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.


US and UK – Arm enemies – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

April 1, 2011

Unfortunately, just like MAD, that ONLY works for an enemy that is ideologically similar.

Islamic countries are not.  Muhammad saw to that.  And OBAMA put himself on the UN security council to obtain the power of the post.  No matter that it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  (see Article 9)  Islam is not even a religion.  Anything that is 1/5th or less of anything can’t be classified as any ONE thing. Islam is Shariah Law, culture, ideology, politics and Maybe, if there is room, religion.

If one reads the Q’RAN, Hadith, and the Sunna’s, one begins to understand the core of it is born of a boy, angered by his orphanhood and has to survive under harsh and hostile circumstances.  He finds a niche. And it’s violence.  Be MORE violent then your enemy and you will win.  Then, later, after much achieved success by using these lessons learned, he hears of Judaism and Christianity.  He is illiterate.  He has other people translate – directionless translations and broken at that, this is how he begins to perceive other religions.  He deems them inferior.  He decides to implement TACTICS of the major religions.  These were not placed for the betterment of society and the procreation of LIFE.  NO.  These were implemented as TOOLS to seduce into Islam, so that those who succumb, MUST SUBMIT to ONLY Islam and through that submission the direction is not LIFE, but CONQUEST in in lieu of life.  This is WHY martyrdom is so revered in Islam.  It is ABOVE life.

How sad that our politician don’t see HOW incompatible this false religion is to the WEST.

It’s sad that they choose to make deals with the devil.  The devil that they don’t even understand.  How vain it is of them to think that they can out wit something they don’t even TRY to understand.  When my daughter says that she doesn’t understand, but does nothing to try to understand, then I recognize her as being lazy.  THIS is the REASON why westerners are UNDERSTOOD by Muslims to be lazy.  They have had their elites attend our schools and limbed in our culture  in order to infiltrate us.  They have been methodical and specific.  While our “leaders” have been scratching their asses playing kids games.




The U.S. Arms Its Islamic Enemies–Again

Mar. 31 2011 – 3:23 pm

The leader de facto of Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi.


Evidence grows with each passing week that in Libya the U.S. government and its allies are providing air cover and arms directly to its avowed enemies–including thugs from al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Taliban–those who’ve devoted the past decade to slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse, top U.S. and U.K. officials now acknowledge this and condone it.

At this week’s London conference on the Libyan war, while U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said the tyrant Gadhafi must go, U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg saidthat if Gadhafi were to go, Libya could become a hard-line Islamist state, but the “gamble” was worth it. Above all, both stressed, Western allies must convey “humility” and forswear any desire to “impose” its preferred type of law-abiding government in Libya or anywhere else in the region.

In Foreign Policy magazine two military and terrorism experts describehow “Libya contributed hundreds of the fiercest foreign fighters to Iraq’s al Qaeda-led insurgency” and ask “Should Washington be worried that it’s now backing these guys against Qaddafi?” In fact, Washington foreign policymakers are more likely to be pleased than worried. For details, see only the vicious theories of Samantha Power, Obama’s national security adviser, who calls herself a “humanitarian hawk”–much like George W. Bush styled himself a “compassionate conservative” while proclaiming Islam to be a “good and peaceful religion.” Libya is only the latest in a long-term effort by foreign policymakers to encourage, fight for and sponsor Islamic regimes.

This craven and self-sacrificing policy is deadly, yet embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike in the U.S., albeit obscured by quibbles over the timing and tactics of Obama’s invasion. Both believe the world must be made “safe for democracy”–for mob rule and the almighty ballot–which means, in the Middle East: made safe for the rise and spread of Islamic rule. To “accomplish” this end the West is to “gamble” the lives and fortunes of its own citizens, while ensuring that secularism, the rule of law, individual rights and constitutionalism have no real chance in the Middle East, since that would entail “imperialistic colonizing”

Democrats and Republicans alike accept the myth that the “enemy of our enemy is my friend.” Even if the Christian Right occasionally admits to there being a real enemy, it finds a moral sanction in “turning the other cheek” to evils and threats, while the Relativist Left feels morally sanctified that the “lesser of two evils” isn’t really an evil at all, especially since there’s never any clear “black and white.” Meanwhile Islamic rebels are certain the U.S. and Israel are “evil”–Big Satan, Little Satan–and should be “wiped off the map.”

When cowardly, doubt-ridden disquietude meets irrational, brazen certitude the latter inevitably wins. The civilized West today is unjustifiably cowardly and guilt-ridden, while the Islamic radicals are certain, insane, evil, and dangerous; thus the former provides air cover, arms and moral sanction to the latter. The Islamic radicals specialize in rearing homicide-bombers, but it’s the West that rears the real suicide-bombers, for when the U.S. military bombs Libya–as it did Iraq and Afghanistan–it does so to clear a path for its sworn enemies.

Who exactly are the “rebels” and why are the U.S. and its allies so eager to help them? In Iran in early 1979 the Carter administration couldn’t care less about the philosophy or aims of the Ayatollah Khomeini, but only that the pro-Western Shah of Iran be deposed; by March a “referendum” established an Islamic republic; by April scores of prominent Iranians were executed; by December the ruling mullahs declared Khomeini to be absolute ruler for life. Ever since, Iran has been a major sponsor of world-wide terrorism.

In Afghanistan in the 1980s the Reagan administration and a CIA (then led by today’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates) helped finance and train al Qaeda, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in their fight against the invading Soviets (who withdrew in 1989). The U.S. also backed Iraq in its eight-year war against Iran, which failed, yet emboldened Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. fought him later. In the 1990s Afghanistan became a haven for terrorism, which led to the devastation of Sept. 11. In the decade since the U.S. has spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring “regime change” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now have Islamic constitutions and are far closer in theocracy and practice to Iran than ever before.

Americans should realize that “the enemy of our enemy” is not our friend, but our enemy, and that America has many enemies, both at home and abroad. There can be no success in playing off one against the other.

Yet the same suicidal pattern is visible in Pakistan, Egypt and Libya, where military strongmen (and onetime U.S. allies) Musharraf, Mubarak and Gahdafi–not unlike Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq–have faced insurgencies emboldened by U.S. rhetoric and military aid, even though the “rebels” have showed every sign, yet again, of being devoted Islamic terrorists and enemies of America. Amid these “rebellions” few in Washington or the media have bothered to examine the actual make-up or aims of the rebels.

Rebellion is applauded for its own sake. Western cheerleaders claim anything is better than the status quo. Hope! Change! Democracy! The voice of the People is the voice of … Allah! The grim facts become clearer after the dust settles and new leaders and rules take irreversible hold–more fundamentally Islamic than before, closer to Iran than before, more anti-American than before–with the help of the U.S. government.

Thanks solely to the U.S., Iraq’s constitution ensures a “democratic, federal, representative, parliamentary republic” where “Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country’s laws” and “no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.” Is this why Americans must go to war in the Middle East? The official name of Afghanistan, where the U.S. has fought for a decade, like the failed Soviets, and Obama has boosted U.S. troops to 130,000, is” “the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.” Is this why Americans must fight in the region?

Pakistan, with 170 million people (sixth largest in the world, and the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia) has nuclear weapons and is officially the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” It’s also part of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a permanent delegation to the United Nations with 57 member states, all of which are philosophically anti-American and support U.N. missions to ensconce Islamic rebels in the governments of once-U.S. allies. Is this why we fight in the Middle East?

In Egypt this year the Obama administration helped unseat Mubarak, and it is now reported that the terror-sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood is taking over, re-writing the constitution, and preparing the ground for yet another state sponsor of terrorism, aimed directly at Israel. Essam el-Erian, the leader and spokesman, recently got 77% of voters to call for an Islamic state. “The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes. . . . It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the non-ideological revolution are no longer the driving political force.” In Libya “the rebel commander, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, admits his fighters have al Qaeda links” and that he himself fought the U.S. in Afghanistan before being captured and released to fight another day, now with U.S. help.

Some Western cheerleaders pretend to be chagrined and surprised by all this, while others applaud it precisely because they are anti-Western and antisemitic at root and thus welcome any Middle East regime that’s more closely aligned with Iran’s mission to rule the world and destroy Israel and the U.S. There should be no surprise that this is what the Quran encourages and demands, but Americans should be asking: Why is this what U.S. leaders–from Carter to Bush to Obama–also seem to encourage and demand?


Muslim hearings – Sheila Jackson Lee has an outburst of illogic

March 10, 2011



Vodpod videos no longer available.
Congressional Hearing On Radicalization Of Isla…, posted with vodpod



This is that same woman

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Calls Staffer ‘You Stupid Mother-f*****

A lot of politicians give nicknames to their aides. George W. Bush famously referred to his attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, as “Fredo.” Mitch Daniels, then head of the Office of Management and Budget, was known as “The Blade.” Barack Obama reportedly called Larry Summers, his chief economic advisor, “Dr. Kevorkian.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas also hands out nicknames to the people who work for her. The Houston Democrat addressed one of her employees as “you stupid motherf**ker.” And not just once, but “constantly,” recalls the staffer, “like, all the time.”


She obviously doesn’t understand that almost all the violence against the WEST is being conducted by people screaming “allahu akbar” and not “baruch hashem” or “Praise the Lord”

Who were the people flying into the twin towers, Ft Hood, USS COLE, or Congresswoman Gifford?







Illinois – Nation of Islam Minister, Louis Farrakhan, good friend and neighbor of OBAMA, says that riots are coming to the US and white people need taming.

March 1, 2011

Louis Farrakhan believes in of L. Ron Hubbard’s view that Scientology “had a mission to “civilize white people,” adding that Hubbard “is so exceedingly valuable to every white person on this earth.”

Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan Committed to Mental Hospital

Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan ^should be^ Committed to Mental Hospital


This is really not so far off from the founding of Islam.  There is a reason why ALLAH is the MOON G-D.  <Allah – the Moon God – al Aswad ” “The most famous of all of the stone fetishes of Arabia was, of course, the black stone in the sanctuary of Mecca. The Kabah was, and still is, a rectangular stone structure. Built into its Eastern corner is the black stone which had been an object of worship for many centuries before Mohammed appropriated the Kabah for his new religion, and made the pilgrimage to this holy place one of the pillars of Islam” (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p. 13-30; Britannica, Arabian Religions, p. 1059, 1979).”>

The foundation of Islam and the symbols in Islam are “familiar” to those who worshiped the moon g-d.  Transitioning to Islam was not so far fetched, one the symbols were adopted and most of the practices.

Louis Farrakhan says Moammar Gadhafi has always been a friend

By KiM JANSSEN Staff Reporter/ Feb 28, 2011 7:27AM

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan says Moammar Gadhafi has always been a friend and he won’t distance himself from the Libyan dictator.

Speaking Sunday at the annual Saviours’ Day convention at the Allstate Arena in Rosemont, Farrakhan didn’t discuss specifics about the deadly uprisings in Libya.

But the 77-year-old said no leader has been loved by 100 percent of his people and said that if Gadhafi is persecuted for crimes against humanity, the same should apply to former President George W. Bush for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Farrakhan visited Gadhafi in the 1980s and in 1996 accepted a humanitarian award from him. But during his speech Sunday he warned the wave of revolution spreading across the Middle East is coming to the United States.

<He’s also said this –Chicago – Farrakhan – POTUS OBAMA BBQ Buddy says – ‘Jews are blacks’ worst enemy’>

Speaking to followers who all but filled the 18,000-seat venue, he said, “What you are looking at in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Jordan, in Libya, in Bahrain will soon, very soon be in all the nations of the world . . . and even sooner take place in America.

“What you see happening there, you’d better prepare because it will be coming to your door, America.”

And Farrakhan added, “I hope that President Obama will remember his instructions to all nations — be careful how you attack and kill innocent people who are protesting. Take your own words into your bosom and be reminded when it comes to your home.”

<I bet OBAMA is listening to him since their friends from way back and bosom buddies who live next door to each other in Chicago – “Chicago Sun-Times
CHICAGO–An interesting “stand-off” of sorts developed outside a barbecue President Obama was attending at a friend’s house Saturday night between followers of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on one side and members of the press and the U.S. Secret Service guarding the president on the other.”  Obama attends a Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan (Jew Hater), barbecue instead of attending DC memorial day services. Surprise! They are next door NEIGHBORS!!! >

Followers rewarded him with several raucous standing ovations during the four-hour speech.

“Don’t leave until I close — that might be a year from now,” he joked with listeners at one point.

“Teach on!” his followers urged him.

Farrakhan also said he had spent time at the Church of Scientology’s celebrity center in Los Angeles and had been impressed with the church’s method of “auditing” — a process he said was comparable to therapy.

He said the church’s founder L. Ron Hubbard had a mission to “civilize white people,” adding that Hubbard “is so exceedingly valuable to every white person on this earth.”

Scientology books were available for sale at the Savior’s Day event, but Farrakhan said he was not converting and did not need a new religion.

His speech also covered familiar topics from previous Savior’s Day events, including a focus on the common beliefs of Christians and Muslims who he said “should not be at war with one another,” how the Nation of Islam believes that white people were created from blacks 4,000 years ago on an Aegean island by a black scientist, and on problems affecting the black community, including street gangs.

He also criticized the sexually charged performances of popstar Rihanna, saying they were “filthy” and that people who enjoyed such antics were “swine,” a description he also applied to homosexuals and lesbians. He also criticized immigrant Muslims in the Chicago area for moving to white suburbs and being patronizing toward black Muslims.

During Black History Month, schools should teach from Nation of Islam books that say Jewish people took advantage of blacks, he said. An Anti-Defamation League spokesman said Farrakhan’s comments were “just the usual hate speech and propoganda.”

<“JUST?”  Where’s the “JUST?” when the hate speech is directed toward BLACK people?  When Black people get defamed all h@ll breaks loose AND LIBEL law suites ensure.  I’m Jewish.  My family and I never had slaves.  We were tortured by the communists – who, in some way continue today – and before that were enslaved under ISLAMISTS and were cast out of the MIDDLE EAST slowly drifting toward Europe.  Now, these RACISTS and Bigots are saying that WE enslaved them?  There own people enslaved them.  Slavery didn’t exist in Europe until it was taught to the Europeans by the traders in AFRICA.  They sold people in to slavery like cattle.  Europe was not completely free, but they had rules about INDENTURED SERVANTS.   Indentured Servants were WHITE.  They treated their SLAVES, most of them, the same way.  They provided food and shelter and clothing and they expected the slave to work for thier “keep.” The slaves in AFRICA that were put up for auction and were purchased by Europeans were considered LUCKY by their families.  Many SOLD their own families to the Europeans, BECAUSE they knew that they would be left alive.  Why is THAT history NOT taught in these blasphemous -LYING- schools of ours.  Our children are listening to propaganda.  They – the treacherous teachers, literally LIE.   >

He warned that non-believers and the sinful would face the wrath of God through high-technology UFOs or “wheels” that he has often described in previous addresses.

Contributing: AP

Arizona – Scottsdale – Muslim infidel doctor warns about Muslims and Islam

February 26, 2011

This guy better get ready to have to fight off some jihadi’s and have a Fatwa cast against him.

Sad.  These people STILL don’t get it.  Even when the entire Muslim world tells them that they will be “cast out to the sea”,  they will still stand their ground saying – Well, you see, SEA is not taken literally……. blah blah blah




Anxiety on all sides of upcoming House hearing on radicalization of U.S. Muslims


Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 26, 2011; 5:31 PM


Zuhdi Jasser leads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. So far, he is the only non-lawmaker on the witness list for the House hearings.

In some ways, Zuhdi Jasser doesn’t match the profile of the typical Muslim American. He’s an active Republican who has supported U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, advocates for Israel and says his faith harbors “an insidious supremacism.”

Yet the prominent Scottsdale, Ariz., doctor is the face of American Islam for a Capitol Hill moment. Other than members of Congress, Jasser is the only witness New York Rep. Peter T. King has identified so far forhis upcoming hearings on the radicalization of U.S. Muslims.


King, the Long Island Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has called the hearings to start March 9. Although he initially spoke out to promote them, his decision in recent weeks to lie low (he declined to comment for this article) and to keep the witness list and precise questions quiet reflects the complexities of debating the problem, experts say.

Should the hearings focus strictly on hard data about American Muslim cooperation with law enforcement? Should they explore whether American foreign policy helps breed radicalism? Can a congressional hearing in a secular nation explore whether Islam needs a reformation?

<Who are these people to REFORM anything?  Who would listen to them?  >


That final point is the core tenet of Jasser, a father of three, Navy veteran and a former doctor to Congress.

Through his nonprofit group, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, he debates other Muslims and appears on mostly conservative media to press Muslim leaders to aggressively oppose a “culture of separatism.” He wants clerics to disavaow scripture that belittles non-Muslims and women and to renounce a role for Islam in government.

<NO one is going to listen to this infidel.  That is what he is going to wind up being called.  If he’s not laughed out, then he’ll be on the JIHAD list or a FATWA proclaimed against him.  >

As the only non-legislator name King has announced he will call, Jasser is drawing a lopsided amount of attention.

~ might one ask where are all the Christians in Arabia ~ we know full well where they are ~ jailed or buried. “]King will have a separate panel of congressional witnesses, and he has said he will call Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). The Democrats on the committee will call Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who has disputed King’s contention that Muslims don’t cooperate with law enforcement.

With a mostly top-secret list and the first hearing in a few days, anxiety is building among Muslim Americans and national security experts alike. Although some hope that it will improve dialogue, others fear it could set off more prejudice.

National security people “are holding their breath that it doesn’t explode. I’ve heard that from people on all sides,” said Juan C. Zarate, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former security adviser to President George W. Bush.


Juan Carlos Zarate, left, with Paul Simons of State, is Townsend's deputy and is charged with handling the National Security Council's terrorism portfolio.

Juan Carlos Zarate, left, with Paul Simons of State, is Townsend's deputy and is charged with handling the National Security Council's terrorism portfolio.

<Prior to working at the Treasury Department, he served as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, where he worked on terrorism cases, including the USS Coleinvestigation. — COLE was never avenged.  This, act of WAR, was never brought to justice.  NOW you know why…… This guy!>

Muslim leaders initially lobbied for King to halt hearings but are now are debating whether to try to get on the witness list. Long-standing critics of Muslim American organizations have blasted King for including “apologists” such as Ellison, one of two Muslims elected to Congress. Some national security experts say King’s plan could exacerbate terrorism overseas by making U.S. Muslims appear persecuted, while others say King’s reputation for criticizing Muslims makes him a problematic moderator. Others say King has needlessly courted controversy.

“The U.S. government should investigate domestic Islamist radicalization,” Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum director who has written extensively on the threat posed by radical Islamists, said in an e-mail. “Unfortunately, Rep. Peter King has proven himself unsuited for this important task, as shown by the gratuitous controversy he has generated over the mere selection of witnesses.”

Into the void comes Jasser, who sits on the board of a nonprofit group that made twocontroversial films about the dangers of radical Islam. The Clarion Fund says on its Web site that the growth of the American Muslim population “is raising eyebrows from sea to shining sea. . . . And if you think that a growing Muslim population cannot threaten America, just look at Europe.”

The former head of the American Medical Association’s Arizona chapter, Jasser is the personal physician to prominent Arizonans (including former congressman J.D. Hayworth). Despite his work on conservative causes, Jasser says he has walked out of his mosque when politicians were brought in to speak.

Jasser has always been affiliated with a local mosque, and briefly served as a spokesman for the Islamic Center of North East Valley in Scottsdale, where his children attend classes. He was involved in interfaith work in Phoenix, where some activists say he is an outlier among Muslims.

So what expertise or constituency justifies this medical doctor being the only non-congressman King has named? “A lifetime of practicing my faith,” he said in a telephone interview.

To Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a progressive foreign policy think tank, Jasser’s resume lacks any community leadership roles, any policy or academic expertise.

“These aren’t people who we normally expect the policy process to produce,” she said.

King faced criticism as soon as he announced in December that he’d hold hearings on the threat of homegrown terrorism from Muslims.

Faith leaders, Muslim American organizations, the ranking Democrat on the committee – Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson – and some law enforcement leaders challenged the idea that Muslims should be the focus.

The subject is fraught with sensitivities on all sides. Some are horrified at Islam being singled out while others want to make sure the religious aspect of terrorism is not ignored. The potential for giving offense has led to some clunky language. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who conducted 14 hearings on everything from Internet radicalization to the Fort Hood, Tex., shootings without major controversy, said it was exploring “homegrown terrorism and domestic radicalization inspired by violent Islamist extremism.”

Zarate, who praises Jasser as “fantastic” because he offers an alternative, non-institutional voice, said the hearings could do damage if they create a sense that there is a divide between Muslim organizations and mainstream America.

“It would be a shame if the hearings didn’t move the debate the country is having, both on how to combat violent extremism and also on Islamophobia.”


Texas – Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, Saudi (Muslim), student of South Plains College near Lubbock decided it was time for JIHAD – plotted Bush’s home

February 24, 2011

I wonder if Bush still thinks that Islam is a Religion?  A religion of peace?  or a religion that chooses blowing stuff up to pieces?

Maybe they will just LOVE him to PIECES?

Islam is at it’s core Conquests and Submission.

It is what it’s creator is deadly and juvenile, right out of the mind of a 13 or 14 year old boy who never developed beyond that, which is why it has all the provisions for the most banal situations:  How to get away with Adultery, bestiality, torture, and homosexuality.


Islam is not like Christianity or Judaism.  Islam’s visceral and violent.  There is no comparison to ANY other religion.  It’s only 1/5th a Religion.  The rest is POLITIC, LAW, IDEOLOGY, Religion and Culture.  There is NO humanity.  The human life is less than just expendable.  It’s worthless.

We’ll know if this is striking a cord if we hear from the ACLU and CAIR about it.  Those two organizations are funded and founded by those who would see the overthrow of the US Constitution.

There is nothing unconstitutional about this LAW.  It doesn’t say anything about ISLAM, it says SHARIA.  SHARIA is the LAW in ISLAM.  HOWEVER, MUSLIMS will tell you that ISLAM can’t be separated into pieces, otherwise it’s no longer ISLAM.  So, those who “practice” Islam and disassociate it’s different parts, are the BAD Muslims.  Those who are not really Muslims.  Those Muslims are also called INFIDELS by the adherents.

A Time to Betray - Buy the BookA Time to Betray

Here what an IRANIAN CIA agent says for himself regarding Iran and Islam —>

EGYPT is a FREIND TO THE US – THATS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD: EGYPT – Iran ships pass the SUEZ – Egypt goes back to the 1888 Constantinople Convention – pre – League of Nations.

THE SAUDI’S are real friendly as well.

Saudi college student Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari accused of plotting bomb attack on George W. Bush


Originally Published:Thursday, February 24th 2011, 11:51 AM
Updated: Thursday, February 24th 2011, 12:13 PM



A Saudi national attending college in Texas was busted in a bomb-making plot that targeted the home of President George W. Bush, nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams.

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, was arrested late Wednesday night by FBI agents in Texas on charges of attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, authorities announced Thursday.

The student at South Plains College near Lubbock was jailed pending a Friday morning court hearing and faces a term of life in prison.

Authorities charge the defendant acquired the chemicals to create a homemade bomb and considered using a booby-trapped car or explosives-laden dolls to pull off his plot.

“Aldawsari purchased ingredients to construct an explosive device and was actively researching potential targets in the United States,” said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security.

A notebook found in the suspect’s Lubbock apartment indicated Aldawsari – who arrived legally in the U.S. three years ago – was plotting his personal jihad for years.

“After mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad,” he wrote in one entry.

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, was arrested late Wednesday night by FBI agents in Texas

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, was arrested late Wednesday night by FBI agents in Texas

Aldawsari also maintained a blog where he expressed his desire to become a martyr for his anti-American cause. “You who created mankind … make jihad easy for me only in your path,” he wrote.

The suspect e-mailed himself various targets considered for bombings, including the “Tyrant’s House” – his code name for Bush’s home in Dallas. That e-mail was sent Feb. 6.

Another e-mail, titled “NICE TARGETS 01,” listed a dozen reservoir dams in Colorado and California. And one of the notebook entries made it clear Aldawsari was bent on avenging U.S. involvement in Muslim nations.

“One operation in the land of the infidels is equal to 10 against occupying forces in the land of the Muslims,” he wrote.

The citizen of Saudi Arabia arrived in the U.S. on a student visa in 2008. According to a criminal complaint, he came to Texas after winning a scholarship that allowed him to enter the country.

A search of his apartment turned up an assortment of items, including a gas mask, a Hazmat suit, glass beakers and flasks, wiring, a stun gun, clocks and a battery tester.

An affidavit said the terror suspect purchased concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids, which are typically used to make an explosive known as TNP – trinitrophenol.

With News Wire Services



Delaware – Wilmington – Highly decorated Vietnam vet, John P. Wheeler III, found in Cherry Island Landfill – He worked for the Mitre Corporation and had potentially worked in Cyber defense for the government

January 5, 2011

My guess would be that whatever was in that briefcase that was stolen implicated some people in very high (or low) places.
He may have been a spy.

If he was an Israeli spy,  or a spy for the US to Israel, then the issue may be that he knew too much and the Obama administration, the US, is now on the not so friendly list with Israel.  But this is all conjecture and a total stretch, but who knows…?



Body of former Pentagon official found in landfill:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Body of former Pentagon official found in landf…, posted with vodpod

Ex-Army officer disoriented before death

By Paul Duggan
Washington Post editors

John P. Wheeler III, a former Army officer who helped lead efforts to build the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, was seen wandering in apparent confusion in Wilmington’s central business district in the days before he was found slain in a landfill there last week, according to police and a news report in Delaware.

Wheeler, 66, a lawyer and longtime business and government consultant who lived 10 miles south of Wilmington, was found Friday morning by a landfill worker who saw Wheeler’s body in a load of trash being dumped by a rubbish truck. Investigators have not disclosed the cause of his death, but they said he was a homicide victim and that the mound of trash in the truck had been picked up hours earlier from receptacles in Newark, Del., west of the city.

Newark police said Wednesday that Wheeler was seen in a downtown Wilmington office building “as late as 8:30 p.m.” on Thursday, about 13 hours before his remains turned up at the Cherry Island Landfill in Wilmington. He “was seen on video” in the building and “appears confused,” Lt. Mark A. Farrall, a police spokesman, said in a statement.

The place where he was seen, the 14-story Nemours Building at 10th and Orange streets, is part of the headquarters complex of chemical giant DuPont.

“Police also have learned that earlier in the day … Mr. Wheeler was approached inside this building by several individuals who offered assistance to him, which Mr. Wheeler declined,” Farrall said. That encounter occurred about 3:30 Thursday afternoon.

Meanwhile, the News Journal of Wilmington quoted two people who said they encountered Wheeler in the parking garage of a Wilmington courthouse shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday, the day before he showed up in Nemours Building. One of the witnesses, security guard Cathleen Boyer, said Wheeler appeared disoriented. She said he was clad in a black suit coat, dirty black pants and a white shirt, and that he said he had been robbed of his briefcase.

The other witness, a garage attendant, said Wheeler was carrying his right shoe in his left hand.

“He came out of the bottom level,” the newspaper quoted Boyer as saying. “He had dirt on his right leg. His eyes were red, like he was crying or something, and he said he was robbed.” Boyer said Wheeler’s speech was not slurred and she did not notice any odor of alcohol.

Footage from surveillance cameras at the courthouse garage, made public by police, shows Wheeler in the minutes before his encounter with the guard and the attendant.

After entering the garage, he staggered along a narrow corridor, holding the shoe in his left hand and appearing lost. He hobbled past an attendant’s window, then returned and spoke briefly with the person behind the glass, ending the conversation by jabbing a finger.

Then, still wearing just one shoe, he walked unsteadily along another hallway toward an exit door that was open. He pulled the door closed, then turned and flailed his arms in the air before walking back along the corridor and getting on an elevator.

Boyer and the attendant said that after Wheeler’s photo appeared in the news media this week, they realized that he was the man they had encountered in the garage of the New Castle County Courthouse at 500 North King St., a half-mile from the Nemours Building. The two said they offered him money, but he declined.

Wheeler’s lawyer, Bayard Marin, said in an interview that he was surprised by accounts of his client wandering downtown, apparently disoriented.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Marin, whose office is in Wilmington’s central business district, said Wheeler sounded “fine, excellent” when they last spoke by phone, two days before Wheeler showed up in the courthouse garage. Asked if Wheeler was prone to episodes of mental confusion, Marin said, “Oh, God, not at all.”

“He had his various moods, but he was always very bright, always sharp,” said Marin, who has been representing Wheeler and his wife, Katherine Klyce, in a protracted land-use dispute in the neighborhood where the couple lived, in New Castle, Del., south of Wilmington. Wheeler, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Harvard Business School and Yale Law School, “was really very intelligent, the kind of guy you had to work hard to stay ahead of,” Marin said.

Marin said Wheeler’s wife did not want to be interviewed about his death. “The police have not revealed much information to us,” he said. “I suppose anything is in the range of possibility, but it could have been something very ordinary. If you have a person who is somehow disoriented or having a problem of some kind, there are certainly sadistic people out there on the street who would take advantage of a person like that.”

Wheeler graduated from West Point in 1966 and served at the Pentagon and as a rear-echelon staff officer in Vietnam before leaving the Army as a captain in the early 1970s. As the first chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, he was instrumental in raising money to build the memorial on the Mall amid fierce controversy in the early 1980s over its stark design. In time, the divisiveness gave way to acceptance of “the Wall” as an iconic national symbol of sacrifice and service.

<Even disorientated, a man with that background, would be able to maintain.  However, this was professional.  Especially in the face of the “authorities” saying that it may have been an accident.  Well.  That is a bunch of white phosphorous.>

In the decades after the memorial was dedicated in 1982, Wheeler worked mainly as lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and as a self-employed business consultant. He also served as chief executive of several nonprofit organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and held a few mid-level advisory posts in the federal government for relatively brief periods, including a stint in the mid-2000s as a special assistant to the Air Force secretary.

Most recently, Wheeler had been working under contract for the Mitre Corp., based in McLean and New Bedford, Mass. The company does computer-related research and development for several government agencies, including the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

Wheeler “was hired as a part-time consultant for the Mitre Corporation in March 2009,” the company said in a statement. “He was providing part-time support to outreach activities aimed at promoting discussions among government, industry and academia on cyber defense topics.”

<HIS BREIFCASE was stolen>

Mitre spokeswoman Jennifer Shearman declined to say whether Wheeler was working at the company’s McLean headquarters last week. But police said he was scheduled to take an Amtrak train from Washington to Wilmington on Tuesday, Dec. 28. Investigators initially were unsure whether Wheeler was on the train, apparently because Amtrak has a cumbersome, time-consuming process of sorting used tickets by hand before matching them to computerized records of ticket purchases.

Authorites said that after Wheeler’s body turned up, they found his car in a parking garage near Wilmington’s Amtrak station.

It appears now that Wheeler did take the train back to Delaware that Tuesday. A day later, he was seen in a drug store in New Castle, about a mile from his home, according to a pharmacist there. The druggist, Murali Gouro, said in an interview that Wheeler, an occasional customer, walked into Happy Harry’s Pharmacy about 6 p.m. on Wednesday and asked Gouro to give him a ride to Wilmington. Gouro said he declined and offered to call a cab for Wheeler, but Wheeler said no thanks and left.

Less than an hour later, Wheeler was in Wilmington, disheveled and disoriented at the courthouse garage.

%d bloggers like this: