Thursday, February 28, 2013

Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the President of the United States.

President Harrison J. Bounel
The fraudulent SSN being used by Barack Obama is shown in a national data base accessible by debt collectors and ‘skip tracers’ to have been assigned in the state of Connecticut to one Harrison J. Bounel… It appears that Harry Bounel is a deceased relative of Michelle Obama.
February 15, 2013  by Bob  Livingston
            Harrison J. Bounel (aka Barack Hussein Obama II)
Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According  to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the  President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly  today.
The case in  question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah  Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the  Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly  Taitz. The case calls into question many  of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or  released as authentic since he came on the national scene. The case contends  that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective  Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama  should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not  have received the State’s electoral votes.
Four of the nine  Justices must vote to move the case forward. We’ll see.
Meantime, on Feb.  4, Kathleen O’Leary, presiding judge of the 4th District Court of  Appeal, reinstated the appeal of Taitz v. Obama et al filed by Taitz when she ran for Senate. That case involves evidence of 1.5 million invalid voter  registrations in the State of California. The appeal also involves Obama’s lack of legitimacy to hold the office of President based on his forged IDs, stolen  Connecticut Social Security number, the fact the last name he’s using is not  legally his and his fraudulent claim to be the U.S.  citizen.
Evidence in the  case includes:
  • A certified copy of the passport records of Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, showing her son’s legal last name to be Soebarkah, not Obama.  
  • Obama’s school records from Indonesia, showing his citizenship to be Indonesian.
  • Sworn affidavits of top law enforcement experts and investigators, showing Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service certificate are forgeries and that the Social Security number used by Obama on his 2009 tax returns as posted on was fraudulent. (The SSN failed when checked through both E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service.)
On another legal  front, Obama defaulted in the case of Grinols et al v. Obama et al on  Jan. 30 when he failed to file a response within 21 days of being served notice  of the suit. This case also involves Obama’s phony SSN.
Skip Tracer Al Hendershot Jr. performs legal/financial/criminal database search and discloses new details about the records matrix linking Barack Hussein Obama II and Harrison J. Bounel sharing the exact same Social Security number, home address, family and more.
The suit  states:
Investigator Albert Hendershot found in the database of
the name of the individual whose Social Security Obama is using.
(This data base) showed the name Harry J. Bounel with the same Social Security number (042-68-4425) at 5046 S Greenwood Ave in Chicago, home address of Barack Obama. (Again, this) data base shows Bounel with the same address and Social Security number as Barack Obama himself.
According to the database, the last changes to the information on Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel were made in and around November 2009 by Michelle Obama, who is listed as Bounel’s relative.
Database changes can involve entering the information or deletion of information.
It appears that the changes made by relative Michelle Obama included deletion of information, which was done at a time when Taitz brought to Federal court in the Central District of California before Judge David O. Carter a case of election challenge by her client, former U.S. ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes and forty state Representatives as well as high ranked members of the U.S. Military.
Recently obtained results of the 1940 census, Exhibit 2, provided the last missing   link, link (sic) between Harry J. Bounel and the date of birth of 1890. Exhibit 2 shows the printout of the U.S. census, showing Harry J Bounel, immigrant from Russia, residing at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, NY, age 50 during the 1940 census, meaning he was born in 1890, as shown in the affidavit of Investigators Daniels and Sankey.
There is a pattern of Obstruction of Justice and tampering with the official records and falsification/forgery of the official records related to Obama.
This happens in particular when [George W.] Bush employees leave their positions and are replaced by Obama appointees.
Taitz has asked for expedited default judgment and post judgment discovery in this case out of fear that any records on hand at the Social Security office will be destroyed  when George W. Bush-appointed Commissioner Michael Astrue leaves office in February.
Records that might have proven Obama’s Selective Service registration was a forgery were destroyed in 2009 after Bush-appointed Selective Service Director William Chatfield resigned, Taitz alleges.

MUST WATCH VIDEO...Black Chamber Of Commerce CEO Blasts Obama As Communist

We the people need to find a way to start defending and maintaining the Constitution which we love and respect and what better way to start then to institute a Pledge of Allegiance to the Constitution.

By Jeff Lichter

The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was composed in 1892 and Americans have been reciting it ever since and need to continue doing so. It has been modified several times and was formally adopted by Congress in 1942.  But it is not our flag that is under accelerating attack over the last few decades.  It is the Constitution under threat of severe modification or even removal as our fundamental law.  Therefore, we the people need to find a way to start defending and maintaining the Constitution which we love and respect and what better way to start then to institute a Pledge of Allegiance to the Constitution.

Just this week, Joe “tell me you really didn’t say that” Biden outdid all the previous onslaughts against the Constitution by ignorantly proclaiming at a college campus in Connecticut that “no ordinary American cares about their constitutional rights”  Prior to that treasonous remark, the sanctity of the Constitution has for decades been under assault by the liberal progressives, not only in Academia but in the legislatures, the courts, and in the executive branch.  In the Obama administration, unconstitutional actions have been instituted repeatedly.

Patriots at the Surprise Arizona Tea Party have recently added to their Pledge of Allegiance as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the Republic for which they stand, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”  Another acceptable alternative would be to simply recite two separate pledges using the existing wording and say the first pledge to the flag and the second immediately following to the Constitution.

Fellow Americans, if you like this suggestion, GO FOR IT.  It would be a great first step.  And then we need to come up with additional practical steps to not only proudly waive our flag as we have always done but to carry, raise and waive, and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America.

The evolution towards the social/political/national abyss has been happening for generations, to the point that we are no longer at the edge, but have already gone over, and are in FREE-FALL.

Over the Leftist Cliff

By Howard Galganov

I have never been a TAKER . . . NEVER!

I have done far MORE than my “fair” share in helping others; not because I was compelled by government to do so, but rather, because I was compelled by my conscience and sense of right and wrong to contribute as I saw fit.

I have never envied someone else for his or her successes or possessions. And I have always felt sympathy for those good people who had tried and had lost.

I never asked anyone to sacrifice for me. I have never asked for pity. And when things in my life, whether in business or health had gone terribly wrong, I never asked WHY ME?

And I have never made anyone I’ve helped feel as if they owed me something – NOT EVER!

AND I’M NOT UNIQUE . . . there is no shortage of good people who do what is right, without the government telling them what to do, with no regard to reward or acknowledgement. In fact, there is an army of hard working people who take nothing while giving plenty.


I’ve been writing editorials for so many years, that I’ve forgotten when it all began. But, what I do remember is why . . .

The only reason a person writes social and political editorials is because he or she is angry, because he or she sees abuses, incompetence, and people who should be held to public account.

Also . . . in my case at least, it was because I thought that my editorial contributions might be able to make a difference, which my editorials have . . . but not the way I had intended.

As I continued to write editorials over the years, and as my thoughts became more focused, the large contribution I made wasn’t to others. It was to me.

I morphed from being a small “c” Liberal Conservative, into a Full-Blown Constitutional and Fiscal Conservative . . . as if I had a socio/political epiphany.

There are of course many other circumstances that changed the direction of the course of my socio/political thinking, but, nothing as much as me writing about the wholesale collapse of our Democracies.


Most people are under the impression, that if the worst were to happen, it will evolve slowly until it hits the proverbial fan.


The evolution towards the social/political/national abyss has been happening for generations, to the point that we are no longer at the edge, but have already gone over, and are in FREE-FALL.

Amongst the many problems this presents for everyone, and perhaps the MOST significant problem . . . is that the vast majority of people are either too stupid to know that we are already in total collapse, or are too engrossed in nonsense and ignorance to even know that the problems that all but guarantee the total crash of our societies are insurmountable.


When a Mayor like Bloomberg of New York City can dictate to his employers (the voting public), what size soda they can have with their restaurant meal, and that restaurants can't put salt on the dining table, and that new mothers be denied baby formula in the hospitals unless they specifically ask for it, and there isn’t an absolute OUTRAGE from the people . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When a government DEMANDS by law that taxpayers MUST pay for the sexual contraceptive devices of women who want to have sex – OR ELSE, and there is no real OUTRAGE . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When people admit with PRIDE, that they cheated at the voting booth by voting multiple times for a candidate to be President, and suffer no real consequences . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When people are punished and demonized by the government for being financially successful, while those who live to TAKE are given food stamps whether they need them or not, welfare whether they need it or not, free cell phones and two-years of unemployment insurance whether they are looking for work or not . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When elected officials are caught stealing, cheating and lying, and face no real consequences . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When the MEDIA becomes a willing propaganda organ for the State . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When the government comes to the reality that the people work for the government, opposed to the government working for the people . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

And when the people fear the government more than the government fears the people . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

When the Justice System is unavailable to the people, and exists to serve itself and the government . . . IT’S ALL OVER.

And then there is the economy, where the government can never pay back the money it owes, while the MAKERS go broke paying for the TAKERS . . . IT’S ALL OVER.


Everything in the preceding has happened and is happening, telling me that the forces that will end our societies as we know them are already upon us.


Our Democratic Societies were built upon the concept of competing and confrontational ideas and philosophies that focused on one CORE CONCEPT, which was best stated by Abraham Lincoln at his Gettysburg Address:

That . . . “Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" . . . ONLY IF THAT WERE STILL TRUE.


What happens when the opposition is no better than the government? When the opposition stands for nothing more than getting elected and then reelected? And when it surrenders its values and principles to buy votes?

We are bearing witness today of the painful consequences when government becomes bigger than the people it serves. And the people so willingly serve the government.


Not only have the American people, and the people of my country (Canada) surrendered their FREEDOM on the alter of the NANNY-STATE . . . but in the case of America, American voters chose twice to elect the most UN-AMERICAN President in American history - based on Obama’s color opposed to his character.

My worry is no longer about what can be done to keep from going over the cliff, since we’re already in FREE-FALL. My concern is about what happens after we hit bottom.

If you are a TAKER opposed to being a MAKER, God help you, because there will be no government or anyone else who will.

For me and mine . . . for my likeminded family, friends and neighbors, now is the time for all of us to think hard about how we will shape our new tomorrow. Because, when it’s all over for the TAKERS, it will be a new beginning for the MAKERS.

Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov


Private Investigator Files Formal Complaint Against Judge Fuhry And His Court Reporter: Official Certified Court Transcript Does Not Reflect Actual Hearing

Court Transcript Doctored: Obama Social Security Number Investigators Formal Complaints

Private Investigator Files Formal Complaint Against Judge Fuhry And His Court Reporter: Official Certified Court Transcript Does Not Reflect Actual Hearing

As reported here private investigator Susan Daniels challenged Obama's ballot access in Ohio based on his bogus CT Social Security Number. Judge David Fuhry ruled the Ohio Secretary of State has no authority to bar Obama from the ballot and the use of an improper SSN does not disqualify ballot access. Susan now reports the court reporter scrubbed parts of the court transcript:


Disciplinary Counsel Of The Ohio Supreme Court,

A hearing on my pro se lawsuit (Case No.12M0000653) was held in Geauga County Common Pleas Court on September 4, 2012 before Judge David L Fuhry.

My lawsuit, Susan Daniels vs John Husted, Ohio Secretary of State, was an attempt to keep the name of Barack Obama off the ballot in November 2012 until it could be determined if he is using a legitimate social security number. I have been a state-licensed private investigator since March 1995 and discovered in 2009 that Barack Obama is using a fraudulent Connecticut social security number and has been since he was twenty-five. I am including a copy of the lawsuit I filed.

When no defense attorney appeared, the judge asked his bailiff twice if she had heard from anyone from the Secretary of State’s office and twice she answered: “No.”

Judge Fuhry gave me two choices: to continue the hearing for a week so he could rule on the defense attorney’s Motion to Dismiss or to go ahead with the hearing. I believe that I should have been awarded a Default Judgment, since the defense chose not to attend. Given my options, I chose to go forward.

During the hearing Judge Fuhry was dismissive, intimidating, belittling and assumed the role of the defense attorney, who deigned not to appear in court. In doing so, Judge Fuhry violated the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct: Cannons 1, 2 and 3: [...]



Regarding the transcription you did of my hearing before Judge Fuhry on September 4, 2012. You certified that what I paid for and received from you is a “true and correct transcript” but it is not. Other people in the courtroom read it and they found the same items missing that I did: [...]


I am filing a formal complaint against Beverly J. Modic, the official court report for Judge David L. Fuhry in Geauga County Common Pleas Court.

Ms. Modic was the court reporter for a hearing regarding a pro se lawsuit I filed in Geauga County. The hearing was held on September 4, 2012. I did not order a copy of the transcript until November. When I received it, I realized, and had it confirmed by observers who were in the courtroom, that the transcript did not accurately reflect what was said at the hearing.

Ms. Modic arbitrarily removed some of the comments made by the judge, which reflected badly on him. Since she works under his direction, I suspect that she was instructed to do so. However, she certified it as “a true and correct transcript” of the proceedings. It was not.

I sent her a certified letter which she received on December 4, 2012 and she has not responded. She has no right to hold the position of trust she has when she is dishonest with her work. I believe what she did is also illegal because she certified her work. [...]


The Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court responded by saying they see no violations but she could take it up with the appropriate appellate authority. Their full BS response letter is on page 6 of the Scribd doc.

The Ohio Court Reporters Association responded by saying the allegations are serious but they have no authority to sanction the court reporter as she is not a member of the OCRA. Their full response letter is on page 4 of the Scribd doc.


There can be very little, if any, doubt that the left's hero, Obama, is a socialist who is trying to crush capitalism and enact his version of socialism (social justice) through redistribution.

'Forward!' They Cried
Warren Beatty

Mussolini and Hitler may be tough acts to follow, but Obama's the man who can do it. More

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The "test" is to ask senior officers if they would be willing to order those underneath them in rank to fire on Americans if they were unwilling to give up their guns and ammunition. MUST LISTEN AUDIO...

Last month I was honored to have Dr. Jim Garrow on my show, Operation Freedom.  Jim has had many accomplishments including  being nominated for The Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his work on saving over 40,000 baby Chinese girls from certain death due to China's one child per family policy.
On last months show, Jim presented information provided to him from a high level military officer and leader within the military on The Obama Administration's new " Litmus Test". The "test" is to ask senior officers if they would be willing to order those underneath them in rank to fire on Americans if they were unwilling to give up their guns and ammunition. That interview went viral over the Internet and 40 military officers have come forward confirming Jim's information.
This past Sunday, Jim returned to Operation Freedom and the interview has gone viral on the Internet again.  I suggest you take a listen and pass it on to ALL those you care about, Just click this link......  Dr. Jim Garrow    
Dave Janda 


“America’s Nazi Secret: An Insider’s History”
By former Justice Department prosecutor and senior U.S. intelligence official John Loftus
"...the Muslim Brotherhood was the original Arab Nazi movement, working for British intelligence to crush the infant state of Israel. In the 1980s it was hired by American intelligence to recruit the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and it is now the parent organization of every Sunni terrorist group in the Middle East."
John Loftus , “America’s Nazi Secret”
Arif Alikhan - Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mohammed Elibiary - Homeland Security Adviser
Rashad Hussain - Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference
Salam al-Marayati - Obama Adviser - founder Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director
Imam Mohamed Magid - Obama's Sharia Czar - Islamic Society of North America
Eboo Patel - Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships
[Note: They failed to include Huma Abedin, Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and member of a Saudi Arabian family with extensive and well-documented Muslim Brotherhood ties.]
communist obama marxist socialist maoist progressive
41,000 Sign Petition
Demanding Congress Investigate Obama’s Forged, Stolen IDs

Because of the very manner in which it was established, our current economic system is untenable and is destined for collapse, leaving only those elite with the riches stolen from the American people.

The architects of our economic demise
 Doug Hagmann Full Story
The architects of our economic demise
Today, we are witnessing the final stages of the greatest financial fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. Behind the massive debt, threat of “sequestration,” and the threat of massive pending layoffs exists a story that must be told and understood by every American. It is a truth that too few understand and even fewer will talk about.


Traitorous Senate GOP ponders ceding power to the fraud in the White House

Days before the March 1 deadline, Senate Republicans are circulating a draft bill that would cancel $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts and instead turn over authority to President Barack Obama to achieve the same level of savings under a plan to be filed by March 8.
The five- page document, which has the tacit support of Senate GOP leaders, represents a remarkable shift for the party. Having railed against Senate Democrats for not passing a budget, Republicans are now proposing that Congress surrender an important piece of its Constitutional “power of the purse” for the last seven months of this fiscal year.


Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Too clever to be labeled Communists, they chose the name “Progressive” and in the name of change set out to dismantle the Constitution, piece by piece. Progress was slow but steady, that is until their savior, Barack Obama, arrived.

There Once Was a Place Called America
constitution 2 SC There Once Was a Place Called America...
“There once was a place called America,” our children’s children will one day write, “a bright and shining city on a hill, divinely placed by God to serve as a beacon of hope to the entire world. A land filled with generous-hearted souls who showered the needy the world over with their abundant blessings.”
You see, America was founded by a handful of God-fearing patriots who didn’t always agree but believed certain things like life, liberty, and the personal pursuit of happiness were worth dying for. And to ensure their ideas would survive the ages, they crafted one of the most revered documents ever put to paper, the United States Constitution.
It wasn’t long before this exceptional nation became the envy of those who thirsted for freedom and the enemy of those who despised it. Some loathed America to the point of making threats while others declared war. But a certain few understood defeat was increasingly less likely and instead devised a plan to take down America from within, one small step at a time.
The leader of the former Soviet Union Communist Party, Nikita Khrushchev promised his beloved Communism would bury the capitalistic West without declaring war. The plan was outlined in a fascinating book called “The Naked Communist,” written in 1958 by a man named Cleon Skousen who accurately warned Americans of troubles to come unless things changed.
Skousen laid out the dangers Americans faced, point by point, almost as a Communist roadmap to America’s demise: Progressives captured the Democratic Party (goal number 15); civil rights actions were taken in courts to “weaken basic American institutions” (16); the educational system was infiltrated (17); rioting like the Occupy movement was encouraged (19); the press was infiltrated (20); domination of the big screen and television waves (21); cultural standards of morality were broken down (25); homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity were presented as “normal” (26); churches were infiltrated by those promoting social justice (27); and prayer in schools was eliminated (28). Moreover, the Constitution and founding fathers were discredited (29 & 30) and American culture belittled by those promoting “cultural sensitivity training” seminars similar to one recently uncovered by a video showing employees pounding on tables while chanting anti-American rants led by a man representing the organization, Souder, Betances, and Associate, reaping more than $3.3 million taxpayer funds according to
Skousen may have been a prophet, seeing that most of his predictions came to pass. Too clever to be labeled Communists, they chose the name “Progressive” and in the name of change set out to dismantle the Constitution, piece by piece. Progress was slow but steady, that is until their savior, Barack Obama, arrived.
And no one was outraged because the Communist mission was complete. As former KGB agent Yuri Besmenov so eloquently described, without war or bloodshed, America and her people were demoralized, no longer having the reasoning ability to distinguish right from wrong, or to comprehend the immensity of the treasure they’d buried just outside the gates of Hell.

I Don't Know Where Obama Was Born...


communist obama marxist socialist maoist progressive
Commie Media
MSNBC, with Ex-Obama Aides, Now US Version of Russia's Old Pravda

Obama Flooding Fake Twitter Messages to Fight Guns

Conan O'Brien Fully Exposes Mainstream Media

Lib Kirsten Powers: Obama is “The Puppet Master of the Media” Who Doesn’t Want Tough Questions

CBS: Obama's 'State Run Media' Destroying 1st Amendment

Obama Removes Press to Take Q&A from Governors
Michelle safe from “Whoopsies!” category in the White House
 Judi McLeod Full Story
The FoxNews cleverly worded “Whoopsies!” category, where actresses draped in dresses with 18-mile long trains stumble on the steps going to collect their 2013 Oscars, couldn’t cover Michelle “Whoopsie!” Obama.

It’s True – Obama Doesn’t Know His Lies from His Prevarications
 Jerry McConnell Full StoryThis past Saturday, February 22, 2013, I felt a fresh breeze coming from my computer so I checked and believe it or not, there was an honest outpouring coming from the most unlikely source this side of the White House.  Actually that isn’t an accurate statement as this source is most definitely and POSITIVELY on the side of the White House.  It is one of the lying liberals’ biggest supporters in Washington, the Washington Post.

Sheriff Joe Now Investigating Obama Alias Harry Bounel: Obama Mama In WA In 1961

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Now Investigating Obama Alias  Harry Bounel: Obama Mama Was In WA In 1961? Debt Collector & Skip-Tracer Al Hendershot fired off two updates via Facebook: MESSAGE...

Monday, February 25, 2013


In his unpublished biography "Journeys in Black and White," Barack Obama, then a student at Harvard Law School, said that he was born in Kenya.

In autobiography, Obama says he was 'born in Kenya' (Photos)


FEC Report: Obama’s Campaign Paid Over 5 Million To Law Firm... To Keep His Records Sealed?

Source: Federal Elections Commission (FEC) Written by: The Obama File The following is information that was compiled from the official Federal Elections Commission (FEC) website for disbursements from the Obama campaign to Robert Bauer's law firm of Perkins Coie, which represents Obama in various eligibility and records suits. Perkins Coie does not appear in the pre-general election filing. You are free to pursue any further information that is of interest. But one would assume that the official FEC website to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity would be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1 million to $6 million, or anything in between, figure illegally expended to defend the eligibility suits.

Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency

Muslim Purchase of US Presidency?

By Pat Dollard

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question:

1. A Palestinian state and

2. The advancement of Islam in America.

The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America.

Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” \

Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.

Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense.
 Pat Dollard

Day of Resistance: Big success in Ventura, California...

About 250 people gathered at Ventura City Hall to protest as part of a national “Day of Resistance” Saturday in support of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. A Ventura- based group, People Protecting Freedom, organized the event where attendees marched to Mission Park for a public meeting.

The Obama Administration decided to retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan; decided to remove an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf, allowing the Iranian government to claim to have driven "the Great Satan" from the vital waterway; decided to empower the Egyptian government as democratic; decided to distance itself from Israel; decided to create the process of sequestration that will bring the axe down most heavily on defense spending; decided to discuss global warming with China before human rights; and decided to pursue negotiations with Iran and North Korea in the face of blatant lying and cheating on both their parts.

Secretary Kerry's Maiden Speech
Shoshana Bryen
Secretary of State John Kerry made two really important mistakes in his maiden speech, delivered to a fawning audience of American university students. More

Sunday, February 24, 2013

communist obama marxist socialist maoist progressive

DOJ Memo: Outlaw, Confiscate All Guns ...Open Criminal Intent

It's not as if the trillions in debt racked up by the administration have accomplished much more than feeding Obama's cronies and buying him political support with our money.

The Bating Game: Obama Doubles Down
Clarice Feldman
With the connivance of the press, Obama is trying to scare the public about the effects of the necessary Sequestration cuts while proposing yet another expensive, pointless program. More

Missouri Representative Lyle Rowland Attempts To Redefine Natural Born Citizen Without Constitutional Amendment

- Image Credit: Lyle Rowland -
Missouri Representative Lyle Rowland Attempts To Redefine 
Natural Born Citizen Without Constitutional Amendment
( hat tip thalightguy )


This bill requires the state committee of each established political party to provide the Missouri Secretary of State with verifiable evidence of the identity and proof of status as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee for President and Vice President of the United States and the origins of the evidence. The proof must be submitted with the other certification documents that are required to be filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to Chapter 115, RSMo. A write-in candidate for either of these positions must also provide this certification or he or she will be ineligible to file a declaration of intent as a write-in candidate. [...]

As used in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee's birth. Each written request shall also include: [...]


FLASHBACK: Rep. Lyle Rowland Explains Previous Proof-of-Eligibility Legislation - VIDEO HERE.

CONTACT ROWLAND AT:,, 573-751-2042(o), 417-794-3493(h).

PAST ATTEMPTS TO REDEFINE NBC to Redefine or Amend Article II

Saturday, February 23, 2013

By now most people, even the “low-information voters,” know that Obama is a habitual, unabashed liar. What they need to grasp, however, is that his biggest and most dangerous lie is that he is out to help the Middle Class. As noted above, the Middle Class, aka We, the People, is his greatest, most hated enemy, and everything he has done since he usurped the office he occupies has been aimed at our destruction as a viable economic, social, and political entity. Everything. Period.

Obama: Marxist Revolutionary
 Michael Oberndorf, RPA Full Story
As most real conservatives know, Obama, by his own admissions, appointments, associates, and actions, is a hard-core, 21st century, Marxist revolutionary. This means that while he has no real plan for what his utopian, pie-in-the-sky collectivist state would look like, or how it would survive as an economic entity, he is dedicated to destroying our existing free, constitutional, capitalist republic to start the process. It also means that like all Marxists, archaic and modern, his primary enemy is what Marx called the bourgeoisie – the Middle Class.

Someone has finally been moved to action by Barack Obama’s increasingly lawless administration.

Articles Of Obama Impeachment Drafted For Congress!

Someone has finally been moved to action by Barack Obama’s increasingly lawless administration. Bruce Fein,a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department who wrote the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton, has drawn up formal articles of impeachment against the president.

Fein explained the final straw was Obama’s unwise,unauthorized,and unconstitutional military action against Libya. “Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law,endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people,and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor,” he said.
The Founding Fathers required the president to seek a Congressional declaration of war before engaging in armed hostilities,with the possible exception of repelling a sudden invasion or a limited military response. The last two Democratic presidents have taken the armed forces into combat without any legislative authorization,Bill Clinton in Kosovo and Obama in Libya. Fein states this usurpation of Congressional authority should concern our elected officials,and lovers of liberty everywhere.
Fein is a recognized legal scholar whose work could be adopted without change as the legal basis for impeachment.
Ben Smith at Politico reports,“Fein said a number of Congressional offices have expressed interest” in his proposal.” Fein told Smith “at least two dozen” Congressmen view the Libyan intervention as “a serious constitutional crisis.”
The Libyan intervention has further separated Obama from his party’s left-wing base. Liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio became an outspoken critic, while conservative RepublicanRon Paul of Texas agreed the bombing constituted “an impeachable offense.”
Congressman Trent Franks, R-AZ, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have raised the possibility of impeaching Obama over his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Other supporters of impeachment range from Congressman Tom Tancredo, to talk show host Tammy Bruce, to conservative activist Howard Phillips.
A poll last month conducted by Public Policy Polling last month found that 60 percent of Tea Party members and nearly half of all Republicans favored impeachment.
As the pressure on Obama mounts, some of his supporters have become (more) unhinged. On Monday, two San Franciscans attacked a 29-year-old man holding an “Impeach Obama” sign.
Bruce Fein has maintained close ties to those involved in the last impeachment. Fein now serves as one of the “principals” of the American Freedom Agenda. Its other leaders include 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, Rutherford Institute founder John Whitehead, and direct New Right pioneer Richard Viguerie.
Barr served as one of the House managers during Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Perhaps the past is prologue.
Below are the articles of impeachment drawn up by Fein. You can view the full document here. You can e-mail Bruce Fein here.
Click here to sign the petition to impeach Barack Obama. Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.
Impeach 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:
Minutemen Revolutionary War
Minutemen Revolutionary War
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.
1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:
Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.
3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.
4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”
5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”
6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.
FREEDOM ~ Fighting The Rothschild British Banking System At Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
FREEDOM ~ Fighting The Rothschild British Banking System At Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
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.
Founding Father James Madison
Founding Father James Madison
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.
Henry Cabot Lodge
Henry Cabot Lodge
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.
Supreme Court Justice William Paterson
Supreme Court Justice William Paterson
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.
Justice Robert Jackson
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).

U.S. Justice Scalia
U.S. Justice Scalia
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.)
hillary-obama 2008
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.”
Biden His Time!
Biden His Time!
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.”
Rotten Eggs
Rotten Eggs
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.”
Obama/McCain Libyan 'Liberation' Unleashes Terror ''TIDAL WAVE" Over North Africa!
Obama/McCain Surreptitious Libyan ‘Liberation’ Unleashes Terror ”TIDAL WAVE” Over North Africa!
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).
Rothschild's Choice
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.


Obama Tyrant
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.
Floyd Reports

Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein
Bruce Fein is the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Bill Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath about having sexual relations with an intern.
Fein also drafted articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2011, he drew up formal articles of impeachment against President Obama for his use of military action against Libya without congressional authorization.
Fein was a top Justice Department official under the Reagan administration. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School in 1972. Fein clerked for a prestigious federal court, and has served in top positions in the Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy. He has served as visiting fellow for constitutional studies at the Heritage Foundation, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and guest lecturer at the Brookings Institute.
Fein specializes in constitutional and international law and is a frequent witness before Congress. He is chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, founder of Bruce Fein & Associates Inc. and The Lichfield Group and author of “Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy.”