First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United State.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America 's ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company n which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to hide his medical, educational, and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.
All Posts (28536)
Sort by
January 24, 2013 - 7:19 am
Politico reports on a new Obama-led, top-down effort to build a “grassroots” effort to turn red Texas blue. The effort will be built around some of the usual suspects, including shadow party honcho Matt Angle, and some new ones astroturfed by Obama’s personal political force, Organizing for Action.
Republicans in the state should and will take the new effort seriously, for three reasons: It will be well-financed, and some of its top officers will have learned quite a bit from losing so many races, so consistently, for so long. No Democrat has won a statewide race here since 1990. The third reason is the most significant: As Texas grows, more blue-state refugees move here and the state’s demographics are changing rapidly. So far those demographics have not changed the state’s voting patterns. It’s redder today than it was 10 years ago, with more Republicans elected to local and higher offices overall than ever before. The Democrats failed to mount a serious challenge for the open Senate seat last year, a sign that if anything that party’s atrophy has not been remedied.
Democrats involved in the turn-Texas-blue effort have, at last, begun to admit that their racist strategies have not paid off for them.
Democratic Houston Mayor Annise Parker said her party couldn’t afford to wait passively for population change to turn Texas blue. Instead, they should dig in for a longer, harder campaign to make it a swing state.
“We have been waiting in Texas for a very long time for the Latino vote to come into its own and turn the tide. But many of us have decided that we can’t wait for that. We have to do the old-fashioned work of going out and talking to Texans,” said Parker, who didn’t rule out a statewide campaign “when I am done [being] mayor.”
This has been the Democrats’ problem for a generation. They refuse to admit that the state’s conservative, small-government policies have helped Texas become the economic powerhouse that it is. They refuse to acknowledge that they lose because their values are wildly out of step with the majority of the state. They refuse to acknowledge that their policies would be as bad for Texas as they have been for California. They run on race and gender, not issues, and when they lose, they blame the majority of Texas who vote against them, not themselves.
And they refuse to learn. Take their approach to last year’s open Senate seat.
The party fielded a strong candidate for governor in 2010, former Houston Mayor Bill White, only to see him lose by 13 points to incumbent Gov. Rick Perry. Two years later, Democrats recruited retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez into the open-seat Senate race, presenting him as a candidate who could appeal to conservative voters and energize Latinos. Sanchez withdrew several months later after raising a paltry sum for the race.
Sanchez flopped, and Texas Republicans nominated Ted Cruz, who went on to win and is already a massive star after just a few weeks in Washington. Sanchez would never have resonated with the state’s majority. It has nothing to do with his skin color or name (obviously, as Cruz won the seat) but because of his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal and because Democrats wanted to run him solely based on his skin color and his Hispanic name.
Some Democrats admit that race and gender are what they have tended to focus on, not qualifications or issues.
“We do need to have a good team, and we do need to have a good ticket. We’ve had too many go-it-alone candidacies that just weren’t able to do it on their own,” [Democrat consultant Ed Espinoza] said. “Coordination should focus on things like who can raise money, who can build structure and who can build votes. Too often we say, ‘Well, this person’s brown, so they can win brown votes, and this person’s a woman, so she can win women’s votes.’”
To any reasonable person not imbibing the leftist Kool-Aid–
Obama Administration Silent After Egyptian Constitution Restores Slavery
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, December 1, 2012, 10:43 AM
It’s no secret that Egyptian slavery is as old as the pyramids.
It’s also common knowledge that Barack Obama’s ancestors owned slaves.
Slaves in Africa – in the early 20th century.
So it’s really no surprise that he helped usher in a radical Egpytian regime that is restoring slavery.
According to the AP Egypt’s new constitution has dropped its ban on slavery:
Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.
The Obama administration declined to criticize Egypt’s constitution despite its slavery clause.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN THE WHITE HOUSE (NAMES & BIO’S DISCLOSED)
This Is The Fifth Different Article We’ve Brought To Your Attention On Obama’s Close Ties With His Muslim Brothers In The Muslim Brotherhood – More And More Are Opening Their Eyes To The Facts – When Will You Wake Up America?
Bob Beauprez 01-17-13
A recently published report by Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine identifies six American Islamist activists that are connected to the Obama Administration as Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.
The Dec. 22 story suggests that the influence of these six MB operatives is “tantamount to a turning point for the Obama administration from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world as well.”
The article was translated in full (read here) and separately summarized by John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (here). Founded in 1995, IPT is considered by many to be among the world’s most comprehensive data centers on radical Islamic terrorist groups.
The following is from Rossomando’s text:
The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.
Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood “subsidiary.” It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the “file of Islamic states” in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.
Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood.
Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration’s counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserts that Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim.
According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.
He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji,Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza.
Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure.
Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI.
Rose El-Youssef says Patel maintains a close relationship with Hani Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as “a large Brotherhood organization.”
While the Rose El-Youssef article is largely unsourced, “ex-FBI agents who have investigated the Brotherhood’s influence operations inside the U.S. confirm some of those named in the story have come under scrutiny,” according to a separate published report by Investor’s Business Daily thatspecifically identified Alikhan, Elibiary, Hussain, and Magid.
“The level of penetration (by the MB) in the last three administrations is deep,” former FBI special agent John Guandolo is quoted as saying by IBD. “For this president it even goes back to his campaign with Muslim Brotherhood folks working with him then.”
Guandolo says the MB has placed operatives and sympathizers inside the U.S. military, as well. The government has ID’d hundreds of Brotherhood and Hamas fronts inside the U.S. but has shut down only a few due to political pressures, according to Guandolo in the IBD report.
“The Muslim Brotherhood controls about 500 organizations that are overt NGOs (Non-Government Organizations),” Guandolo said. “That means they’re running thousands of covert organizations we don’t know about and nobody’s monitoring.”
Communications Confirm White House Sympathy with Brotherhood
In a follow-up piece published January 8, Rossomando exposes a chain of communications documenting that, “The Obama Administration repeatedly ignored and downplayed advance warnings that the Muslim Brotherhood would resort to violent and undemocratic tactics if it came to power” following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in February, 2011. Below are but a sample of the many examples given by IPT and Rossomando of MB sympathetic communications uncovered:
For example, a Sept. 20, 2011 State Department cable obtained by the IPT reports on a Muslim Brotherhood representative telling the U.S. embassy in Cairo that the “MB (Muslim Brotherhood) was not the extremist organization the West feared.”
Such assurances have been reflected in comments from Obama administration officials, including the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence.
In an April 15, 2010 cable, U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson reported that Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie had “reaffirmed the MB was a non-violent” movement.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper similarly described the Muslim Brotherhood in February 2011 as “largely secular” and said that it “eschewed violence.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listed the Brotherhood’s alleged commitment to nonviolence as among the reasons the State Department planned to expand its contacts with the group in a June 30, 2011 statement.
Rossomando’s source for much of the documentation is Michael Meunier, a Christian leader of the Egyptian opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the regime of President/Dictator Mohammed Morsi.
Last month Meunier publicly criticized ”the Obama administration’s role in helping the Muslim Brotherhood ascent to power in Egypt.” Meunier said for some time, he and many other Christian leaders had been “publically and privately warning members of Congress and the administration of the danger the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) poses and about their desire to turn Egypt into a theocratic Islamic fascist country. Yet we were ignored.”
Meunier traces the development of the cozy relationship between high ranking Democrats and the Muslim Brotherhood beginning even prior to the Obama Administration. In April 2007, while the Bush Administration refused to dignify the Brotherhood with a meeting, Steny Hoyer – then the Democrat Majority Leader of the House of Representatives – met in Egypt with Saad el-Katatni, the MB’s parliamentary leader.
Once the Obama Administration was in place, the romance developed further. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Senator John Kerry, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and newly nominated to be Secretary of State, met with MB officials.
After Obama’s new Ambassador Anne Patterson arrived in Cairo in July, 2011 as the new Egyptian government was being formed, “a stream of meetings, as well as public and private contacts followed,” according to Meunier.
The Administration’s bias was immediately apparent. Ambassador Patterson “seemed to favor the Brotherhood and the hard line Salafis at the expense of the secular players in Egypt,” Meunier says diplomatically. “In fact, she has turned down requests for meetings from heads of political parties and other secular politicians, myself included, who oppose the Brotherhood.”
“The MB used these high-level meetings to tell the Egyptian people that the U.S. is supporting them and does not object to their rule,” Meunier said. “Many of us reached out to U.S. officials at the State Department and complained that the U.S. policy regarding the MB was putting the secular forces in Egypt at a disadvantage because it seemed to be propping (up) the MB, but our concerns were dismissed.”
Rather than heed the advice and warnings of Christian leaders like Meunier that were seriously committed to fostering an infant secular democracy in Egypt following the 2011 revolution, the Obama Administration willingly acceded to the false assurances of the Brotherhood – an organization whose motto is ”Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Meunier and his fellow Christian opposition leaders were not alone in warning about the Brotherhood. On February 10, 2011 as the Egyptian revolution raged, FBI director Robert Mueller testified before the House Intelligence Committee that“obviously, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here (in the U.S.) and overseas have supported terrorism.” Hamas is the most infamous offspring of the Brotherhood.
At the same hearing, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, made the prescient observation; “I’m concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood is using peaceful protests in Egypt for a power grab, and our government doesn’t seem to grasp their threat.”
But, the warnings of Meunier, Mueller, Myrick and countless others didn’t mesh with the political agenda already in place among the key players within the Obama Administration.
As a result Egypt, the largest nation in the Middle East with over 80 million people, is being transformed “into a theocratic Islamic fascist country,” exactly as Meunier had warned.
On a larger scale, with the U.S.-Brotherhood relationship in Egypt as the obvious example, Islamists in Iran, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Afghanistan – and, yes, even in the United States – can only be encouraged by the thought of a second term for Barack Obama.
Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Beauprez was a dairy farmer and community banker. He and his wife Claudia reside in Lafayette, Colorado. You may contact him at: http://bobbeauprez.com/contact/
Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?
Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security is supplying its federal law enforcement division with 500 million rounds of hollow point bullets.
Credits:
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.
When is this socialistic pig going to go away? When will the people of this nation wake up and see what his true goals are? He will not be happy till he completely destoys this country.
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
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:
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE I
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.
I.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
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.
II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE
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.”
III.
USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA
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.
I AM A RETIRED NURSE , I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE 90% OF THESE DRUGS THAT ARE GIVEN TO THESE YOUNG KIDS HAVE VERY BAD SIDE EFFECTS. THEY EFFECT THE OLDER PEOPLE BADLY TOO BUT IN DEFERENT WAYS THAT YOU THE PUBLIC SELDOM HEAR ABOUT. THESE KIDS NEED PERENTS , SUNSHINE, BASEBALL GAMES STARTEING IN FIRST GRADE THRU 12 TH GRADE , THEY NEED AFTER SCHOOL WORK THEY DO NOT NEED VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES 6 TO 14 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK IN A HOUSE WHERE THE ADULTS SCREAM AT THEM ,TELL THEM HOW STUPID AND SORRY THEY ARE. THE GUNS ARE NOT TOO BLAME FOR THIS INSANITY . TOO MANY DRUGS , TOO FEW GOOD LOVEING PERENTS , TOO FEW REPUTIBLE DOCTORS WHO WILL TELL THE BAD PARENTS THE TRUTH " NO YOUR CHILD DOESN'T NEED MEDS. THEY NEED LOVE AND GUIDANCE." " THEY NEED DISCIPLIN ,LOVE AND RESPECT ," IF THEY ARE TOUGHT THESE THINGS THEY WILL LIVE THESE THINGS. THEY WILL QUIT KILLING OTHERS AND THEIR SELF. GOD BLESS ALL THE KIDS AND HELP THE PARENTS TO UNDERSTAND THEY CAN DO BETTER WITH GODS HELP.
Hallowed be thy name! Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done!
The Tea Party points to the flaws in our government, and there are many. I'd like to point out something Tea Party has missed—and the very reason Obama was reelected. President Obama, in his inauguration speech, made it clear that his intention is to act according to the collective will of the people who voted for him. He will attempt to crush the Republican Party for good and leave himself the ruler. Obama, the man of peace--no more wars and no more individual rights. Nice work if you can get it.
I’d like mention the Founding Fathers. They gave the individual the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to protect individual rights, as distinguished from government entitlements. But those rights I mention are utterly worthless unless the individual acts—himself or herself—to stop Obama and those who voted for him, those who hold government entitlement higher in value than personal responsibility and self-reliance. (Our children are learning fom them to have none of either.)
Obama has the power of government entitlements to buy votes. Naturally, the cost of government entitlements, as far as Obama is concerned, is not on the table to be discussed. What happens after he bankrupts the nation? History tells us. We all depend on Obama and progressive liberals. If you never ate steak, you wouldn’t mind eating bugs.
Case in point: The individual has the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which gives him or her the authority to be heard in a meaningful way in a meaningful place. The IRS cheated me out of $900 of my property. I went to a lawyer. The lawyer told me to forget it. The legal cost of taking the IRS to court would be many times the amount I was cheated and the courts refuse to compensate the legal cost we, the hard working Americans, incur. So the lawyer was right, of course, if you hire a lawyer—but wrong if you plead your own case.
Under the Fifth Amendment, If you have a personal stake in the outcome, this gives you the right to be heard. Your right to the fruits of your labor, under the law of all times, supersedes government entitlements. But who is audacious enough to take the IRS to court on his own. People who knew me thought I’d lost my mind. Since the people have not demanded the right to exist on their own labor, the courts hold that government entitlements come first; your right to exist on your own work second.
That filthy rich, heartless candidate Romney apologized for bringing up the fact that the half of the nation that depends on government would vote against him. Some say that is why he lost the election. It dumbfounds me how the American people are thinking.
In my book, In Earth as It Is in Heaven 2012: an Explanation for the underlying Mechanics of Creation, I give the individual, not only the Constitution, but the Bible as sources of personal power. According to the majority opinion, I did a heartless, terrible thing. I challenged in court those who depend on government. I was judged by government and the people to be a serious danger to compassionate, God-loving people. I tried to get out of paying my “fair share” of the tax burden. I federal judge called me into his chambers and gave me a tongue lashing. I can’t help it. I’ve always been a non-conformist.
Jesus said in the Lord’s Prayer, “in earth as it is in heaven,” followed by, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6). When the authorities demanded that Jesus tell them when his god would appear, said Jesus, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say Lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17). The authorities want me to know that God speaks to them. They pray to the Almighty in heaven. The kingdom of God is not in heaven. The kingdom of God is internal, if you believe in Jesus as your savior and redeemer. If you believe God is in heaven, God is whatever the authorities tell you God is.
Says authority: What difference does it make what you think? What do you and I know? We are nothing. The collective will of the people is all that counts. Clinton and company are letting the future take care of itself. It does not matter what they do, and Republican politicians are largely noble weaklings.
You can be right, folks. It makes no difference what you say. Your words are wasted. So don’t look to Washington. Washington is the fox watching over the henhouse. We Americans are in serious trouble. For the sake of those to come, we must act now. I can tell you that the authorities are phonies! I can tell you from personal experience with them, the authorities could not fight their way out of a paper bag, and the rest of the world knows it!
In my book you will learn that by acting on my constitutional and God-given rights, I forced the Federal Government to eat crow on the front page. I’ve been rewarded many times. After the fact, from the Bible I learned that Jesus was there the whole time, and I don’t accept religions’ doctrines and dogmas.
The universe is nothing like you’ve been taught. If you want to know how something works you take it apart. Quantum physicists now find that what was thought to be an objective world is in fact contingent upon the observer. Since authority would just as soon you didn’t know this, authority diverts your attention to such as guns. Everyone’s worked up over guns.
The observer interacts with matter. Consciousness, the substance of this newfound reality, has fundamental existence. It is the quantum mind that is the basic reality. The mind, or the soul, take your choice, represents quality, as distinguished from quantity. In the Bible, you are from dust to dust, quantitatively, but with an immortal soul (Genesis 2). Your quality has no time limit, no space limit. With quantum theory, science has discovered proof that we exist as something more than matter, and that objective reality is not the true fabric of reality. Those scientists that push this “nonsense” are trying to smuggle God into physics. What a laugh! It is not nonsense. It makes good sense. I don’t have anything to lose. The authorities have a lot to lose. That’s why the status quo remains.
Obviously, we evolved from the ape family, but not in our qualitative part. In Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image,” this is in reference to our qualitative part—our conscious awareness.
Jesus said there would be signs in the sun, moon, and stars (Luke 21), and with reference to distress among the nations. When this occurs, Jesus said the kingdom of God would be there. We are moving away from the Age of Pisces, whose symbol is two attached fish swimming in opposite directions. It’s a perfect fit. We are moving into the Age of Aquarius, whose symbol is the water-bearer. We can wonder why the authorities are telling us to look to them for our answers. The kingdom of God is in you and I, authorities meant to be our servants.
We are here to do God’s will. In the Age of Aquarius we become our brother’s keeper. Only a fool would rule out all others like us in the universe. But we have the majority who don’t want to be confused by the facts, who will be sitting at the switch when the train rolls by. All aboard! It’s time to move on.
RUBIO MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM HIGH OFFICE.
By J.B. Williams
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams234.htm
January 20, 2013
If so-called “constitutionalists” were better acquainted with the Constitution (Charters of Freedom), they
would not be supporting Marco Rubio for an office he is not eligible to hold and they would have already removed Barack Hussein Obama from the office he currently holds fraudulently. Marco Rubio is in the unique position to solve our nation’s greatest problem, to remove a foreign agent currently assaulting America from within the Oval Office and set the nation back on a constitutional course towards freedom and liberty. Rubio has an opportunity to be a true American hero. Will he be?
Because Rubio was dragged into the political spotlight by Tea Party folks in desperate search of new conservative leadership, and because he shares in common with Obama, constitutional ineligibility for the
offices of president and vice president under Article II requirements, he is uniquely positioned to bring down the most anti-American regime to ever hold political power in the United States.
Unlike “birthers” who are trying to disqualify Obama on the basis of his unconfirmed place of birth (native born
status), which is still in question due to Obama’s fraudulent efforts to hide his real past and true identity, using nondisclosure and forged documents to remain a total mystery, -- true “constitutionalists” who have studied the matter completely and allowed the facts to emerge without partisan purpose, know the whole truth.
1) The foundations for America are stated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Pay particular attention to the parts highlighted.
IN
CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Contrary to contemporary teachings by revisionists, the legal precepts for everything our Founders created is NOT "British common law" which we separated from via the Declaration and the American Revolution. It is "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as stated in the preamble to our nation’s founding document, The Declaration. Just as freedom and liberty are “natural rights” inalienable by men, so is the right of Natural Born Citizenship.
2) Revisionists claim that Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution. However, the US Constitution does not have a definitions section; therefore, it provides no definition for any of the words or terms used in that document. Of course, as the Charters of Freedom were written in plain simple English so that any citizen could read and comprehend their rights and the limited functions of the government bodies they were to form, no definitions were needed. Everyone alive at the time knew the true meaning of every word and every term, including Natural Born Citizen. But 236 years later, dumbed down by revisionist propaganda, Americans may have to do a little homework to rediscover basic truths.
3) During that period in history, the framing of the Charters of Freedom, our Founders left a perfect record of their concerns and intents in the Federalist Papers. Anyone not able to comprehend the simple English carefully crafted in the Charters of Freedom can study the thoughts behind those words in the Federalist
Papers. If you do not know the Federalists Papers, you do not know the Constitution.
4) There is no guess-work or ambiguity… We know from reading the correspondences of our Founders, that they borrowed the concepts for the Charters of Freedom (Natural Law - Laws of Nature - God's Law - inalienable Law of Nations) -- from the internationally recognized authority on the subject at the time, Vattel, recorded in French and later translated to English, The Law of Nations, written on the inalienable laws of nature respected by all nations and inescapable by man. [Most of the Founding Fathers were as fluent in French as they were
English.] Included, was the term Natural Born Citizen, a citizen by the laws of nature, not the laws of man, in fact, inalienable by the laws of man.
In Vattel's Law of Nations, he defines the term Natural Born Citizen, not in one sentence, but in several sections, 211 – 233 of Book One. One truly seeking the truth about our Charters of Freedom and Natural Born Citizenship should read the entire Law of Nations, it is a brilliant work on Natural Law and it is in fact the cornerstone of the Charters of Freedom created by our Founders.
But in short, Vattel defines Natural Born Citizen as follow;
NOTE: "Birthers" mistakenly (or intentionally) cherry-pick a single sentence from several sections on the subject, discarding all else, including the actual definition. - "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - This is NOT the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is only a general statement affirming that natives are born in country and naturals are born of citizen parents.
Vattel goes on to define Natural Born Citizen and the reasoning behind it...
* "As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
** "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
*** "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
This is why Barack Hussein Obama is a total fraud, constitutionally ineligible for office. Unfortunately, so is Marco Rubio, among others.
If Marco Rubio is the great “American Son” he portrays himself to be, the great young constitutionally conservative leader that so many Tea Party folks hope that he is, he must take a stand for the U.S. Constitution
and America right now, as only he can do. Because many of his loyal followers have such high hopes for his political future, Marco Rubio can secure that future by taking the stand that only he is positioned to take right
now.
Unless and until so-called "constitutionalists" get Article II right, they can forget every right they think they have....because if Article II does not exist in force or affect, neither does any other part of those founding
documents that protect the Natural Rights of all American citizens.
I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and become the great leader he wants to be, the leader so many believe him to be. I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and tell ALL Americans that he is ineligible for the offices of president and vice president, as the natural born son of a Father who was a citizen of Cuba (not the United States) at the time of his birth.
Man-made statutes generously gave Rubio and many others like him, American citizenship, via the 14th Amendment, our immigration and naturalization amendment governing the citizenship rights of immigrants through naturalization, or native born rights.
Rubio is a citizen of the United States by way of man-made laws, not Natural Law. Likewise, no matter whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his natural birth Father was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama’s Father could not confer to Barack Hussein Obama II that which he did not possess, U.S. Citizenship.
Marco Rubio can solve this entire issue and much more. He can stop Obama’s Marxist march off the cliff and save the country he claims to care about deeply, as well as freedom and liberty in America. He can do so by standing up before the nation and the world, proclaiming himself ineligible for high office and demanding that Barack Hussein Obama be immediately removed from office and charged with high treason for the most horrific fraud ever perpetrated on the American public and the world.
If Rubio refuses to do so, he is NOT what so many had hoped. He will be nothing more than just another political fraud seeking personal gain at the expense of the U.S. Charters of Freedom and the future of freedom and liberty, not just here, but throughout the free world.
If Article II no longer matters, nothing in the Charters of Freedom matters anymore. I call upon Marco Rubio to take a stand and end this nightmare. Stand and tell the people the truth Mr. Rubio, or become just another disappointment to the people, pandering to the captive Tea Party audience but no less complicit in the massive
fraud.
DO IT NOW… Before a second fraudulent inauguration!
I have sent this call for action directly to Marco Rubio and I call upon you to do the same.
JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a
twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is
co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com
I grew up in the 60's and 70's and remember America as a pretty
happy place...What happened,It was okay to have a few hippies
talking about peace and love and it was kind of funny when they
talked about the Man.We always knew there where good people that
made sensible decisions and would keep the country headed in the right
direction...What happen to these people,here it is 2013 and the hippies
are running the country,anything they complain about we change so they
are happy (For about 2 seconds)Our country is no longer the America we once knew,no more
pledge of allegiance,we take God out of our Schools and then wonder
why kids are growing up without a sense of value for Human life.How are you
to raise kids any more,you cannot scold them or spank them,they have no
fear or respect for adults and grow up feeling everyone owes them something.
I am sick and tired of this New America...I'm sick and tired of this lying
President,I'm sick and tired of hearing about Gay rights,I'm sick and
tired of hearing about paying your fair share...I would like to see this country
split,Left and right...2 countries,one east of the Mississippi and one west.
Conservatives all living together working hard and being successful while
the Liberals all march on their little capital demanding Free Stuff....Which side
would you want to live on?.Conservative Children would say the Pledge of allegance
every morning and dress properly in school,they would learn respect and manners,
they would grow up with a sense of values and morals that would last them throughout
their life.They would learn how to work for what they want without complaining.
Liberal children would only go to school if the felt like it,they would dress like bums,
and prostitutes,they would always demand free things and place the blame on
someone else...I'm serious,I would love to see a civil war between Conservatives and
Liberals..I'm hoping it happens and soon.America is to great a country to let a bunch
of whining liberals tear apart everything we worked so hard for and many died for
just so they are happy which in fact is funny because there is no such thing as a happy
liberal.Liberalism is a disease and it's spreading like the Black Plague....Wake up
America before it's to late.
I came home from visiting a daughter yesterday evening and found my brightest moment of the young year. I had a notification from a social network site I belong to, Tea Party Command Center, of a story about the “Gun Appreciation Day” event in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on Saturday Jan. 19, 2013. It featured a video of a newly elected state senator speaking about the constitutional rights of We the People. The video was beyond inspiring to me.
Read More:
EXPERTS PUSH LEGALIZATION OF COCAINE GUM TO WEAN ADDICTS...
HILLARY/FAINTING GOATS...Younger goats are more prone to fall over and tumble when startled, but as they grow older, many eventually manage to avoid falling down altogether during an episode. They simply run away from a threat on stiffened legs. Older goats also tend to become more secure with their environment and startle less easily.
The Blog Post "ItsYourIssue.com was" created >3 yrs ago and the link "About this Site" is printed below. It is the Executive Summary of a proposal that my partner & I were going to send to prospective partners who would help fund the needed technical, marketing, and management talent to get this major project online. It would enable every member to send FREE correspondence to their "supposed" reps. However, it is still a skeleton and I, alone, am continuing the fight to save our Constituion and America's freedoms.
The maintenance of the Web Mall would be paid for by banner ads above the articles. If you read an article, you will learn about any political issue, then click on the "Letters" link below it. A variety of interactive letters with Title Links would open for the member to choose from and modify as desired. Then they could click on Email/FAX/Both, and when they click on "Send", their own personal page (created from their zip code) would show names, titles and contact info of every one of their politicians or media, from local to national. In about 1/2 hr, you could learn about an issue, modify a letter and add your contact info, and then click on names of one or ALL to send it to by both Fax & email without paying a dime. If our politicians are drowned by thousands of letters every day, they would have to pay attention to the voters, and could no longer ignore us. This could stop the corruption, and possibly even start Recalls and a vote for Treason for the VIPs. Then we can clean house, vet all the politicians, and get rid of the corrupt. We could take back control, since neither the Democrats or Republicans seem to be worried enough to get their hands dirty.
_______________________________________________________
It's Your Issue
We help you communicate with your elected representatives.
Mission Statement
The mission of ItsYourIssue.com, a unique internet utility, is to provide a thus-far unfulfilled, easily utilized, and desperately needed communications channel between concerned citizens and their government representatives and/or the media. As people review the multitude of web sites that provide news/views about political, social, economic, and domestic/foreign policy issues, many feel an urgent need to rise up and shout "NO." Now, ItsYourIssue.com can be the no-cost vehicle for all of them to quickly and efficiently reach their representatives in order to communicate their questions, demands and complaints.
The Issues
Americans are living in a period of transition, and millions of them are uneasy about the changes they see. Worse yet, they feel frustrated and impotent because there is no easy way to communicate their concerns. The very segment of the population that should have the most influence in determining government policies--working Americans--are the people who participate the least. Few of them have time to research facts about an issue; write a cogent, well-informed letter, and learn how and where to send it. They don't have time, and they don't want to wait for their views to get to their representatives, because they want to make a difference now!
Currently, thousands of special-interest web sites and blogs focus on--and are generally well-informed about--a few specific issues. Their purpose is to influence public opinion so that people will be motivated to contact their representatives with their demands, and thus affect public policy. However, some of those web sites charge a significant amount of money to send out prepared faxes; others ask you to sign a petition which they will email; while many plead for viewers to write letters to fax or mail, or even to make telephone calls to their representatives. None of these methods are self-satisfying or very effective in achieving their goals. The result is that our representatives live in a bubble dominated by their party constituents, lobbyists and well-funded special interest groups. We, the people, are left out of the loop.
Before the creation of ItsYourIssue.com, there was no existing framework for time-strapped citizens to reach their politicians or the media. That has changed, as ItsYourIssue.com provides a free, powerful tool for all web sites to influence government policy by making it very easy for their readers to learn about the issues and then contact their representatives. Every American can deluge their representatives with their requests and/or demands, and then they can make a difference.
The Model
ItsYourIssue.com uses a unique, dynamic, multi-layered advertising model that allows its use to be free to all. The use of an open-source model (such as Wikipedia) will keep the content current with evolving events and issues, and will make this site very attractive to use for anyone concerned about government actions, bills or policies. An added attraction is that the site will make it easy, fast and efficient for citizens to communicate their concerns to their elected representatives as well as to the media. This will emphasize the messages that Americans are sending to every level of government--from national, state, and district--down to county and city.
Discrete page generation for each individual user will allow the most relevant and concise advertising targeted to the user as he moves from issue to issue and through each political level, from national to local. A separate banner or column for advertisers will appear at the top and/or bottom of each issue page and every letter page referring to each issue at every political level.
Advertising on each layer will be targeted to the users' interests, gender and geographical location; so that interest-specific advertising will follow users clear down to the city or town level. The Second Amendment issue makes a good example: Southern states' users interested in border security might see advertising from insurance companies at the national level, private security companies at the state level, lawyers at the district level, and gun shops at the county and city level. A variety of the ads could be placed on the Article pages as well. We believe that this targeted, multi-layered advertising model will be very compelling for a wide and diversified advertising base. The dynamic, diversified and actionable content will ensure a very high level of consistent traffic.
Nuts And Bolts
ItsYourIssue.com provides a forum for blogs, informational sites, news sites and special interest sites of all political persuasions to compete in the arena of ideologies. The users will be able to compare issues information between their own political philosophy and several others to determine the views that best fits his or her values.
Any web site interested in shaping public opinion or policy can provide an ItsYourIssue link button at the end of any particular article. If a reader clicks on it, the site then leads to a number of interactive letters emphasizing that belief system for the viewer to choose from, to modify, and to add personal contact information. Another link opens to each viewer's personal page of political representatives at all levels, complete with all contact information. There, they can choose to send the letter supporting their particular point of view to any number of their representatives via email and/or fax, as well as to local or national media and to themselves.
We believe that some people will go to ItsYourIssue.com for the purpose of communicating with their representatives about specific issues that have been in the news or that they are passionate about. They may want to view the status of current issues, and to compare the competing letters about these issues. The home page of ItsYourIssue.com directs a new user to register, for which a sign-up box opens in a new, secure window to insert personal information, including their email address, a password and the zip code. A user who logs in with that information is forwarded to a page with a current list of national issues' links on one side, and his own State, District, County and City links on the other side. (The local information would be automated by each user's zip code.)
If he is interested in a national issue and clicks on--say--The Second Amendment link, he would find a short definition of the Second Amendment, the current issues involving it, and any related information. By clicking on a link on that page to Articles, the user would see a choice of several articles on the issue. If he wants more information on the subject, he can read two or more articles.
A list of competing open-source letters on this issue (with title links) would be included in a side column on each Articles page. Each title, when clicked on, would open into a full-sized window. The user could then read one or (by returning to the previous list) a series of current letters written by people who wish to influence government policy in one direction or another. The letters would be event driven. Some letters would be contributed by well-known writers and commentators. Most would come from blogs, special interest sites, or political sites. The source of the letters will always be displayed to the users, so the user can better assess bias and validity. No letters will be displayed unless they can be sourced to a specific writer. The site's interactive provisions allow a user to modify a chosen letter to give it a personal touch and their contact information before it is sent to the intended targets, whether those are political representatives or media commentators.
In a box at the bottom of each letter, two link buttons are titled: Representatives and Media. When--say--the member clicks on Representatives, another window will open with all his personal National, State, District, County and City representatives listed, along with their titles, email addresses, phone and fax numbers, and mailing address. Next to the email and fax contact information would be the directive: Send by: above open boxes next to both Email and Fax, one or both of which is to be checked by the user. When he checks the Email and/or the Fax box, and then presses Enter, the letter is sent immediately.
If he also wants to send the letter to the media, he could then back up to the previous page and click on the Media button. If he would like a copy of the letter sent to his email address, a box could also be checked for that to occur. In just a few easy steps, that voter will have communicated fluently with his chosen national representatives and/or commentators and newspaper editors, and even have a copy to insert into a Political Folder of his own.
The same construction would apply to each political level of each user of the web site. After completing their national communications, the member would be encouraged to go to the next level--to their State, where one would see a whole new archived list of issues. They could respond or not, just as they did with national issues. Next they could view (and possibly respond to) their District issues, County issues and finally their City issues. At each political level, advertising relevant to that location would be inserted, just as it was at the National level.
Discussion
Because ItsYourIssue.com has an infinite number of issues to cover, we expect to attract an infinite number of users. We believe that as a result of its ease of use, we expect to be the "go-to" website for millions of working Americans that do not have the time, the knowledge of the issues, or the passion to dedicate themselves to activism. We also expect to see a good deal of cross-pollination, exposing users to a much broader array of issues and advertisers. It is unlikely that a person interested in Second Amendment rights would not be interested in Illegal Immigration issues, or even Health Care issues.
We believe that this novel concept, when implemented, will generate millions of page views a day by attracting virtually anyone who has even a passing interest in what government is doing. We are confident that this model will appeal to the broadest possible array of advertisers as well as users--national, state, district, county, and city. To our knowledge, this concept is new and innovative; and it affords investors the opportunity to make a very good return on investment by providing a service that is not available anywhere else.
About This Site
Explore This Site
Become a Contributor
Keep the Media Honest
Log In
Sign Up
By Oscar Y. Harward
N.C. Senate President Pro-tem Phil Berger doesn’t need me in defense of erroneous charges; however, may I offer my observation?
Sen. Phil Berger, a majority of the GOP majority NC General Assembly does support Voter ID, a process to stop and/or prevent Voter fraud.
Voter fraud is a problem as each counterfeit vote actually diminishes every voter’s rights, and voter fraud does not characterize the skin color of the fraudulent voter(s). Free and open voting elections are one of the most precious freedoms under our Constitution. Voter fraud is a Constitutional violation of one of our freedoms; an open election by qualified voters to have their votes entirely counted. Based on political polls in NC, upwards of 70% to 80% of our citizens support Voter ID legislation.
All education in NC is one of the most important activities, be it be public, private, church, charter, home, or otherwise. Collecting National Education Association’s (NEA) Labor Unions dues is not and should not be any responsibility of NC Government.
Public Education results have been declining for years all across the USA. For many years, the USA ruled the world in education our children. Not so any more. Labor Unions in education are and have continued to downgrade our public education in our children. With 56 nations tested, the USA finished number 30. Based on the National Center for Education Statistics, and with 8th graders with MA having the highest score of 299, DC having the lowest score of 260, NC finished in 22nd place scoring 286.
Sen. Berger and almost all others believe teachers’ pay must be associated on evaluations with educational results; not just on tenure.
NC is blessed with Right-to Work laws which allow workers to join a Labor Union if they choose, but does not require Labor Union membership to any. Labor Unions have demanded more wages, salaries, and benefits in the private sector that have required many businesses to relocate or close.
In NC, everyone in need of healthcare is allowed to receive help as necessary in the private sector or the public sector. As a patient with failing health, NC and the USA have the best healthcare system in the entire world.
Again, Thank you Sen. Phil Berger for your leadership.
Daily Devotional from Love Worth Finding Ministries
View message online: http://www.lwf.org/site/R?i=4svhRynnvhlf0rNfHXYiWw
______________________________________
What Do You Seek Most?
BIBLE MEDITATION:
"O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us." Daniel 9:16
DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT:
The sins of God's people were great. Daniel prayed, "Our sins have risen up in Your face. And O God, we're praying. Turn Your anger and Your fury away." God will judge any nation that continues to print pornography, abort babies, applaud sodomy, and sings, "God bless us" at the same time. God's fury is turned against that nation. But Daniel is standing in the gap saying, "O God, remove our guilt," then, "Lord, restore Your glory...cause Your face to shine upon Your sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake." (v. 17).
Daniel's motivation is not for America's sake, not for Israel's sake, not for a denomination's sake, not for his sake, but for God's sake. "For Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name."
What a great man Daniel was. Most of us ask God to get us out of the mess we're in so we can drive new cars and not see the stock market tumble. How many are consumed for the glory of God? Very few. Daniel was. Daniel says, "God, for Your sake, for Your name, do it!"
ACTION POINT:
Do you have a burning in your heart for the name of our God to be exalted throughout this earth? His name has been stepped on, blasphemed, and ridiculed. Make the focus of your prayers and the goal of your prayers the glory of God.
So sick of hearing the "left" play the race card. You never hear conservitives stooping so low. If you hold a minority accountable for their actions, you must be a racist. Forget the fact that what they did was reprehensible, if you call them out, your a racist. It's ok if its done to you though.
IT is TIME to start thinking about tactics.....to REMOVE all the ILLEGALS in our white house and THE MUSLIMES in our Government..WE have plenty of violations of our CONSTITUTION to do this.
HERES another one...
I WOULD also tell the GOVERNMENT of ISRAEL to SINK---SINK ALL OF THE BOATS CARRYING THESE ARMS.
January 22, 2013 4:01 pm
The State Department has refused to cancel or delay the delivery of several American-made F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, claiming that the arms deal serves America’s “regional security interests,” according to an official State Department document obtained by the Free Beacon.
The news that the Obama administration would uphold an aid package to Egypt that included the military hardware prompted concern on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who said the deal was not prudent given the political situation in Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood-backed President Mohammed Morsi has clashed with democratic protestors.
“Sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks are to be given to the Egyptian government before the end of the year under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak,” Fox News reported Tuesday.
The State Department maintained in a January 8 letter to Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) that the arming of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood serves the U.S.’s “regional security interests.”
“Delaying or cancelling deliveries of the F-16 aircraft would undermine our efforts to address our regional security interests through a more capable Egyptian military and send a damaging and lasting signal to Egypt’s civilian and military leadership as we work toward a democratic transition in the key Middle Eastern State,” the State Department said.
“Egypt is a strategic partner with whom we have a long history of close political-military relations that have benefited U.S. interest,” said the letter, which was authored by assistant secretary for legislative affairs David Adams. “For the past 30 years the F-16 aircraft has been a key component of the relationship between the United States military and the Egyptian Armed Forces.”
“Maintaining this relationship and assisting with the professionalization and the building of the Egyptian Armed Forces’ capabilities to secure its borders is one of our key interests in the region,” Adams wrote.
“Egypt continues to play an important role in the regional peace and stability,” according to the letter. “In all of our engagements with President Morsi and his staff, they have reaffirmed Egypt’s commitment to its international agreements, including its peace treaty with Israel.”
“Egypt was instrumental in negotiating the Gaza ceasefire, and continues to work with the parties involved to implement it and secure a more lasting peace,” the letter states.
Morsi was recently criticized for calling Jews the “descendants of apes and pigs.”
Observers on Capitol Hill said that it is dangerous to arm an unstable Islamist regime.
One senior GOP aide familiar with the deal said he is ”incredulous that a country that doesn’t have peace and stability within itself is playing ‘an important role in regional peace and stability’ as this letter claims.”
