My congressperson for the First Tennessee Congressional District is David Davis. He is up for re-election this Fall. Rep. Davis wears his faith on his sleeve, check his campaign ad.
Frankly, I don't particularly care if a politician talks about his religious faith or his love for Jesus. Yet, when a politician does this, he opens himself up to an evaluation of what this faith is.
It would appear due to Rep. Davis' actions that the Jesus he worships might look something like this.
Rep. Davis is a co-sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 362. This resolution includes the following text:
...demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program...
This is a blockade, an act of war. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly passed a resolution just a couple of weeks ago against pre-emptive military action against Iran. The Washington Office of the PC (U.S.A.) following the guidelines of this General Assembly, released a statement on July 8th against Resolution 362. The statement includes this paragraph:
The threat of a war with Iran will continue to grow if the United States does not take steps now to open communication with the Iranian government.
Urge your representative to oppose more sanctions and any blockade against Iran.
Ask your representative to oppose a House vote on H. Con. Res. 362. If he or she is already a cosponsor, as her or him to take themselves off. If he or she is not a cosponsor, urge him or her not to become one.
Tell your representative that imposing more sanctions and blockades, when direct talks have not even been tried, risks propelling the United States into another unnecessary war that would have disastrous consequences.
Friend and fellow constituent, Rachel Baker, wrote to Rep. Davis, suggesting that this bill would amount to an act of war against Iran. Rep. Davis responded:
Dear Miss Baker:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning House Concurrent Resolution 362, legislation expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.
I have cosponsored this non-binding, bipartisan resolution to put the House on record as supporting the exhaustion of all diplomatic and economic measures to contain Iran's nuclear program and its hostility in the region. There is no question that the current leaders of the Iranian government present a threat, and it is my belief that we should take every possible step to resolve this matter peacefully.
Thanks again for contacting me on issues of importance to you. If you would like additional information on services my office can provide you, my votes and positions on issues facing our nation, and to subscribe to receive periodic "e-newsletters," please visit my website at daviddavis.house.gov
Sincerely yours,
David Davis
Member of Congress
Rep. Davis, this resolution is not an act of peace, but of war. As a person of faith, like yourself, I ask you, "What would Jesus do?" Every possible step has by no means been exhausted. Conversation has not even begun. A blockade is NOT conversation. It will not resolve this matter peacefully. Please remove your name as a co-sponsor of this legislation.
- You can contact Rep. Davis here.
- A list of co-sponsors can be found here.
Allow me to put on my True Patriot hat for a second. To EVERYONE who reads this blog who is an American citizen, make sure YOUR member of Congress works for YOU!
ReplyDeleteYou have two Senators who represent your entire state and one House Representative who represents your local area. Be sure to contact them and let them know what you think about an unprecedented third simultaneous war for...well...whatever reason du jour we've come up with. Even if you don't speak directly to the Senator or Rep, the aide will bring your comments directly to him/her, because s/he wants to know what his/her constituents think before the next election.
Easiest way to find out who your members of Congress are:
www.senate.gov and click on "Senators".
www.house.gov and type in your ZIP code into the box (because Congressional district maps are Dada-esque, you'll need your ZIP+4 from www.usps.com or on just about any bill you receive).
Alternatively, call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. The operator can look up your Senators and Representative and connect you to their offices.
Remember, when it comes to your members of Congress, THEY work for YOU, and your right to petition them for redress of grievances is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Why would anyone want to oppose Nuclear Proliferation?
ReplyDeleteNot only is it a violation of another nation's right to develop it's military.
It is also futile. Technology spreads. This is a historical fact.
This is not something to fear. This is progress.
Mutually assured destruction kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades. Mutally assured destruction makes war obsolete. It creates peace by making war
unthinkable.
Just imagine how much safer and peaceful our world will be once everyone who wants an atomic bomb has one.
I agree that counterproliferation is a bit like trying to close Pandora's Box, but the less that nuclear weapons spread, the better.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine was its assumption that both sides were acting rationally at all times. The USA got perilously close to a nuclear war with the USSR, to the point where one misplaced word almost resulted in the launch of nuclear missiles from Cuba, and the less-well known Able Archer NATO exercises in 1983, in which military training maneuvers almost led to the Soviets launching a preemptive attack.
Add to this the instability created when regional adversaries with unstable governments get nuclear weapons, such as India and Pakistan. Pakistan is really troubling, since it is currently controlled by a military junta (whose power was no doubt enhanced by its development of nuclear weapons) that is on extremely shaky grounds with religious fundamentalists jockeying for positions of political (and military) power.
I do think that the United States and the other existing nuclear powers are hypocritical. The US in particular must begin dismantling its nuclear arsenal, try to secure the "loose nukes" across the former USSR, and certainly stop spending money to develop tactical nuclear weapons ("bunker busters").