Posted on 04/27/2018 8:35:01 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
Letter calls for suspension of aid to the Palestinians
Members of Congress hope to compel the State Department to disclose the amount of U.S. aid money the Palestinian Authority has given to convicted terrorists and their families, according to a congressional communication viewed by the Free Beacon that calls for a complete freeze in U.S. aid to the Palestinian government.
Reps. David McKinley (R., W.V.) and John Ratcliffe (R., Texas) are circulating a letter to Republican offices urging them to join an effort to compel the State Department to detail the amount of taxpayer money that has been used by the Palestinian government to pay terrorists under a longstanding policy known as "pay to slay."
Following passage of the Taylor Force Act, which requires the Palestinian government to stop these payments or face a full cutoff in aid, the lawmakers are seeking to immediately freeze U.S. aid to the Palestinians until the State Department explains to lawmakers how it plans to enforce the new law.
The letter follows a recent Free Beacon report disclosing that the Palestinian Authority continues to spend U.S. aid dollars on terrorists. Palestinian officials have also made clear that they have no intention of following the new law and will continue to provide terrorists and their familiar with compensation.
"We urge you to immediately suspend all aid payments to the Palestinian Authority," the lawmakers write, according to a copy of the letter viewed by the Free Beacon. "Further, we urge you to make the cessation of this abhorrent practice that incentivizes terrorism a pre-condition for any U.S.-brokered peace talks between the sovereign state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority."
The lawmakers also demand the State Department outline in detail, "how many foreign aid dollars went to the PA that were then used to fund terrorists prior to passage of the Taylor Force Act?"
Lawmakers are additionally requesting information on what measures the administration is "planning to take to enforce the law and suspend aid to the PA, given the above statements and the content of their proposed budget?" according to the letter, which is addressed to secretary of state nominee Mike Pompeo.
The State Department is required to report to Congress this week on its implementation of the Taylor Force Act and explain what efforts it is taking to stop Palestinian payments to terrorists.
Asked about the state of play on Wednesday, a State Department official declined to provide information on the reporting requirement and further information showing the Palestinian government continues to provide salaries to terrorists.
Organizations tracking the Palestinian media recently disclosed that the PA is slated to spend at least eight percent of its 2018 budget on its so-called martyr's fund. That figure amounts to about $355 million, according to Palestinian Media Watch.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in a recent speech, outlined his intention to continue paying terrorists, a point highlighted by the lawmakers in their letter to Pompeo.
"There is something that the Americans are telling us to stop—the salaries of the martyrs and the martyrs' families," Abbas was quoted as saying. "Of course we categorically reject this. We will not under any circumstances allow anyone to harm the families of the prisoners, the wounded, and the martyrs. They are our children and they are our families. They honor us, and we will continue to pay them before the living."
The lawmakers go on to request the Trump administration require the Palestinians to abandon this practice as a pre-condition for peace talks with Israel.
Other members of Congress are lining up behind the effort as well.
"Congress took a bipartisan and resolute stance in the budget deal last month: We will not continue to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority if they use those funds to pay terrorists and their families. These evil individuals seek to harm the United States and our ally Israel," said McKinley. "We call on the State Department to cease aid payments to the Palestinian Authority until it can be confirmed that they have complied with this requirement."
bmp
“Congress took a bipartisan and resolute stance in the budget deal last month: We will not continue to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority if they use those funds to pay terrorists and their families. These evil individuals seek to harm the United States and our ally Israel,” said McKinley. “We call on the State Department to cease aid payments to the Palestinian Authority until it can be confirmed that they have complied with this requirement.”
I hope Mike Pompeo has a great big broom and a fist full of pink slips. The only Cabinet Level Department that has more $hit in it than the DOJ is the DOS.
If the P.A. throws every surviving family member of any terrorist out in the streets and shoots them I would be willing to release 10% of all pending money as a good will jesture.
Once Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were gone, someone had to step in to fill the gap.
Then, there wouldn’t be anyone there to receive the money. ;-)
Um, why are we giving them any aid whatsoever? Extortion is what it is.
It’s the chance we would have to be willing to take!:)
Members of Congress hope to compel the State Department ???
CONgress doesn’t need to “Hope” about any such thing, they can simply DEMAND it and Immediately JAIL anyone and everyone that refuses their Lawful Demand.
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
Thanks for all of that, eyeamok.
Thanks MarvinStinson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.