MY CREDABILITY IS NOT SHOT.I DID NOT SET A RED LINE-THE WORLD DID.TED POE SAID WE BETTER HAVE SOMETHING IN THIS BILL THAT COMES TO CONGRESS THAT SAYS THAT IF IRAN GETS TO A CERTAIN POINT WITH ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.THEY GET THE SAME PUNISHMENT THAT SYRIAS ASSAD WILL BE GETTING SHORTLY.
R-TOM COTTON WANTS A REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA AND WILL GO WITH THE ASSAD MISSLING THIS TIME.MR GEORGE HOLDING ASKES IS RUSSIA STILL A SUPER POWER.THE ANSWER FROM THE GENERAL-RUSSIA RUSSIA STILL HAS ELEMENTS THAT QUALIFY THEM AS A SUPER POWER.THEY STILL HAVE A INCEDIBLE STATEGIC ARSENAL.BUT A TRUE SUPERPOWER IS MILITARY-AND ECONOMICAL AND DIPLOMATICAL.BUT CONVENTIONALLY I WOULD NOT PUT RUSSIA IN THAT CLASS.MR HOLDING-SYRIA AND RUSSIA ARE ALLIES.IF RUSSIA DECIDED TO STRIKE US IN THAT THEATRE.WHAT ARE THE TOP 3 OPTIONS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STRIKE US IN RETATIATION FOR US STRIKING SYRIA-THERE CLOSEST ALLY.GENERAL.IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL IN THIS SETTING (TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIA.AND LET THE AMERICAN CITIZENS KNOW THE TRUTH.)IN THAT KIND OF HYPOTHETICAL.BUT I HAVE VIEWS I CAN TELL YOU IN A CLASSIFIED ENVIROMENT.MR HOLDING-SO WE CAN SAY THAT RUSSIA WOULD HAVE OPTIONS TO STRIKE US,DO WE NOT.IN RETALIATION FOR US STRIKING SYRIA.GENERAL-RUSSIA HAS CAPABILITIES THAT RANGE FROM CYBER ALL THE WAY UP TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS.(WHICH MEANS YES THEY COULD CYBER-EMP -THEN NUKE US.).BUT AGAIN IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL IN THIS SETTING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
JEREMIAH 51:29-32 (CYBER ATTACK 1ST)
29 And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon,(AMERICA-NEW YORK) to make the land of Babylon (AMERICA) a desolation without an inhabitant.
30 The mighty men of Babylon (AMERICA) have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
31 One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon (NEW YORK) that his city is taken at one end,
32 And that the passages are stopped,(THE WAR COMPUTERS HACKED OR EMP'D) and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.(DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO)
COMPLETE SILENCE AFTER AN EMP GOES OFF
REVELATION 8:1
1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
JEREMIAH 50:3,24 RUSSIA SNEAK NUKE ATTACK ON AMERICA)
3 For out of the north (RUSSIA) there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon,(AMERICA) and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK CYBER,EMP ATTACK,THEN NUKE ATTACK ON AMERICA)
THE SENATE COMMITEE HAS PASSED THE BILL TO ATTACK SYRIA.AND IT GOES TO THE SENATE NEXT WEEK
ONE OF THE LAW MAKERS SAID AT LEAST 25% UP TO 50% OF THE SO CALLED OPPOSITION OR AMERICAS FIGHTERS ARE AL-QUEDA,HEZZBOLLAH AND BROTHERHOOD MEMBERS.SO THAT MEANDS 50% OF THE OPPOSITION ARE ISRAE-WEST HATERS AND AMERICA IS GIVING THEM TONS OF CASH AND WEAPONS TO FIGHT ASSAD.THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1zkSwihbPg
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan — President Barack Obama should either oust Syrian President Bashar Assad or not bother getting involved in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern nation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Michigan audience Tuesday.Rumsfeld spoke in response to a question during a speech at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids.The 81-year-old served as defense secretary under Ford and President George W. Bush."You either ought to change the regime or you ought to do nothing," Rumsfeld said. "Why would you go in and fire a shot across the bow? All it does is make a splash."What have you achieved? What you've probably achieved is the embarrassment of the United States for being feckless and ineffective. The last thing we ought to be sending out is a signal that there is a red line (about chemical weapons use) and we fired a shot across the bow. ... If you decide that it's in our national interest to do anything, it's to change the regime."Rumsfeld said that if the U.S. defers action until the United Nations gives the green light, it means the U.S. "won't do anything" unless Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees.
"The Chinese and the Russians are supporting the use of chemical weapons" with their opposition to intervention, he said.Rumsfeld dismissed the idea that Obama was obligated to go to Congress before attacking Syria."The debate about whether the president has the authority to use force is silly," he said. "When was the last time war was declared? It was World War II. You can't have 535 members of Congress making decisions that a commander in chief needs to make. You just can't do it. It doesn't work."Earlier, Rumsfeld told MLive.com (http://bit.ly/14h6GyV ) that Obama lost a lot of credibility through indecisiveness in responding to the killing last year of America's Libyan ambassador.A militant attack Sept. 11, 2012, on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"You can't be persuasive unless you're believable," Rumsfeld said. "To the extent that a leader says things that in a week or two or three turn out to not be the case — if a leader does that they lose credibility.
"It seems to me that what the people in the White House need to do is recognize that they've lost a good deal of credibility and that's harmful. What they need to do is get people in the room to find out what ground truth is and make sure they're standing on a piece of concrete and not mush."
Fox Analyst's Position On War Powers Act Depends On How He Can Attack Obama
Blog ››› ››› MATT GERTZ
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is criticizing
President Obama for seeking congressional authorization for a military
strike on Syria after previously criticizing Obama for not seeking
congressional authorization for a military strike on Libya.Obama said he would seek Congressional authorization for a military strike on Syria during a September 1 speech.
He stated that he believed the nation's power is rooted "in our example
as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,"
adding: "[W]hile I believe I have the authority to carry out this
military action without specific congressional authorization, I know
that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our
actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because
the issues are too big for business as usual."Napolitano criticized Obama for seeking legislative approval of military action in Syria during a September 3 appearance on Fox & Friends,
calling his actions "mystifying legally why the president is asking
Congress for authority to do something that it has already given him
authority to do," citing the executive power granted under the War Powers Act
to use U.S. forces in some circumstances for 90 days without
congressional authorization. Napolitano and co-host Steve Doocy agreed
this indicated Obama was treating Syria as a political issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3rhjKdhDrk
While Napolitano is now criticizing Obama's effort to seek congressional authorization for a military strike, he previously criticized Obama for preparing a military strike without that authorization. In March 2011, when President Obama was considering military action against Libya without seeking congressional authorization, Napolitano warned that Obama could use "a terrible law called the War Powers Act," asking Sen. Mike Lee whether Obama was "planning to do something like that, whether the American people or the Congress wants it or not? Even though the Constitution says only Congress shall declare war?"
From the March 7, 2011, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMG8XNqRlU0#t=449
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3rhjKdhDrk
While Napolitano is now criticizing Obama's effort to seek congressional authorization for a military strike, he previously criticized Obama for preparing a military strike without that authorization. In March 2011, when President Obama was considering military action against Libya without seeking congressional authorization, Napolitano warned that Obama could use "a terrible law called the War Powers Act," asking Sen. Mike Lee whether Obama was "planning to do something like that, whether the American people or the Congress wants it or not? Even though the Constitution says only Congress shall declare war?"
From the March 7, 2011, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMG8XNqRlU0#t=449
NAPOLITANO: Senator Lee, it's interesting that Senator Paul said that he's reluctant to vote. You know as well as I that under a terrible law called the War Powers Act, the president can commit to us a land war, or an air war, whatever he wants to do, for 90 days and then renew it for another 90 days and there's nothing the Congress can do about it.
Is he planning to do something like that, whether the American people, whether the Congress wants it or not? Even though the Constitution says only Congress shall declare war?
WAR POWERS ACT-http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
Overview
This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action.The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547). Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548).U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Some examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution, triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60 days had expired.
1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.
1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.
1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.
1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.
2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40 (PDF), authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.
2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243 (PDF).
Constitutional Provisions
1. Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8: Gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. Available online.
2. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: President as Commander in Chief. Available online
Back to Top
Legislation
1. The War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (November 7, 1973). Available online. It is codified in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48 of the United States Code. Available online.
2. Authorization for use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September 18, 2001). Available online (PDF).
3. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498 (October 16, 2002). Available online (PDF).
Judicial Decisions
1. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Available online.
2. Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Available online.
RECENT OTHER SYRIAN NEWS
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/america-might-bomb-syria-quick-but-will.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/syria-threatens-surprises-for-western.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/500-syrian-scud-missles-aimed-at-israel.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/hackers-try-to-wipe-israel-off-map.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/iran-zionists-israel-will-burn-i-say-u.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/arab-muslim-countries-scared-if-syria.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/me-and-stockwell-day-fell-virtually.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/france-on-board-with-usa-on-syria.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/update-on-syria-happenings.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/will-obama-attack-today-in-syria-or.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/obama-to-get-vote-from-congress-before.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/syria-brags-obamas-done-before-he-got.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/standstill-in-america-about-syria-till.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/mccain-graham-want-tough-attack-on-assad.html
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/60-to-90-day-timeline-for-obama-to-take.html
