Canada – Geert Wilders – May 10 0211, free speech and the double standard for ISLAM – Muslim fundamentalists and the end of LIBERALS agendas

May 13, 2011

Great interview!

Geert Wilders interview Ottawa Canada May 10 2011

By EEYORE | Published: MAY 11, 2011

Last night, Geert Wilders spoke to a packed house in Ottawa Canada where he was greeted, I am proud to say, with a standing ovation as he walked into the room.

James Cohen who works extensively with the Free Thinking Film Society and with the International Free Press Society was able to get an interview with Geert yesterday afternoon at the club where the private reception for Geert took place. I am editing the video of the speeches from the National Arts Centre yesterday evening of Geert, Ezra Levant and Rabbi Jonathan Housman and hope to have those up sometime tomorrow. All were excellent. Meanwhile, here is the interview with Geert.Thanks again to IFPS-Canada as well as Fred Litwin’s Free Thinking Film Society for putting on this event.

Once again, Firefox users will have to click here and watch the interview over at while everyone else should be able to see the video here.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Geert Wilders interview Ottawa Canada May 10 2011, posted with vodpod

Interview with Geert Wilders. Ottawa May 10th 2011 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

This entry was posted in CanadaFree Thinking Film SocietyFree Thinking Films,freedom of speechFreedomsGeert WildersIslam in EuropeIslam in the Americas,The NetherlandsWest fights back. Bookmark the permalinkPost a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

The Suicide of the WEST part 2- Main Stream Media’s “Al Jazeera” and the Government support of the Global Jihad -Kincaid, Kenney, and Timmons, clear the confusion.

April 8, 2011




Vodpod videos no longer available.
Cliff Kincaid & Charles Ortel on ” Al-Jazeera, …, posted with vodpod






Obama should not be President – Obama’s Justice Dept. is a criminal organization

April 8, 2011

What else can you call it?

If I lied in order to get a CRIMINAL off the hook, then I would be criminally charged myself.

If I impeded an investigation or tampered with evidence, then I would go to jail a million time over.

This is not being conducted by ONE person.  This is the entire OBAMA, and even before Obama’s government, administration that is acting ILLEGALLY and in the OPEN.  They don’t even care if they get caught.

ACORN Guilty Again; Obama DOJ Still Won’t Investigate

Last Updated: Thu, 04/07/2011 – 2:30pm

The criminal enterprise that Obama’s Justice Department refuses to investigate despite extensive evidence of fraud and corruption is guilty of a felony in yet another state.

It marks the latest of many legal defeats for the Chicago-based community group known as ACORN, famous for illegal voter registration drives, embezzling federal funds and a tight knit relationship with the president. In fact, Obama once worked at ACORN and the group’s massive campaign drives helped him get elected in 2008.

Facing more than a dozen felony charges in Nevada, ACORN pleaded guilty to one count this week for illegally paying canvassers to register voters during the 2008 presidential campaign. The deal means that ACORN will avoid going to trial, which was scheduled for later this month in Las Vegas. A judge will determine the sentence on August 10, according to a spokeswoman for the Nevada Attorney General’s office, the prosecuting agency.

Since ACORN is a corporation, it will only be fined and there will be no prison term, the Attorney General’s spokeswoman told Judicial Watch. The fine is expected to be a maximum of $5,000. In November the ACORN supervisor overseeing the illicit  Nevada voter registration scheme pleaded no contest to two counts of conspiracy.

New York – Voter Fraud – Whites and Blacks are now 1/6th of a person – on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Black panthers intimidating voters from voting – US AG is OK with it.

Sanctuary Cities create MONSTERS


ACORN has a long, sordid history of election fraud and questionable hiring and training practices. The group has been busted for forging voter registration applications in key battleground states and submitting falsified forms in more than half a dozen others. In 2007 ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.

Last fall a federal investigation revealed that the crime-infested community organizationembezzled millions of taxpayer dollars for “housing counseling” and destroyed documents to hide the fraud. The probe, conducted by the inspector general for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also determined that ACORN violated federal laws and policies by spending its “housing counseling” funds to pay the salaries of its employees, even after they were terminated.

Incredibly, the Obama Justice Department has failed to conduct a criminal probe of ACORN, which has assumed a new identity (“restructured” and “rebranded”) to shed its criminal history and keep its public funding. In fact, last spring Judicial Watch uncovered FBI recordsthat reveal the Obama Justice Department actually killed a federal investigation of ACORN.

Judicial has been the leader in exposing ACORN and its affiliated organizations in the last few years. Click here to see public records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act as well as lawsuits filed against the government to obtain documents relating to ACORN’s federal housing grants and its involvement with the 2010 U.S. Census.

Should President Obama be impeached over Libya?

April 8, 2011




Lawyer Drafts Articles of Impeachment Over Libya

Posted on April 7, 2011 by Ben Johnson



Vodpod videos no longer available.
Should President Obama be impeached over Libya?, posted with vodpod





Someone has finally been moved to action by Barack Obama’s increasingly lawless administration. Bruce Fein, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department who wrote the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton, has drawn up formal articles of impeachment against the president. Fein explained the final straw was Obama’s unwise,unauthorized, and unconstitutional military action against Libya. “Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor,” he said.

The Founding Fathers required the president to seek a Congressional declaration of war before engaging in armed hostilities, with the possible exception of repelling a sudden invasion or a limited military response. The last two Democratic presidents have taken the armed forces into combat without any legislative authorization, Bill Clinton in Kosovo and Obama in Libya. Fein states this usurpation of Congressional authority should concern our elected officials, and lovers of liberty everywhere.

Fein is a recognized legal scholar whose work could be adopted without change as the legal basis for impeachment.

Ben Smith at Politico reports, “Fein said a number of Congressional offices have expressed interest in his proposal.” Fein told Smith “at least two dozen” Congressmen view the Libyan intervention as “a serious constitutional crisis.”

The Libyan intervention has further separated Obama from his party’s left-wing base. Liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio became an outspoken critic, while conservative RepublicanRon Paul of Texas agreed the bombing constituted “an impeachable offense.”

Congressman Trent Franks, R-AZ, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have raised the possibility of impeaching Obama over his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Other supporters of impeachment range from Congressman Tom Tancredo, to talk show host Tammy Bruce, to conservative activist Howard Phillips.

A poll last month conducted by Public Policy Polling last month found that 60 percent of Tea Party members and nearly half of all Republicans favored impeachment.

As the pressure on Obama mounts, some of his supporters have become (more) unhinged. On Monday, two San Franciscans attacked a 29-year-old man holding an “Impeach Obama” sign.

Bruce Fein has maintained close ties to those involved in the last impeachment. Fein now serves as one of the “principals” of the American Freedom Agenda. Its other leaders include 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, Rutherford Institute founder John Whitehead, and direct New Right pioneer Richard Viguerie.

Barr served as one of the House managers during Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

Perhaps the past is prologue.

Below are the articles of impeachment drawn up by Fein. You can view the full document here. You can e-mail Bruce Fein here.

Click here to sign the petition to impeach Barack Obama. Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.


RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:



In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.


1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:

Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.

3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.

4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”

5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”

6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”

7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.


9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.

12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.

13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.

14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:

[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority

…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.

20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed:

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.

21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified: “I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating:

Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.

But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.

24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.”

26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.

27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.

28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.

29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.

30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.

32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.

35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.

The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.

36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:

There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:

Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:

There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).

42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.”

44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.

They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.

That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.

If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”


47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.

48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?

Secretary Gates: Probably so.

Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?

Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?

Secretary Gates: Presumably.

49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.

50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.

51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.

52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.

53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”

54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).

56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.

57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.

59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.

60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.

61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.

In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.


UN – Bows to the Muslim world. Global governance council now a dhimmi of the OIC

March 27, 2011

The UN, which has become the global government, for the WESTERN countries overarching government.

The OIC is the same to the Muslim world.

There will only be 2 governments in a few years and THAT is when the last stage is reached.

If your needing any farther proof that the UN is the Western Worlds Government, then look at the latest assignment that AMERICA has been conscripted into –

Libya – WE Attacked Libya because of the “lessons learned” in Kosovo and Rwanda? Really? Really!

It’s all becoming clear now.

This is also why it FEELS like you have no Constitution.  YOU DON’T!  Your countries Constitution only applies to your own country.  The UN is bigger than that, so the abdication of your Constitution is irrelevant, it’s abdicated by proxy.

*Of course they disguise it as a resolution against ‘religion discrimination’ but we know they only mean Islam.

Posted: March 27, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam

Arab News – JEDDAH: The UN Human Rights Council unanimously adopted a new resolution on the elimination of forms of discrimination and violence based on religious beliefs.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents the Islamic group at the council participated in the March 24 discussion. The United States and the European Union too were represented.

Informed sources in the OIC General Secretariat here said that the new resolution related to combating religious intolerance and negative stereotypes, stigmatization, discrimination, and incitement to violence, and violence against individuals based on religion and belief is not a substitute for an earlier resolution adopted by the UN on combating defamation of religions, which the Human Rights Council had adopted many times in the past several years.

The sources stated that the new resolution is a qualitative breakthrough because it was adopted unanimously, adding, it gives the widest margin of freedom of expression (CRAP!) , with the rejection of discrimination and incitement and stereotypes used by the other or against the symbols of the followers of religions.

However, the sources stressed that the issue of acceptance of the new resolution comes as a goodwill gesture by the organization in order to reach the necessary consensus, bridge the gap, and partner with the West in addressing the anti-Islam sentiments that prevailed in some Western communities toward Muslims.

According to informed sources, the US Secretary of State (HIJAB) Hillary Clinton had invited the OIC to lead, along with both Washington and the European Union, the efforts to draft a new resolution to ensure the foundations adopted by the previous resolution, giving a wider margin of freedom of expression (MORE CRAP).

This is the most contentious of the resolutions, because in countries with strong protections on speech and other forms of expression, the idea that a religion can have the same defamation protections as living individuals is considered an affront to individual rights.




OIC commends resolution on religious discrimination


Published: Mar 26, 2011 23:33 Updated: Mar 26, 2011 23:33

JEDDAH: The UN Human Rights Council unanimously adopted a new resolution on the elimination of forms of discrimination and violence based on religious beliefs.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents the Islamic group at the council participated in the March 24 discussion. The United States and the European Union too were represented.

Informed sources in the OIC General Secretariat here said that the new resolution related to combating religious intolerance and negative stereotypes, stigmatization, discrimination, and incitement to violence, and violence against individuals based on religion and belief is not a substitute for an earlier resolution adopted by the UN on combating defamation of religions, which the Human Rights Council had adopted many times in the past several years.

The sources stated that the new resolution is a qualitative breakthrough because it was adopted unanimously, adding, it gives the widest margin of freedom of expression, with the rejection of discrimination and incitement and stereotypes used by the other or against the symbols of the followers of religions.

The sources emphasized that the OIC approved the new resolution from a position of strength, particularly after the adoption of the Human Rights Council resolution on defamation of religions over the past four years with a clear majority.

However, the sources stressed that the issue of acceptance of the new resolution comes as a goodwill gesture by the organization in order to reach the necessary consensus, bridge the gap, and partner with the West in addressing the anti-Islam sentiments that prevailed in some Western communities toward Muslims.

The new resolution came after the OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu proposed last year, a number of proposals on the possibility of reaching a common ground toward a solid platform for its adoption.

According to informed sources, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had invited the OIC to lead, along with both Washington and the European Union, the efforts to draft a new resolution to ensure the foundations adopted by the previous resolution, giving a wider margin of freedom of expression.

The sources confirmed at the same time that the decision regarding defamation of religions has not been abandoned.

This is the most contentious of the resolutions, because in countries with strong protections on speech and other forms of expression, the idea that a religion can have the same defamation protections as living individuals is considered an affront to individual rights.


Soldier imprisoned for killing a terrorist – Michael Behenna – Serving in FT Leavenworth 2 years of a 15 year sentence

March 18, 2011

I have read this case over and over.

This man should be given a medal and not a jail sentence.

This is not an OBAMA decision.  This was a Bush administration conviction.


This man is an honorable soldier just like the many out there that serve.  This is a travesty and the policies that guide these “wars” are travesties.  They should be brought home immediately.  This is not a legal way to wage ANY war and certainly not a MISSION of any ARMY

They are being put through a meat grinder.  The policies make it impossible to wage war not to mention kill the enemy.

Who’s the enemy?

These politicians that don’t believe that Islam is the enemy make the policies that our soldiers must live and die by.  Yet these people don’t know who the enemy is and wage war against US, the people, when we try to tell them.  They call us Racist.  Islam is not a RACE, Globalists are not a race.  The people of Islam and the globalists ARE the enemies and they are the ones who’ve been dictating the policies of this “WAR”.  THEY use POLITICAL Correctness to silence and bring about LIBEL suites as the tools to enforce silence.  These people have joined together because they have a common enemy. YOU —- The WEST.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The mainstream media is complicit.

The government is hushing it up.

This is Communist era psychological warfare and it’s being waged against US.


Subject: 2 Years Down, 13 Years To Go!



To the thousands of Michael Behenna supporters,

On March 20th it will have been two years since Michael’s freedom was taken away from him.  Shortly after that horrific day he was publicly paraded through three airports en route to Ft. Leavenworth to begin serving a 25 year sentence for killing a known al-Qaida terrorist.  When Michael first went to prison he was bitter for the incredible injustice that had been done to him by a country he put his life on the line for.  But that bitterness was soon replaced by an attitude of inner peace and a desire to discover himself.

Today Michael works 5 days a week in exterior grounds maintenance, lifts weights in the prison gym, reads his numerous cards and letters, and has immersed himself in books sent to him or that he checks out from the prison library.  He is treated well at Leavenworth because many of the MP’s know that his situation is vastly different than most incarcerated there.  However, it is still a prison with the associated hardships of “groundhog day” monotony, violent flair-ups of inmates, strip searches, full prison lockdowns, and the predictable food menu every week.  He lives in his own cell and he finds solace among the other Leavenworth 10 soldiers who have been convicted of similar war crimes. They have been a Godsend for one another as they have a common bond and each are remarkable individuals and soldiers who have been entangled in a bizarre legal quagmire for unknown political purposes. Your generous contributions to Michael’s canteen account enable him to call home regularly and we are lucky enough to live a few hours away from Leavenworth so that either family or friends can visit him almost every weekend.

Michael recently wrote a letter about what he has learned while he has been in prison.  We wanted to share it with you now.

Since arriving in prison I have begun a journey of continuous refining of both my thought and my action; the way I relate to others, an appreciation for life, and self-understanding.  As Emerson once wrote ‘What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us’ and I am finding that what lies within us knows no limits.

I have no access to the outside world except through newspapers and magazines and phone calls and weekend visits with my family.  Yet I am not confined to my cell so long as I have books that take me to places I have never been.  Books have become my avenue to knowledge and it is through them that I have met some magnificent people whose lives have inspired me to not only continue my fight for freedom, but to find freedom behind these bars.

Solitude was necessary for me to know myself.  Once I began to truly know myself I began the journey of transformation. I have a notebook where I write down anything that I find meaningful in the books and letters I read.  I have learned that it is not how much one knows, but what one does with what one knows.

There is a story of an old Cherokee who told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside of every person – it is a battle between two wolves.  One wolf is life-taking:  it is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, guilt, arrogance, self-pity, resentment, inferiority, lies, and ego.  The other wolf is life-giving:  it is joy, peace, love, hope serenity, humility, kindness, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.  The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather which wolf won.  The old Cherokee simply replied, ‘The one you feed’.  I am working on only feeding the wolf who gives life.

One of the most inspiring books I’ve received is called ‘Gives Me Hope’.  It is filled with true stories of kindness and generosity and I highly recommend it.  When I first came to prison I had very little hope and a whole lot of bitterness.  That is no longer the case.  To all those who have supported me through this struggle I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that YOU GAVE ME HOPE!  And still do…

As you can see, Michael’s attitude through this ordeal remains unbelievably good.  His greatest fear going to prison was that he would be forgotten.  Quite to the contrary (and to the dismay of the Army) Michael’s case is getting more attention than ever and there are things in the works that are going to put it in the spotlight even more so. Every week we hear from someone who tells us they knew nothing about Michael’s case until they saw a wristband or bumper sticker.  It is a grass roots effort that keeps getting bigger and bigger.

The status of Michael’s appeals currently sits with the Army Court of Appeals.  They should make a decision on the many legal issues of Michael’s case sometime later this year.

Keep spreading the word about Michael’s case and continue writing letters to your representatives.  And please keep sending Michael cards and letters that ‘Give Him Hope’.  That is a gift that we will be forever indebted to you for.

Proud Parents of 1LT Michael Behenna

Scott and Vicki Behenna

UPDATE – September 4th – Kansas – Leavenworth – Leavenworth 10 Freedom Ride and Rally for 1LT Michael Behenna and the rest of the 10 soldiers IMPRISONED for being HERO’S

UPDATE – September 4th – Kansas – Leavenworth – Leavenworth 10 Freedom Ride and Rally for 1LT Michael Behenna and the rest of the 10 soldiers IMPRISONED for being HERO’S


update – Michael Behenna – sentence at Fort Leavenworth
1st LT Michael Behenna- has been sentence to Ft. Leavenworth for shooting a terrorist in self-defense: the military calls it premeditated murder


TSA – Enhanced sexual assault pat downs – call the CONGRESSIONAL SWITCH BOARD

November 20, 2010

The phone number :

(202) 224-3121

Give the operator your state and say you have a message for your senators and then call again and tell them that you want to leave a messages for your congressmen!

1.   We should not treated like ciminals

2.   What happened to the presumption of innocence?

3.   This IS illegal search and seizure.  By signing a piece of paper to go on an airplane, does not authorize the airline to, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, conduct a search of your person or property.  If that were the case, then anytime buy a car and register it, you would be giving away your CONSTITUTIONAL rights to the STATE where that vehicle is registered or to a PEACE officer anywhere in the US?!  This is NOT the case, therefore the argument is FALSE.

4.  The HOMOSEXUALS do NOT disclose that they are HOMOSEXUAL.  Therefore, there is NO WAY to know if the “enhanced pat down” is a search or a fondle.

5.  Undocumented PEDOPHILES groping children will gain access to this JOB.

6.  TSA agents have NO authority and have not been deputized and are not there in ANY official capacity.  THESE ARE CIVILIANS

7.  The X-RAY images HAVE been captured and posted on the internet.

8.  There is NO reason why CHILDREN should be brainwashed in to believing that submission of their bodies is required right of passage.  This sets up a society for SUBMISSION.

9.  The MUSLIMS are the reason why this CRAP started.  They bombed us and they use their bodies as weapons AGAINST us.  NOW, they say that they should be granted special privileged, because they are MUSLIMS?  HOW DARE THEY?  HOW DARE this Witch, Janet Napolitano, continue to say that they are open to considering this SPECIAL STATUS to the MUSLIM, who are the REASON why this is going on in the first place.  Ban the Burqa!


—If Muslims are not subjected to this and all other are, then this is a form of Dhimmitude—-

10.    Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamicdemands. <>

Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad. <>

Please, understand that Dhimmis are those who are not Muslim, but, in order to survive, have OTHER RULES placed on them, than that of MUSLIMS.  It’s SEGREGATION and WORSE.  The control is MUSLIM, because the status of the Dhimmi is as it relates to SHARIA.

10 years after 9-11 and WE have a new vocabulary!  Tell me, really, who WON?

11.   The TSA, then touts it’s non discrimination policy.  YET the BURQA wenches get pulled to the side, while your 10 year old girl child gets MOLESTED.  Yeah right!  Tell me that’s NOT discrimination.

12.   We are even Dhimmis to the GAY community.  While they go around in anonymity, because we can’t ASK if they are gay, they get to GROPE us and we are not allowed to KNOW.  Female on FEMALE and MALE on MALE.  I can see the perverts now.  They would hang around the airport to merely watch and “some” would apply for those jobs.



%d bloggers like this: