Obama should not be President – Obama is setting Israel up for a WAR and the same logic would lead to a WAR in the US – He is setting a DANGEROUS precedent

May 21, 2011

This President is dangerous to the US.  The logic that started the war in Libya has nothing to do with Gadhafi, per se.  It has to do with setting the stage.  This president is not a leader.  He IS an actor.  The stage is being prepared by others.  He is only the lead role at the moment.  And this is WHY he is dangerous.  Nothing is REAL.  It’s all staged.  No one that is a REAL player gets hurt, according to the globalists.

I’m convinced that there is a fracturing in the Globalists clique.  Some of them are Global Capitalists and others are Global Communists.  There is an ideological strife a foot. The reason I believe that is because there are leaks of information surfacing that would otherwise NOT be there.

Be that as it may, the other agents in play are the Muslims.  They are outmaneuvering the Globalists on some fronts and the Globalists are making hasty errors in judgement.  They are forced to move more quickly, but some have already made deals with the other side.  Those, I believe, are the Capitalists, because they have only one goal, money, but not money in that they have paper or stuff like that, but money in terms of true wealth and that is Control driven.  They have to get CONTROL of the commonly accepted currency, because in the end, that is their only truest commodity.

So, how does that correlate to Gadhafi and how does that set the stage for a war that the US be subjected to?

It’s the Logic.  The UN is the Global GUN.  The reason that Gadhafi was attacked is to begin to set the precedent and NO other reason.  The next casualty will be potentially Syria, in my opinion.  The following, and this may not occur until AFTER the election, is Israel.  And the reasoning is nice outlined below, in Gaffeney’s article.  However, I would take it a step farther.  The same situation is setting itself up here too, in the US.  The next casualty, may indeed be, the US.  Hezbollah and Hamas have set up shop in South America and Mexico.  They are taking over the cartels.  They got their FEET in the door by selling weapons and training the Cartels.  Now, they are tenured within those “armies.”  The same situation is setting itself up.  What difference is there in logic?  It is the same.  The Palestinian’s cry that they were removed from their land.  The Mexicans cry the same.  US children are being taught toward sedition and outright treason of their own country by “teachers” whose agenda is to overthrow the state that they teach.  Even the methods are the same between the Palestinians and what they are doing to Israel and what the “Mexican’s”  are doing to the US.   The similarities should not go unnoticed.  The fish ALWAYS stinks from the HEAD.

<thanks to Mandy for the Gaffney article.>

I would also like to mention that Obama sitting as the head of the UN security council is a direct violation of the nobility clause in Article 9 of the US CONSTITUTION.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should convene immediately to prevent Obama from using our people in his and the NWO’s war. The military should stand down.

The ATF who’s under the Homeland security, which the CIA is also under, is headed by a CZAR.  This agency is NOT steered by an elected official.  This is an appointment by the PRESIDENT.  These CZAR headed agencies have taken control of legitimate agencies and are run by executive fiat.  This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How is it that they have been allowed these POWERS?  These agencies have seized control of America.  They overrule the Constitutional limitations of power.

Communist China may be bad, but America is going to be much worse, if this continues unchecked.

The Gadhafi precedent: Could attack on Libya set the stage for action against Israel?

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council’s recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’ gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.

This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as all of the other nonpermanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”

With a stroke of the U.N.’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its long-standing position: The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews.

The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” now on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish state itself.

Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in Gaza – and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab awakening” – the winner likely will be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas.


The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.

Turkey, which is still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, is joined by Britain and France – two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel – in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the U.N. Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.

Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Power and Ms. Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify and are prepared to enforce the president’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility toward Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s political advisers about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland.

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ long-standing role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled “coalition” military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the “will of the international community.”

Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired endgame, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gadhafi precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome from the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.

At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gadhafi precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests. Even if a positive outcome somehow is forthcoming there, should Mr. Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisers be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they surely would precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, the United States and freedom-loving people elsewhere.

A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney032211.php3

– Here’s another article as food for thought –

WHY THE FRAMERS INCLUDED THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE

by Tom Deacon


The greatest defeat of the American Revolution was the fall of Charleston, SC to the British in 1780

(May 16, 2010) — Section 1 ofArticle II of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Try to understand this: At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were no “natural born Citizens” (no country yet = no citizens, period?), so yes, the Founders wrote in a “grandfather” clause to allow those present (already born) at the time the Constitution was signed to qualify to be president.  However, if you weren’t born yet when the Constitution was adopted (that includes Obama), then you had to be a “natural born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. It is amazing how tough this is for some people to understand. The reason Congress “investigated” McCain was because he was not born in the USA. They concluded in their report that that was OK, because his “parents” (notice the plural form of “parents”) were both U.S. Citizens.  This is not true for Obama, and he clearly was not held to the same standard.

The Constitution says you must be a natural born Citizen, or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Founders wanted the president to be a natural born Citizen, but they recognized that there were NO natural born Citizens until after the Constitution was adopted. They didn’t know that 200+ years from the signing, the education system would have dumbed down the USA’s population to the point that understanding it was an endangered ability.

Some may believe the natural born Citizen clause isn’t fair. The Founders of our nation believed it was the right thing to do because they had just fought a war with those who had allegiance to a country other than the one they were fighting to create….that country was the one they left to come to America, namely, England.  The Founders did not want to elect a newborn to the office of the president, nor did they want to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to meet the age requirement to be president. So they grandfathered themselves in with the statement “or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” No doubt they trusted themselves and their children who were born prior to the signing of the Constitution to be loyal only to the USA, fighting a war with England would have had that effect on them.

Obama is the “poster child’ who proves once again that the wisdom of America’s Founders was impeccable.

You can make up excuses till the earth fries from global warming, but you can’t change the truth.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/16/note-to-obama-supporters-even-a-birth-in-hawaii-is-not-enough/

Advertisements

US – Downgraded! The OBAMA PLAN revealed. – Obama Should not be President.

April 18, 2011

His incompetence and illegal Presidency should be REDACTED.

This man has destabilized the country as the nail in the coffin.

Soros’ henchman is what he is.  The Communists (Globalists) tool.

He is in direct violation of Article 1 section 9 – nobility clause.

His birth is questionable

His actions are directly contrary to American security and sovereignty.

It’s said that one knows one by ones friends and associates.   Obama cavorts with thugs and thieves.  Truly, horrible people.  People who are terrorists and those who would seek to do harm to people in America and America ITSELF.  This is not an American President.  He is the Anti American President.  People from other countries come and have babies who take advantage of America.  Voter fraud is sanctioned through sanctuary cities.

This is EVIL

Stocks sink after US debt outlook downgrade

(AP) – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks are falling sharply lower after Standard & Poor’s dropped its outlook on U.S debt quality to negative.

Even as it cut its outlook, the agency reaffirmed the U.S. debt rating itself at AAA.

International concerns are also weighing on stocks even after several companies reported earnings that beat expectations.

Traders are facing the renewed threat of a Greek debt default. China took another step to curb its runaway inflation.

In morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average is down 175 points, or 1.4 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 is down 19, or 1.5 percent. The Nasdaq composite is down 40, or 1.5 percent.


Obama should not be president – POTUS Obama is the Mahdi – His position fashioned the Axis of Jihad

April 13, 2011

Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution –

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Obama is illegally sitting as head of the UN (not US– UN) Security Council.

In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council
This is directly relevant to the article :

Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

* to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;

* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;

* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

* to take military action against an aggressor;

* to recommend the admission of new Members;

* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;

* to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

 

 

One might say that the UN is not a STATE.

Well, then the US can be viewed similarly as the UN, because we are a bunch of states that come together under the Constitution.  The UN has a similar charter that the Nations that are part of it also adhere to.  This however, is a title that is ABSOLUTELY illegal for a US PRESIDENT TO HOLD.

 

 

 

 

April 13, 2011

The New Axis of Jihad

Peter Huessy

 

 

US security policy in North Africa and the Middle East faces a dramatic test: will we be able to weave a strong tapestry of help for our allies and take down our enemies or will a new stronger coalition or “Axis of Jihad” banner arise from Iran to Tunisia?
This coalition is now intent upon establishing its hegemonic control over the Islamic world, including a significant portion of the oil and gas resources of the world, from which to finance a war against the West and most particularly against the United States. It has been a war off and on for fourteen centuries.
This one is different, however. It involves nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and has the financial clout of sovereign funds primarily supported by petro-dollars, but also infused with cash from widespread criminal enterprises including piracy and drug trafficking.
Of immediate attention is our campaign in Libya, to the extent we know what it is, although as Judith Miller explains, events in Egypt are of far more importance. According to the US chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, there appears to be two missions in Libya: (1) a military mission run by NATO in which the US is a key participant to protect the civilians of the country from Qadhafi and (2) a political mission we hope as a result of these moves results in the removal of the Qadhafi regime from Tripoli either voluntarily or by force.
The military missions of establishing no fly zones have had mixed success. We also do not fully know the opposition we are helping and arming.
<they absolutely DO – they are any and all the thugs that are willing to pick up arms.  Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and all the Palestinians in the area. >
From the air alone, said the chairman, it would be most difficult to achieve the latter political objective. Even though he sympathizes with Senator Graham’s call for taking out Qadhafi now and “moving on”, ruling out “boots on the ground” makes achieving such an objective ever more remote.
The chairman understands that a key objective of the administration was to protect civilians. He also explained that a key part of this was again according to administration briefings “How the rest of the world would look at us if we did not protect the civilians”.
Expanding on this idea was David Sanger of the New York Times who wrote that the actions of the US in and over Libya—as well as throughout North Africa and the Middle East—have been designed to focus on the key objective of stopping the nuclear weapons program of the Mullahs in Iran.
<and this is going to do what? / sarc >

It is here that the test to which I referred earlier comes into focus. For many American analysts, terrorism is simply a matter of “grievances”. One expert said of the terrorists:
“Their narrative has been utterly disrupted. The dictators they sought to replace have been ousted, and not by them or their violence.”
Another story tells us that a “senior New York Police Department intelligence analyst pointed to at least one short-term benefit of the upheavals: Home-grown Islamic radicals in America, too, had been stunned and shaken by the protests and the loss of what he called their ‘narrative of oppression’”.
One fact of the “revolt in the desert” which started in Tunisia and has spread to Iran, Syria and Yemen, is the virtual absence of protests against either the United States or Israel. No trampling of our flag or the burning of our political leaders in effigy. In one rebel held Libyan city one soldier waved a huge American flag. No call for Jews and Christians alike to be killed. As National Review’s Rich Lowry explained in “The Death of an Illusion”: “In the great Middle East whodunit, the verdict is in: The Jews are innocent. They aren’t responsible for the violence, extremism, backwardness, discontent, or predatory government of their Arab neighbors”.
<Thats right now.  Wait.  It’s coming.  Once the Jihadi’s come in there.  The poor Middle Easterners will cry out against the WEST again.  This time, they will be in unison and MUCH stronger than the US.   >
In fact, the universe of revolt and protest has been a call for both economic freedom and opportunity <for sharia finance> for the hundreds of millions who are unemployed and shacked to economic failure in country after country in the Arab and Islamic world. And for the political freedom needed to achieve such dreams.
<For the ISLAMIC CALIPHATE, which is what is considered FREEDOM over there.  Not real Democracy, but the childish understanding of democracy.  The way that a child would believe that it means the ability to do whatever one wants as long as those who want it are in the majority.  No principles, no standards, and no morality. >
One would hope therefore that this character of the revolt would finally drive a stake through the “grievance theory of terrorism” which has too often been at the heart of American security policy, especially among our intelligence community and its friends in the media, Hollywood and academia.
<American security policy is guided by the President.  The President is sitting as head of another Security council that has no particular allegiance to the US.  >
For example, former President William Clinton said only a few weeks ago that granting the Palestinians a homeland would end most terrorism directed at the United States. Former President Carter has said much the same thing.
<How many times do both of these former Presidents have to be proven wrong?  How many ways can they show their allegiance to the GLOBAL world and NOT the US? >
Contrary to their assertions, the terrorism we face is primarily state-directed. It is not grievance directed. It is nothing more in large part than simple war and revenge directed against us but by means often difficult to attribute.
Thus the outcome of the desert revolts is not without consequence. The bad guys should not gain ground. In particular, the current Iranian regime constitutes a threat because of its very identity as a jihadist state – the nukes, other WMD, especially biological weapons, its state directed terrorism, the massive human rights abuses–these are merely the manifestations to be expected of a jihadist state.
And Iran is but a leading part of a coalition of terror states and their terror group affiliates. Tehran provides weapons, financing and training for thugs in both Iraq and Afghanistan who kill Americans and our allies. Hezbollah and Hamas are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Mullahs, as they seek to complete the plan to turn Lebanon into a proxy of Iranian terror. Iran also allies itself with Chavez in Venezuela who in turn works with the drug cartel and terror group FARC and Hezbollah to plan terror attacks against Columbia, Mexico and the United States. An Iranian Shahab launched from off-shore Venezuela can hit down-town Miami.
North Korea, China and Russia help provide missile and nuclear technology to Iran. The attorney for the city of New York indicted one Chinese company on 104 counts of helping Iran with such technologies. Is the drive-by media in this country asleep?
<YES.  Because they MISSED the fact that Clinton was in on the DEAL.  This was about 2004 – Clinton Administration Gave China Top Nuclear Secrets (Flashback) also, Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War>
Similarly, rocket engines from the BM-25, a missile originally produced by Russia, made their way from Pyongyang to Tehran. This gives Iran a missile with a range near 4000 kilometers which puts all of Europe under its shadow, says Uzi Rubin of Israel.
In Libya, the areas controlled by the rebels have become an arms bazaar for Al Qaeda in North Africa. According to Jonathan Shanzer of the Washington Institute, Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is reportedly amassing surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, explosives, heavy machine-guns and other small arms and smuggling them to lawless areas in Mali.
Some of our allies are not helping either. Recently, Senators Kyl and Lieberman and Congressman Berman, all expressed serious concern over our failure to take seriously the Iranian threat. It is not only that this administration (and its two successors) was not utilizing the sanctions power it has under legislation passed by Congress (originally passed in 1996 but since strengthened). It was that a German located bank—the European-Iranian Trade Bank AG—had become a major conduit for Iranian companies involved in weapons proliferation.
This brings us back to Libya. According to recent reports, “During the weekend, Qadhafi forces sustained pressure on Misrata and drove the rebels from Ajdabiya, for a time. Timely NATO air attacks disrupted the attack on Ajdabiya and rebel fighters reportedly pushed Qadhafi forces out of Ajdabiya. At last report rebels still hold Misrata and Ajdabiya.
But “Misrata is under siege. Except for the increasing casualties that situation has not changed significantly in two weeks. The situation at Ajdabiya is more serious because a collapse there leaves Benghazi as the next target for ground forces. Qatari’s forces face no effective ground opposition. The effectiveness of NATO air forces has been inconsistent. Qatari’s forces have the capability to reach Benghazi by the end of this week. NATO air strikes can slow but not stop Qatari’s forces.”
While the African Union has said Gadaffi has accepted their proposed cease fire, the former is but a wholly-owned subsidiary of the latter. Such a cease fire is a sham.
We have to understand Gadaffi was and could again become a key state sponsor of terrorism. Note that only when Saddam was pulled from his spider hole in 2004 did Libya give up its nuclear weapons program and its other weapons of mass destruction efforts.
The moral of this story? The ability of the US to project and exercise force is important. Maybe we could call it “smart power”! As former Senator Wallop once noted, “Diplomacy without the threat of force is simply prayer”.
For too many, however, US force when used is considered largely illegitimate. “Experts” such as Lawrence Wright in his “Looming Tower” associated the attacks of 9/11 with Al Qaeda grievances, especially about US military forces “in the land of the shrines”, (otherwise known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).
But what is never commented on were the other grievances by Osama Bin Laden—that the US had kicked Saddam out of Kuwait; that we maintained “no-fly zones” over Iraq; that we had established sanctions against Baghdad; and that our restrictions on the sale of oil had supposedly resulted in millions of Iraqi children failing to get “health care”. Sound familiar?
Few if any analysts have explained Osama coming to the defense of Saddam! Given the strong Iraqi connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, (occurring as it did precisely on the second anniversary of Saddam’s surrender in Gulf War 1991), one would have thought someone would ask a simple question: who are these people working for and is it possible such terror organizations can be used by state intelligence services for their own ends? And as such, how convenient the “narrative of oppression” is for states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria Libya and others to hide their terrorist means and their empire ends!
We know from numerous pleas from the Iraq government to the US government that Syria has not stopped providing sanctuary for the “rat lines” into Iraq. Thousands of recruits traveling from the mosques and madrassas of Northern Africa fly to Damascus and from there enter Iraq and carry out attacks against US and Iraqi and coalition soldiers, police and civilians, including working with Saddam’s trained terror masters in widespread torture and bombings.
Did we really do the right thing to help oust Mubarak, simply because the youth and professionals and shop keepers of Cairo “have grievances”? As Judith Miller explains, “Cairo has been a staunch ally in America’s Arab-supported campaign to contain Iranian influence in the region and prevent Tehran from developing atomic bombs.
“Iran’s growing regional clout and aid to terrorist groups abroad threaten not only Israel, but also such Sunni Arab states as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and, yes, Egypt. The post-Mubarak government’s sudden interest in enhanced relations with the mullahs sends a signal of weakness that can only encourage them.”
But Syria, a bona fide member of the Axis of Jihad, somehow gets the good housekeeping seal of “reform approval” by our US Department of State, leaving Syria as a place for terrorist hiding, where they can recruit, train and organize terrorists. That we too often refer to Syria as a potential “peace partner”– when all Damascus does is facilitate a war of terror against its enemies—certainly makes the American people perplexed.
The “Axis of Jihad” is on the march, just as the Soviets and their terror master friends were in the late 1970s. The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed to take down two “terror masters”, which we successfully did. Unless we finish the job, as well as pay attention to the new jobs at hand, we could hand our enemies more real estate (and more oil) from which to plan, train, and finance, operate and recruit their armies of jihadis intent upon our destruction. State sponsors of terrorism are alive and well. US policy should not be in the business of adding to their ranks.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Peter Huessy is on the Board of the Maryland Taxpayers Association and is President of Geostrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland, a national security firm.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9232/pub_detail.asp


%d bloggers like this: