24 votes

Does Congress *Ever* Listen To The Wishes Of The People?

A military strike on Syria is looking like a foregone conclusion, despite massive public disapproval that has reached almost 60% of the populace (with 70% opposed to arming the rebels). Americans are sick of wars, especially those that are taking place in countries far away, without formal declarations of war, and with dubious benefit to the US. The White House couldn’t even define what the goal of a strike on Syria would be when pressed a few days ago. Yet, the most recent reports have cited that members of Congress have been slowly leaning into supporting military action and that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already reached an agreement on a resolution to authorize military action in Syria.

The UK Parliament has shot down support for military action in Syria. For those keeping score, the UK is our closest ally (in multiple ways) and typically backs everything we do. For them to break ranks is a bold statement against the US’s proposed action. The only major country to back the US is France, and everyone hates France.

Perhaps the American population, in addition to simply being sick of war, is taking note of just how much opposition we are facing from the international community and that is reflected in the latest polls. Would we, as a country, support an attack by a rogue nation without the support of the UN Security Council? (Never mind that I don’t support the US being a part of the UN, just for the sake of this argument.) Of course we wouldn’t. Lawmakers would be raising hell about it, yet they have no self-awareness as to the hypocritical nature of the actions of our country and they most definitely don’t give a rat’s ass about public opinion. I can’t recall a time in recent memory that the public was so massively opposed to something, and yet the President and Congress were still so likely to push it through. Obamacare would probably be closest.

There is an unbelievable arrogance in the Congress and in the House, with representatives thinking that they know what is best for the American people (and people of other nations), and forcing their misconceived plots through despite overwhelming opposition from those they are there to represent. Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't mind them not listening to the people.

It's the fact that they don't listen to the law that is the problem. The idea that they should "listen to the people" is not good because that is democracy which is mob rules. The main problem with that is "the people" are easily swayed by mass media and internet propaganda and are not any more prone to adhering to law.

Perhaps one purpose of this lunacy is exactly that, to push the idea that government should actually function according the will of the people. This sounds great too many people but unless government operates under the boundaries of the law then we are bound to live under a lawless government. It doesn't matter if that government is run by one or by three hundred million if the laws are neglected.

No. And thank God many of

No. And thank God many of them look like they're gonna drop dead of old age soon.

And for their epitaph . . .

On the Death of a Politician

Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept : for I had longed to see him hanged.

-Hilaire Belloc

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

When it suits them.

They listen when it suits them.

ecorob's picture

No!

They don't listen. They don't even care. They play video poker in some of the most historic votes in the Senate. They hope we'll forget by the next election (which we always do). And, either way, they don't care. The graft they claim, the medical and financial retirement they are granted, it has them set for life even if they do nothing else, forever.

mcinsane plays video poker during discussion of syrian vote?

History will laugh at this imbecile and point to him as one of the many failed and corrupt politicians that we allowed to govern us.

History will also laugh at us, pompous, "dirty" Americans who couldn't hold on to success. (Unless we, the people make a stand against tyranny.)

I emailed my congresswoman. I will call her office. They must know we still exist and will fight for our rights.

VOTE NO on Syria! Tell the world where the average AMERICAN stands and NOT where our corrupt government satands.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Yes

Yes, they listen to us. Then they vote against our wishes.

But they still listen

Congress does listen to the people

The problem is "the people" we are talking about here are the people of Israel. AIPAC wants our young men and women to fight their wars for them. Just look at the latest poll in the Jerusalem Post. Also, look at the real estate listings in Israel. Yesterday, I saw apartments starting at $1,345,000. So our young people are just mercenaries for a bunch of wealthy Bolsheviks. AIPAC makes me sick to my stomach. Deo Vindice.

Oppose the war - don't give reasons

Politicians and media franchises solicit your opinions and call it participatory democracy and transparent government, but when you give reasons for not supporting their war you've just helped to script their latest talking points.

Your emails and phone calls to congressmen or the white house will be stronger if you simply state your unconditional opposition to any involvement in Syria's civil war because any and all reasons for objecting will be overcome.

You believe the US is bankrupt and cannot afford another war? Not to worry, the Arab states have offered to pay for US military led regime change in Syria.

You don't believe the US fedgov is trustworthy? Not a problem, other authorities or sources will be cited.

You say there is no sense in US armed forces dying for unknown reasons? No US "boots on the ground".

Every possible reason you can give for opposing the war has been carefully rebutted and endlessly repeated by the lap-dog press. The war is going to happen, fundamentally not because of any given reasons or rational - those are all just concocted to answer your objections - but JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO HAPPEN. It's no more complicated than that.

The only defensible opposing position is simply to say NO, just because NO. Not ever ... NO!

meekandmild's picture

Re-elect no one

lets put in a new representative every two years and a new senator every six years. and a new president every four years. Let their be no career politicians.

The most important choices are not left up to voters

The most important choices are not left up to voters, that is, who will be the candidates and which votes will count.

Late stage democracy is an elaborate deception produced for our modern, information saturated society. Nearly everyone in the world knows the issues and can follow developments in real time so old style propaganda lies don't work anymore.

Constant conditioning since the cradle have produced a global populace who view the world through a collectivist paradigm. Modern political leaders now position themselves as transparent vessels of the collective will of the people who hold the people who elected them as responsible for their own (the leaders') actions.

The bad stuff that happens in a democracy? That is the fault of the people who participated in the democratic process. The selfless public servants take personal credit for successes but accept no responsibility for the frequent catastrophes; all while accumulating immoral wealth and power.

That should go for

Supreme Court Justices double. Lifetime appointment...insanity.

Heard the latest?

John Kerry is selling our soldiers to fight for Arab Countries. This is a disgrace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveb...

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done."

Since when did our military people become soldiers of fortune? I wonder whose pockets the Arab money will fill?

What happens when

the Arab countries want to hire our military to conquer America?

That's a scary thought...

...

WOW

America has been funding mercenaries to fight our wars after we "pull out" but this would be a paradigm shifting event. I can't see this being OK'd - at least not publicly. (Que the whistleblower in 3 years who reports that we've been selling our troops for 10 years).

My congressman, Ken Calvert,

My congressman, Ken Calvert, is hardly able to be reached. I call every 2 weeks to call him out on his voting record and he's never available yet people in my district continue to vote for him because he's a "conservative"

60%? Last realistic poll I

60%? Last realistic poll I saw was at 92%.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Rep. Woodall's position - at least he gets it on this issue

My representative, Rob Woodall from Georgia's 7th congressional district, sent this out today in his e-newsletter:

Our Founding Fathers were wise, and they knew the terror of war. That is why they placed the power to go to war with the Congress, so that the American people -- the ones who do the fighting -- could have their voices heard. I respect the President's authority as our Commander-in-Chief, and I know how difficult the decision to use our Armed Forces is for any president. That is why, when possible, the President should always seek the support of Congress. The collective wisdom of the American people informs Congress and Congress informs the President. That is why I joined a group of my colleagues last week in writing to President Obama and urging him to seek Congressional authorization before taking action against Syria. I am pleased that the President has now agreed to follow that advice.

With the facts that I know today, I do not support an attack on Syria. I returned to Washington to attend the classified briefings and read the Intelligence Community's justifications for military action. While I have no doubt that President Assad has committed crimes against his people, I have grave doubts that America's unilateral "limited involvement," as the President describes it, in Syria's civil war will bring justice to anyone. A threat to America requires an American response. A violation of international rules of warfare requires an international response. I intend to watch the Arab League, the European Union, and the United Nations for their response, but I cannot support the broad granting of unilateral power that the President has asked for in his Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Yes

When "the people" want unemployment extensions, they get it.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Unfortunately,

they also get unlimited extensions of the policies that CAUSE their unemployment -- whether they want them or not.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Of course they do.

"Corporations are People, my friend." —Romney

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Exactly. As long as the

Exactly. As long as the politician has enough monetary backing he can keep any opponents at bay, so it's all about what the monetary backers want. If it happens to align with the constituent wishes, that's great, but if not, too bad constituents - come get me if you can (and you can't).

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Haha

Slam dunk. Very nice, Ninja.