Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Barack Obama and Huma Abedin share a familial connection to Muslim World League

Barack Obama and Huma Abedin share a familial connection to Muslim World League

Be sure to read our report on the Obamas’ Wahhabist Fundraising Empire.
CLICK HERE.
—————
Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
Unless you’ve read the entire report on the Obamas’ Wahhabist Fundraising Empire, you may have missed the fact that Barack Obama’s uncle (Sayid Obama) has had dealings not just with major Wahhabist institutions in Saudi Arabia but with the Muslim World League, (MWL). The report also quotes Barack’s cousin (Musa Ismail Obama) as saying that Sayid is the main conduit for communications between the President of the United States and the Muslim side of Barack’s family.
Here is what Saudi media had to say about Sayid’s dealings with the MWL:
His Excellency Dr. Abdullah bin Abdul Mohsin Al-Turki, Secretary General of the Muslim World League and a member of the Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia in Makkah received on Monday Mr. Saeed Hussein Obama, Kenyan businessman, and uncle of President Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, who paid a visit to the Muslim World League, accompanied by a number of Kenyan graduates from Saudi universities.
As the Secretary General of MWL, Al-Turki leads an organization that seeks to propagate Wahhabist Islamic teachings all over the world, with a current emphasis on Europe. If Barack’s uncle Sayed is meeting with the head of the MWL as a student of Wahhabism, what are we left to conclude except that uncle Sayed seeks the spread of wahhabist Islam as well? Interestingly, the last page of the MWL website that was posted in English appears to be from the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks. As one can expect, the verbiage at the time was very sympathetic to English speaking mouths and English reading eyes.
From approximately 1983 – 1993, another Saudi named Abdullah Omar Naseef was the MWL’s Secretary General. Regular readers to our site are quite familiar with something else Naseef did. He founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) in 1979 prior to becoming Secretary General (was he rewarded?). Naseef put the parents of Huma Abedin in charge of the IMMA.
In 1988, Naseef founded the Rabita Trust, which was found to be a financier of al-Qaeda. In fact, it’s been widely reported that Rabita’s director at the time of the 9/11/01 attacks – Wael Hamza Julaidan – was a founder of al-Qaeda. Approximately one month after the attacks, the U.S. Treasury Department identified Rabita Trust as a terrorist organization that funded al-Qaeda and froze its assets. Yet, when it came to the 9/11 Commission Report, neither the MWL nor the Rabita Trust received one mention.
In 1996, while Naseef was still on the advisory board of the IMMA, Huma Abedin joined the Editorial Board and would remain on as an Assistant Editor until 2008.
This means that Barack Obama has a familial connection to the current Secretary General of the MWL and that Huma Abedin has a familial connection to a previous Secretary General of the MWL.
Barack Obama also very publicly defended Huma at a White House iftar dinner.
What are the odds that all of this is coincidence?
Don’t bother trying to figure it out. Your calculator probably doesn’t have enough zeroes.
Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Walid Shoebat

On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Hedges v. Obama, one of the most important civil liberties cases since 9/11. The plaintiffs, known as the “Freedom 7” claim that Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is unconstitutional, and violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The defendants, the Obama administration, claim it merely codifies existing law under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and does not apply to U.S. citizens.

NDAA: One Of the Most Dangerous Laws in Over a Century

6
ndaa, one, of, the, most, dangerous, laws, in, over, a, century,
NDAA One Of the Most Dangerous Laws in Over a Century
“This is the final battle between the restoration of due process and the imposition of a military state.” Chris Hedges
On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Hedges v. Obama, one of the most important civil liberties cases since 9/11. The plaintiffs, known as the “Freedom 7” claim that Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is unconstitutional, and violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The defendants, the Obama administration, claim it merely codifies existing law under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and does not apply to U.S. citizens.
Let’s start with the government’s positions.
The initial premise brought by government lawyers in Hedges v. Obama is that the plaintiffs lack standing. The administration asserts none of the plaintiffs have any standing, because “any injury deriving from 1021 (b) (2) cannot be redressed by the Constitutional challenge since the government has the same detention authority under the AUMF.” In other words, the plaintiffs have no standing. This case will do nothing to prevent their detention because the AUMF already gave the government that power.
This claim rests on the Obama administration's second point, namely that the 2012 NDAA doesn't expand the scope of the AUMF.
The 2001 AUMF, passed in response to the deadly crimes on September 11, 2001, authorized the president to use necessary force against anyone he determined to be involved with 9/11, harbored those involved with it, or aided in the commitment of that crime. The Obama administration posits that the 2012 NDAA, specifically section 1021 (b) (2), takes this power no further.
The plaintiffs have a very different view, arguing that they have standing because the 2012 NDAA significantly expands the powers under the AUMF.
Chris Hedges, when asked if he knew what associated forces meant, said “I don’t think we know what ‘associated forces’ are. That’s the reason I’m here.” The “Freedom 7” believe that the 2012 NDAA vastly expands the targeting profile and detention powers to include them under its umbrella. They claim the phrases “directly supported,” “substantially supported,” and “associated forces,” among others, are so vague as to allow them to be interpreted to cover nearly everyone … including me and you.
So, who’s right?
The difference, or lack thereof, between the 2012 NDAA Section 1021 (b) (2) and the 2001 AUMF is the key issue here. The president, according to the AUMF, is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons…” This language is very specific, ties a person’s accusation to involvement with the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, and outlines fairly precisely who Congress authorized the president to go after.
According to Section 1021 (b) (2) of the 2012 NDAA however, a covered person is "a person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
Thomas Jefferson warned, “In matters of power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” The language in Section 1021 (b) (2) not only seems vague, it is vague. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in her May 16 preliminary injunction, said “The government was unable to define precisely what 'direct' or 'substantial' 'support' means." She reaffirmed that in her permanent injunction on September 12th, noting "the Government’s terse arguments do not resolve the Court’s concerns. The statute’s vagueness falls short of what due process requires.”
These terms are so vague in fact, that the government could not even guarantee someone who wrote a book with one sentence, “I support the political goals of the Taliban,” would not be detained under the 2012 NDAA.
The over-broad nature of the 2012 NDAA, which expands the targeting profile of the 2001 AUMF from those directly connected with 9/11 to anyone that directly supports associated forces or puts the wrong words into a book, makes it one of the most dangerous laws since the civil war.
Chris Hedges could be right. This lawsuit, and other efforts to stop the NDAA, may truly be the last stand for what’s left of our Constitution.

Holder: Clear authority to kill US citizens

Holder: Clear authority to kill US citizens

By Jordy Yager - 03/05/12 08:57 PM ET
Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday said the Obama administration has the “clear authority” to kill U.S. citizens overseas who are believed to be a terrorist threat.
“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Holder said. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

Holder’s remarks at Northwestern University’s law school represent the Obama administration’s first formal legal defense for the targeted killings of U.S. citizens on foreign soil, which some critics argue is unconstitutional. The debate ramped up last September, after a U.S. drone attack in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Muslim cleric and alleged leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Though Holder did not directly reference al-Awlaki on Monday, he laid out three possible circumstances for when the United States would be legally justified in killing an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda and aims to attack U.S. citizens.
“First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,” Holder said.
In late 2010, Holder told ABC News that the United States “will do whatever we can” to “neutralize” al-Awlaki.
While Republicans and Democrats heralded al-Awlaki’s killing as a great success, civil-rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have strongly objected to the government’s use of lethal force against a U.S. citizen.
In a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the ACLU is demanding that the government disclose the legal basis it holds for making such a decision, which the administration has refused to disclose.
On Monday, Holder said the administration takes special consideration of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and applies a “balancing approach” when dealing with U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism.
“In cases arising under the due process clause — including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda — the court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process,” he said.
“Where national-security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat,” Holder said.
Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said Holder’s speech was a poor attempt to justify a killing program without actually handing over a proper legal defense.
“If the attorney general can discuss the targeted-killing program at a law school, then the administration can surely release the legal memos it uses to justify its claimed killing authority, and also defend its legal justifications in court,” Shamsi said.
“The targeted-killing program raises profound legal and moral questions that should be subjected to public debate, and constitutional questions that should be considered by the judiciary.”
The tactics used against suspected terrorists have been a constant point of contention for civil-liberties groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill in the years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Holder did not delve into specifics, but said the administration has worked especially hard to keep the appropriate members of Congress informed about highly sensitive operations as a way to ensure a system of checks and balances.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), for instance, and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) were told about the al-Awlaki operation ahead of time while on a trip to Yemen.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/214295-holder-clear-authority-to-kill-citizens#ixzz2K5SR5Qwy
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Justice Department Leaks Memo “Legalizing” Murdering Americans

Justice Department Leaks Memo “Legalizing” Murdering Americans

 19
 10  2
 
 253
justice
Here is the memo.  With a few tweaks and a more creative title — like “Murder With Your Hands Clean” — this memo could sell a lot of copies.
And why not?  Either there’s a whistleblower in the Department of So-Called Justice about to be charged with espionage, and NBC is about to face the same persecution as WikiLeaks, or this is one of those “good” leaks that the White House wanted made public in an underhanded manner — perhaps as an imagined boost to morality-challenged CIA director nominee John Brennan who faces his Senate Rejection Hearing on Thursday.
The memo, which is thought to be a summary of a longer one, says the United States can murder a U.S. citizen abroad (abroad but somehow “outside the area of active hostilities” even though killing him or her seems rather active and hostile) if three conditions are met:
“1. an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;”
The memo goes on to base its claims on the supposed powers of the President, not of some random official.  Who is such an official?  Who decides whether he or she is informed?  What if two of them disagree?  What if he or she disagrees with the President? or the Congress? or the Supreme Court? or the U.S. public? or the United Nations? or the International Criminal Court? What then?  One solution is to redefine the terms so that everyone has to agree.   “Imminent” is defined in this memo to mean nothing at all.  “The United States” clearly means anywhere U.S. troops may be.
“2. capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible;”
And if a high-level official claims it’s infeasible, who can challenge that?
“3. the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
When a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, no one had shown either of them to meet the above qualifications.
When a U.S. drone strike targeted and killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, no one had shown him to meet the above qualifications; I don’t think anyone has made such a claim to this day.  And what about his cousin who died for the crime of being with him at the wrong time?
The sociopaths who wrote this memo have “legalized” the drone-killing of Americans with the exception of all the Americans known thus far to have been murdered by our government with the use of drones.
 David Swanson’s books include “War Is A Lie.” He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for http://rootsaction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.

Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens

Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens


A leaked secret Justice Department “white paper” detailing the Obama administration’s legal justification for the targeted drone assassinations of Americans  living abroad made its way onto the Internet late Monday evening.
The 16-page white paper — said to be a summary of a longer 50-page document on the highly controversial policy — is seeing the light of day ahead of the Senate confirmation hearing of John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top pick for CIA chief.
The longer document was written in 2010 to justify the addition of al-Qaida member Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen, to Obama’s secretive “kill list.”
The white paper suggests that the federal government has legal recourse to engage in the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen, reported NBC News, if “an informed, high-level official” has determined that the American is a “continuing” threat to the country.
The individual would be determined a “continuing” threat if he were “”recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack, and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities,” according to the news outlet, which obtained and published the paper.
“The memo does not define “recently” or “activities,” according to NBC News.
Brennan is said to be the policy’s architect.
“Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense”,” reported NBC News.
“In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses ’an imminent threat of violent attack,’” wrote the publication.
The paper expands upon the public statements made by Brennan and Holder, according to Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the .
Jaffer wrote in a blog post that his “initial reaction is that the paper only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government’s central claim.”
“Even if the Obama administration is convinced of its own fundamental trustworthiness, the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president—and every ‘informed high-level official’ (!)—in every future conflict,” said Jaffer.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/05/obama-kill-list-paper-leaked-includes-criteria-for-assassinating-us-citizens/#ixzz2K4weiAoH

OBAMA SOLD OUR NUKES TO ADD IN OUR PRODUCTS DONT BELIEVE ME READ THIS SHIT

Multimillion Dollar Bonanza: Nuclear Waste from US Weapons Industry To Be Sold for Profit?

 43
 13  6
 
 610
BREAKING NEWS: Fukushima Crisis: More Catastrophic Radioactive Releases
An Energy Department plan to allow the recycling of scrap metals emitting very low levels of radiation is drawing opposition because of concerns about potential health hazards. But the upside for U.S. atomic bomb-makers is that waste now requiring costly storage could be sold for a profit.
In something of a stealth maneuver during the 2012 holiday season, the U.S. Department of Energy set about to give every American a little more radiation exposure, and for some a lot, by allowing manufacturers to use radioactive metals in their consumer products – such as zippers, spoons, jewelry, belt buckles, toys, pots, pans, furnishings, bicycles, jungle gyms, medical implants, or any other metal or partly-metal product.
The Energy Dept. announced its plan in the Federal Register on Dec. 12 and invited comment for 30 days, through Jan.11. Citing its need to address environmental concerns under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the agency said, in part, that its plan was: “to delegate authority to manage radiological clearance and release of scrap metal from radiological areas to each Under Secretary for sites under his or her cognizance. … 
“ This Draft PEA for the Recycling of Scrap Metals Originating from Radiological Areas analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with resuming the clearance of scrap metal, originating from DOE radiological areas, for recycling pursuant to improved procedures designed to assure that clearance for release is limited to metals meeting stringent criteria.”
Translated from the bureaucratese, this is a proposal to lift a ban on recycling radioactive metals left over from American bomb-making and other nuclear activities and allow them to be used commercially with “stringent” but largely unenforceable criteria for their use. The initial ban was ordered in 2000, by then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson.
Largely ignored by mainstream media, the plan caught the attention of an alert member of Congress, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, who wrote a three-page letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Jan. 11, beginning:
“I write to convey my grave concerns regarding your December 2012 proposal to rescind the agency-wide suspension of the release of radioactively contaminated scrap metal from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities for purposes of recycling it into consumer products that could ultimately by utilized by pregnant women, children or other vulnerable populations.  This proposal is unwise, and should be immediately abandoned.”
Although Rep. Markey was writing on the date of the original deadline, the Energy Department had invited the public to respond to an email address that was non-functional during the first nine days of the response period, Dec. 12-20.  On Dec. 28, the department announced in the Federal Register that the comment period was extended to Feb. 11.
On Jan. 16, while taking note of Markey’s letter, the Wall Street Journal covered the story by starting this way: ”The Department of Energy is proposing to allow the sale of tons of scrap metal from government nuclear sites — an attempt to reduce waste that critics say could lead to radiation-tainted belt buckles, surgical implants and other consumer products. …
“The approximately 14,000 tons of metal under review for possible initial release is only a fraction of the tens of millions of tons of metal recycled annually, it said. Smaller amounts could be eligible for release in future years. Selling the metals could bring in $10 million to $40 million a year, the DOE estimates.” 
Minimizing Radiation Dangers
As is common in nuclear industry proposals of all sorts, the Energy Department sought to assure readers of its proposal that any radiation exposure resulting from recycling radioactive waste into the commercial mainstream would have minimal impact on any given individual. The article in the Journal included a chart from the department that reinforced its claim that “would at worst expose a person to very low levels of additional radiation.”
This approach ignores the current scientific consensus that there is NO safe level of radiation exposure. Since there is already a measurable level of background radiation worldwide, and since worldwide radiation levels have increased as a result of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the fundamental safety question is whether any additional radiation exposure is safe in any meaningful sense.
This approach also fails to deal with the reality that once the department has released radioactive materials for commercial use, it loses almost all control over how and where they’re used, and in what concentrations. The same material used in a ceiling light fixture will pose less risk than if it is used in a belt buckle of jewelry, worn close to the skin. These uses are less dangerous than material inside a human body, in a joint replacement or heart valve.
The issue is of global concern because other countries are recycling their radioactive waste as well, with uncertain control and safety. As Rep. Markey noted in his letter, “Just a year ago, Bed Bath and Beyond recalled tissue holders made in India that were contaminated with low levels of the radio-isotope cobalt-60 that were shipped to 200 of its stores in twenty states.
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when discussing the discovery of the contaminated products, said that, ‘There’s no real health threat from these, but we advise people to return them.’ “
While that may seem contradictory, it’s mainly because the choice of the word “real” is not very accurate. It’s true that there’s no threat of immediate injury from a low level of radiation, whereas a high enough level will be lethal. It’s also true that there may be no “realistic” threat from a radioactive tissue box, but that’s not the same as “no threat,” since harm from radiation exposure is cumulative.
Rep. Markey’s letter illustrates this concern, as he notes that the Energy Department is proposing to release contaminated metals into the market place, as long as, quoting from the document, it “can be shown that the release will result in less than 1 millirem (mrem) above background to a member of the public in any calendar year.” [One millirem is a tiny amount of radiation.]
Nevertheless, Markey expresses doubt about even this low standard: “I believe this standard, even it were the appropriate standard, will be impossible to assure or enforce.” [Emphasis added]
No One in Charge of Risk
There is no federal agency with responsibility for such oversight or enforcement. This regulatory vacuum was illuminated by the discovery in 2009 of thousands of contaminated consumer products from China, Brazil, France, Sweden and other countries, as reported by Mother Nature Network:
“The risk of radiation poisoning is the furthest thing from our minds as we shop for everyday items like handbags, furniture, buttons, chain link fences and cheese graters. Unfortunately, it turns out that our trust is misplaced thanks to sketchy government oversight of recycled materials.
“The discovery of a radioactive cheese grater led to an investigation that found thousands of additional consumer products to be contaminated. The source is recycled metals tainted with Cobalt-60, a radioactive isotope that can cause cancer with prolonged exposure.” 
According to a Scripps Howard News Service investigation in 2009, records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “… show 18,740 documented cases involving radioactive materials in consumer products, in metal intended for consumer products or other public exposure to radioactive material.
“The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates there are some 500,000 unaccounted for radioactively contaminated metal objects in the U.S., and the NRC estimates that figure is around is 20 million pounds of contaminated waste….
“In 2006 in Texas, for example, a recycling facility inadvertently created 500,000 pounds of radioactive steel byproducts after melting metal contaminated with Cesium-137, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records. In Florida in 2001, another recycler unintentionally did the same, and wound up with 1.4 million pounds of radioactive material.” 
Nuclear engineer Arnie Gunderson echoed Markey’s warning in his Jan. 13 podcast, pointing out that the nuclear industry has been trying to do something like this for decades. The reason, he explained, was that radioactive materials are now liabilities for those who own them and are responsible for protecting them and eventually storing them safely. But if they can sell the material, the liability instantly becomes an asset.
NIRS, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, has come out strongly against the Energy Department initiative, noting the long history of the industry to unburden itself of its radioactive waste and any responsibility for it:
“We’ve fought this battle before. In the late 1980s, NRC adopted a policy it called ‘Below Regulatory Concern (BRC),’ that would have allowed about 30% of the nation’s ‘low-level’  radioactive waste to be treated as normal garbage and dumped in landfills, be burned in incinerators, and yes, be recycled into consumer products….
“NIRS and our allies responded with one of our largest organizing campaigns ever…. 15 states passed laws banning BRC within their borders. Hearings were held in the House and in 1992, Congress officially overturned the BRC policy.”
The grassroots action contributed to Secretary Richardson’s ban on selling radioactive metals for commercial use, the ban that the current Energy Department proposal would overturn. The department has offered no new basis for its recycling program beyond streamlining what it proposed before. NIRS counters that:
“Nothing has changed since 2000 that would justify lifting its current ban. Rather, just the opposite: since then the National Academy of Sciences has acknowledged that there is no safe level of radiation exposure, and we’ve learned that women are even more vulnerable to radiation than men (while children have long been known to be more vulnerable than adults).”
NIRS and other advocacy organizations are currently engaged in a campaign to submit comments before the Feb. 11 deadline to ask the Energy Department to withdraw this proposal.
William Boardman runs Panther ProductionsReader Supported News is the publication of origin for this work.

H.R. 3783 (112th): Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012

H.R. 3783 (112th): Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012

112th Congress, 2011–2013. Text as of Dec 19, 2012 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill).
Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO
H.R.3783

One Hundred Twelfth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and twelve
An Act
To provide for a comprehensive strategy to counter Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
    Congress finds the following:
      (1) The United States has vital political, economic, and security interests in the Western Hemisphere.
      (2) Iran is pursuing cooperation with Latin American countries by signing economic and security agreements in order to create a network of diplomatic and economic relationships to lessen the blow of international sanctions and oppose Western attempts to constrict its ambitions.
      (3) According to the Department of State, Hezbollah, with Iran as its state sponsor, is considered the ‘most technically capable terrorist group in the world’ with ‘thousands of supporters, several thousand members, and a few hundred terrorist operatives,’ and officials from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force have been working in concert with Hezbollah for many years.
      (4) The IRGC’s Qods Force has a long history of supporting Hezbollah’s military, paramilitary, and terrorist activities, providing it with guidance, funding, weapons, intelligence, and logistical support, and in 2007, the Department of the Treasury placed sanctions on the IRGC and its Qods Force for their support of terrorism and proliferation activities.
      (5) The IRGC’s Qods Force stations operatives in foreign embassies, charities, and religious and cultural institutions to foster relationships, often building on existing socioeconomic ties with the well established Shia Diaspora, and recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America.
      (6) According to the Department of Defense, the IRGC and its Qods Force played a significant role in some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past two decades, including the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, by generally directing or supporting the groups that actually executed the attacks.
      (7) Reports of Iranian intelligence agents being implicated in Hezbollah-linked activities since the early 1990s suggest direct Iranian government support of Hezbollah activities in the Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, and in the past decade, Iran has dramatically increased its diplomatic missions to Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil. Iran has built 17 cultural centers in Latin America, and it currently maintains 11 embassies, up from 6 in 2005.
      (8) Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies with a presence in Latin America have raised revenues through illicit activities, including drug and arms trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering, forging travel documents, pirating software and music, and providing haven and assistance to other terrorists transiting the region.
      (9) Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela expressed their intention to assist Iran in evading sanctions by signing a statement supporting Iran’s nuclear activities and announcing at a 2010 joint press conference in Tehran their determination to ‘continue and expand their economic ties to Iran’ with confidence that ‘Iran can give a crushing response to the threats and sanctions imposed by the West and imperialism’.
      (10) The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration concluded in 2008 that almost one-half of the foreign terrorist organizations in the world are linked to narcotics trade and trafficking, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
      (11) In October 2011, the United States charged two men, Manssor Arbabsiar, a United States citizen holding both Iranian and United States passports, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iran-based member of Iran’s IRGC Qods Force, with conspiracy to murder a foreign official using explosives in an act of terrorism. Arbabsiar traveled to Mexico with the express intent to hire ‘someone in the narcotics business’ to carry out the assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in the United States. While in the end, he only engaged a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency informant posing as an associate of a drug trafficking cartel, Arbabsiar believed that he was working with a member of a Mexican drug trafficking organization and sought to send money to this individual in installments and not in a single transfer.
      (12) In February 2011, actions by the Department of the Treasury effectively shut down the Lebanese Canadian Bank. Subsequent actions by the United States Government in connection with the investigation into Lebanese Canadian Bank resulted in the indictment in December 2011 of Ayman Joumaa, an individual of Lebanese nationality, with citizenship in Lebanon and Colombia, and with ties to Hezbollah, for trafficking cocaine to the Los Zetas drug trafficking organization in Mexico City for sale in the United States and for laundering the proceeds.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
    It shall be the policy of the United States to use a comprehensive government-wide strategy to counter Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere by working together with United States allies and partners in the region to mutually deter threats to United States interests by the Government of Iran, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the IRGC’s Qods Force, and Hezbollah.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
    In this Act:
      (1) WESTERN HEMISPHERE- The term ‘Western Hemisphere’ means the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, and Central America.
      (2) RELEVANT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term ‘relevant congressional committees’ means the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT OF A STRATEGY TO ADDRESS IRAN’S GROWING HOSTILE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
    (a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall conduct an assessment of the threats posed to the United States by Iran’s growing presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere and submit to the relevant congressional committees the results of the assessment and a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere.
    (b) Matters To Be Included- The strategy described in subsection (a) should include--
      (1) a description of the presence, activities, and operations of Iran, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its Qods Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations linked to Iran that may be present in the Western Hemisphere, including information about their leaders, objectives, and areas of influence and information on their financial networks, trafficking activities, and safe havens;
      (2) a description of the terrain, population, ports, foreign firms, airports, borders, media outlets, financial centers, foreign embassies, charities, religious and cultural centers, and income-generating activities in the Western Hemisphere utilized by Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations linked to Iran that may be present in the Western Hemisphere;
      (3) a description of the relationship of Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, and Hezbollah with transnational criminal organizations linked to Iran and other terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere, including information on financial networks and trafficking activities;
      (4) a description of the relationship of Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations linked to Iran that may be present in the Western Hemisphere with the governments in the Western Hemisphere, including military-to-military relations and diplomatic, economic, and security partnerships and agreements;
      (5) a description of the Federal law enforcement capabilities, military forces, State and local government institutions, and other critical elements, such as nongovernmental organizations, in the Western Hemisphere that may organize to counter the threat posed by Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations linked to Iran that may be present in the Western Hemisphere;
      (6) a description of activity by Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations linked to Iran that may be present at the United States borders with Mexico and Canada and at other international borders within the Western Hemisphere, including operations related to drug, human, and arms trafficking, human support networks, financial support, narco-tunneling, and technological advancements that incorporates--
        (A) with respect to the United States borders, in coordination with the Governments of Mexico and Canada and the Secretary of Homeland Security, a plan to address resources, technology, and infrastructure to create a secure United States border and strengthen the ability of the United States and its allies to prevent operatives from Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization from entering the United States; and
        (B) within Latin American countries, a multiagency action plan, in coordination with United States allies and partners in the region, that includes the development of strong rule-of-law institutions to provide security in such countries and a counterterrorism and counter-radicalization plan to isolate Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations linked to Iran that may be present in the Western Hemisphere from their sources of financial support and counter their facilitation of terrorist activity; and
      (7) a plan--
        (A) to address any efforts by foreign persons, entities, and governments in the region to assist Iran in evading United States and international sanctions;
        (B) to protect United States interests and assets in the Western Hemisphere, including embassies, consulates, businesses, energy pipelines, and cultural organizations, including threats to United States allies;
        (C) to support United States efforts to designate persons and entities in the Western Hemisphere for proliferation activities and terrorist activities relating to Iran, including affiliates of the IRGC, its Qods Force, and Hezbollah, under applicable law including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; and
        (D) to address the vital national security interests of the United States in ensuring energy supplies from the Western Hemisphere that are free from the influence of any foreign government that would attempt to manipulate or disrupt global energy markets.
    (c) Development- In developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with the heads of all appropriate United States departments and agencies, including the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the United States Trade Representative.
    (d) Form- The strategy in this section may be submitted in classified form, but shall include an unclassified summary of policy recommendations to address the growing Iranian threat in the Western Hemisphere.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
    It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State should keep the relevant congressional committees continually informed on the hostile actions of Iran in the Western Hemisphere.
SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
    Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the rights or protections enjoyed by United States citizens under the United States Constitution or other Federal law, or to create additional authorities for the Federal Government that are contrary to the United States Constitution and United States law.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council

U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama created the U.S. – Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) on February 4, 2011. After private sector consultations and bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. The Joint Action Plan is a practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the United States and Canada.

In order to implement the initiatives identified in the Joint Action Plan, bilateral working groups led by senior officials from regulatory agencies will develop work plans with concrete objectives, deliverables and milestones for tangible progress within the RCC's two-year mandate.

The RCC hosted an initial outreach event in Washington, DC on January 30-31, 2012 to allow an opportunity for interested stakeholders to learn more about the Council and to provide input to federal regulators as they finalize draft work plans. Click here for a summary of this Initial Stakeholder Outreach Event.

We welcome ongoing feedback on the Regulatory Cooperation Council process and implementation. Please direct all commentary to RCC@trade.gov.
RCC Work Plans

The U.S. – Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council Joint Action Plan was released by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper on December 7, 2011. The RCC will focus its initial efforts on initiatives outlined in the Plan. Below is a list of work plans for each initiative. These plans are in the process of being finalized as the working groups incorporate the feedback provided by stakeholders at the outreach event in Washington, DC on January 30-31, 2012. We will post the final work plans as they become available.
Agriculture and Food 1

Lead Agencies: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Food Safety Inspection Service, Agricultural Marketing Service

MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCT EXPORT CERTIFICATION
ZONING FOR FOREIGN ANIMAL DISEASES
EQUIVALENCE OF MEAT SAFETY SYSTEMS
PERIMETER APPROACH TO PLANT PROTECTION
MEAT CUT NOMENCLATURE
FINANCIAL RISK MITIGATION FOR PRODUCE SELLERS

Agriculture and Food 2

Lead Agency: Food and Drug Administration

COMMON APPROACH TO FOOD SAFETY
MUTUAL RELIANCE ON FOOD SAFETY TESTING
VETERINARY DRUGS

Crop Protection Products

Lead Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

PRODUCT APPROVALS AND MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS/TOLERANCES

Personal Care Products and Pharmaceuticals

Lead Agency: Food and Drug Administration

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION GATEWAY
COMMON MONOGRAPHS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS
GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES

Occupational Safety Issues

Lead Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

CLASSIFICATION AND LABELING OF WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Motor Vehicles

Lead Agency: Department of Transportation

NEW MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

Rail Safety, Dangerous Goods, and Intelligent Transportation Systems

Lead Agency: Department of Transportation

RAIL SAFETY STANDARDS
DANGEROUS GOODS MEANS OF CONTAINMENT
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS)

Air Transport

Lead Agency: Department of Transportation

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

Marine Transport

Lead Agency: U.S. Coast Guard

MARINE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY REGULATIONS
REGULATORY OVERSIGHT REGIME ON THE GREAT LAKES & SEAWAY
LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SMALL CRAFT

Locomotive Emissions

Lead Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS

Environment

Lead Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
AIR POLLUTANTS (PARTICULATE MATTER)

Nanotechnology

Lead Agency: Office of Management and Budget

NANOTECHNOLOGY

Small Business Lens

Lead Agency: Office of Management and Budget

SMALL BUSINESS LENS

Police State North America: U.S.-Canada Border Security Agreement. Sharing Biographic and Biometric Data

Police State North America: U.S.-Canada Border Security Agreement. Sharing Biographic and Biometric Data

canadaUSflag
The U.S. and Canada have made significant progress in advancing the Beyond the Border deal and continue to implement various perimeter security initiatives. Without much fanfare, they have signed an immigration agreement that would allow them to share biographic and at a later date, biometric information. As part of a North American security perimeter, both countries are further harmonizing border security and immigration measures. Canada is further taking on U.S. security priorities and this could include a bigger role in the war on terrorism.
It’s been over a year since Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama announced the Beyond the Border and the Regulatory Cooperation Council action plans. On December 14, 2012, the U.S. and Canada issued the Beyond the Border implementation report that highlights the objectives that were achieved over the past year and the work that has yet to be done. It explained that moving forward, “Key future initiatives include harmonizing our trusted trader programs, making significant infrastructure investments at our key land border crossings, fully implementing an entry/exit program at the land border, expanding preclearance operations to the land, rail, and marine domains.” The report also acknowledged challenges facing the Next-Generation pilot project which would permit teams of cross-designated officers to operate on both sides of the border. It was originally scheduled to begin last summer. While steady progress has been made, a lot more work is needed to meet the goals of the Beyond the Border action plan. Over the next several years, other aspects of the deal will be phased-in incrementally with specific deliverables due this year, in 2014 and also in 2015.
Another important facet of the economic and security perimeter agreement is the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). A progress report to the leaders outlines accomplishments made in aligning regulations in the areas of agriculture and food, transportation, the environment, health and personal care products, workplace chemicals, as well as nanotechnology. This includes cooperation on pilot projects, scientific and technical collaborations and harmonized testing procedures. RCC working groups have developed detailed work plans for the various initiatives with objectives that will be implemented over the next couple of years. In Canada, some fear that deepening regulatory integration with the U.S. could weaken and erode any independent regulatory capacity. This could lead to a race to the bottom with respect to regulatory standards.
In December of last year, the U.S. and Canada signed the Immigration Information Sharing Treaty which is tied to the Beyond the Border deal. Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney stated that the, “agreement builds on our countries’ mutual efforts to protect our common borders and the surrounding perimeter, through improved screening of immigrants and visitors.” He went on to say, “Enhanced information sharing of foreign nationals will protect the safety and security of Canadians by helping us prevent terrorists, violent criminals, and others, who pose a risk, from entering Canada or the United States.” Under the treaty, Canada and the U.S. will share biographic information from third country nationals who apply for a visa, a travel permit or claim asylum. In 2014, it will also include the sharing of biometric information. There are privacy concerns on how far-reaching the data collected will be shared. This threatens the sovereignty of Canada with regards to retaining control over information at its own borders.
On December 28, 2012, President Obama signed into law, the Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act which is designed to curb Iran’s presence and activity in the region. The bill calls on the Department of Homeland Security to work with Canada and Mexico, “to address resources, technology, and infrastructure to create a secure United States border and strengthen the ability of the United States and its allies to prevent operatives from Iran, the IRGC, its Qods Force, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization from entering the United States.” Julie Carmichael, spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews discussed Canada’s efforts to counter any perceived hostility from Iran in the Americas. She is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, “We continually assess threats while co-operating with international partners, including the U.S., to address threats to our common security.” Carmichael added, “The Beyond the Border Action Plan as announced by Prime Minister Harper and President Obama provides a framework to identify threats before they reach North America.” Under the perimeter security deal, Canada is further aligning itself with U.S. foreign policy interests and could be expected to play a greater role in the global war on terror.
Through the Beyond the Border agreement, the U.S. and Canada are deepening economic and security integration which is laying the foundation for a North American security perimeter. Both countries are also engaged in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations with Mexico and other member nations. This is part of efforts to create a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific and could be used to update and expand NAFTA. Another key priority for U.S.-Canada relations is North America’s energy future. President Obama is expected to make a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline sometime this year. Meanwhile, there is growing environmental opposition to the proposed project which would carry oil from western Canada to the Texas gulf coast.
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com. Visit his blog at Be Your Own Leader

“Extermination of The Truth”: In America Law No Longer Exists

“Extermination of The Truth”: In America Law No Longer Exists

AMERICA
In the 21st century Americans have experienced an extraordinary collapse in the rule of law and in their constitutional protections. Today American citizens, once a free people protected by law, can be assassinated and detained in prison indefinitely without any evidence being presented to a court of their guilt, and they can be sentenced to prison on the basis of secret testimony by anonymous witnesses not subject to cross examination.  The US “justice system” has been transformed by the Bush/Obama regime into the ”justice system” of Gestapo Germany and Stalinist Russia.  There is no difference.
In an article available here,  Stephen Downs, formerly Chief Attorney with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and Kathy Manley, a criminal defense attorney and member of the New York Civil Liberties Union, report on how the US government destroyed a charity, the Holy Land Foundation, which provided money for feeding the poor and for building schools and hospitals in Palestine.
The charity, aware of the perils of being based in the US and doing anything for Palestinians, relied on the US State Department and the US Department of Justice (sic)
for guidance on where to send humanitarian aid. The charity sent its aid to the same aid committees in Palestine that the US Agency for International Development and the UN used to distribute aid to the Palestinians.
In the first trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the US government admitted that none of the charity’s donations had gone to terrorist organizations, and the federal prosecutors failed to achieve a conviction.  So the prosecutors tried the charity again.
In the second trial, the judge permitted the prosecutors to call an “anonymous expert” to tell the jury that some of the committees used by USAID and the UN and approved by the US Department of State were controlled by Hamas, the elected government of Palestine that Israel requires the US government to brand as “terrorist.”
As Downs and Manley point out, an “anonymous expert,” cannot “be challenged because he is unknown.” There cannot be a cross examination. The “expert” could be anyone–someone paid to lie to the jury, a Jew who believes all help to Palestinians
comprises “aid to terrorists,” or a member of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service that has throughly infiltrated the US according to US intelligence experts.
Injustices are everywhere, the authors admit, so why is this important to you? The answer is that the due process clause of the US Constitution requires that criminal laws give fair notice as to what conduct is prohibited. According to Downs and Manley, the Holy Land Foundation followed the US State Department’s list of designated terrorist organizations and avoided all contact with organizations on the list, but were indicted and convicted regardless. This tells us that federal prosecutors are viciously corrupt and that jurors are so inept and propagandized that they are useless to defendants.
The US Supreme Court refused to review this most blatant case of wrongful conviction. By so doing, the US Supreme Court established that the court, like the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the executive branch, is not only a servant of the police state but also a servant of Israel and supports the destruction of the Palestinians by designating aid to Palestine as an act of terrorism.
What this means for you is that your involvement in legal transactions or associations can be declared ex post facto by secret witnesses to be criminal involvements. The criminality of your past behavior can now be established, according to Downs and Manley,  by “anonymous experts,” mouthpieces for the government prosecutors who cannot “be confronted or cross-examined within the meaning of the 6th Amendment.”
Downs and Manley write: “The implications are enormous. The government can now criminalize political, religious and social ideology and speech. Donating to peace groups, participating in protests, attending church, mosque or synagogue, entertaining friends, and posting material on the Internet, for example, could later be found to be illegal because of ‘associations,’ manufactured by anonymous experts, which in some way allegedly support designated terrorist organizations one has never heard of.”
The authors could have added that if the government wants to get you, all it has to do is
to declare that someone or some organization somewhere in your past was connected in a vague undefined way with terrorism. The government’s assertion suffices. No proof is needed. The brainwashed jury will not protect you.
Be prepared in the next year or two for all criticism of “our freedom and democracy”  government to be shut down. In Amerika, truth is about to be exterminated.

Obama-Backed Syrian Rebels Praise Bin Laden, Celebrate 9/11 Attacks

Obama-Backed Syrian Rebels Praise Bin Laden, Celebrate 9/11 Attacks





  • Syrian Rebels Praise Bin Laden, Celebrate 9/11 Attacks: http://youtu.be/vsq5ZRir-0k via @youtube

“If they call me a terrorist I will consider it an honor, our terror is blessed, a divine call”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 5, 2013
A shocking video has emerged which shows Obama administration-backed Syrian rebels singing songs in praise of Osama Bin Laden while celebrating the “sweet memory” of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11.

The clip shows FSA members and their supporters in the city of Idlib chanting anti-American songs at a rally while waving flags and banners.
“They (Twin Towers) have gone with the blink of an eye, oh how sweet is the memory,” the crowd sings in Arabic.
“Our leader Osama Bin Laden, America’s worst nightmare,” the song continues as the crowd cheers, “If they call me a terrorist I will consider it an honor, our terror is blessed, a divine call, Allah is our goal we strive to reach him.”
The footage is just the latest illustration of how the Obama administration, which has supported Syrian rebels with over $200 million dollars in aid while the CIA has helped other gulf states oversee weapons transfers, is backing terrorists who openly espouse extremist anti-American ideologies.
Back in August, Obama signed a “secret order” authorizing U.S. support for the rebels.
Last month, 29 different Syrian opposition groups pledged their allegiance to Al Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group which, as the New York Times reported, “killed numerous American troops in Iraq.”
The White House has supported the FSA militants in their bid to overthrow President Bashar Al-Assad despite the fact that Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners.
A Syrian rebel recently quoted by McClatchy Newspapers was overheard to remark, “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!” Other militants have appeared in You Tube videos speaking of their desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag fly over the White House and impose Sharia law once the rebels are victorious across the region.
Rebels have also been caught on camera burning U.S. flags and chanting anti-American slogans. Last month, FSA fighters were caught on camera attempting to shoot down commercial airliners with anti-aircraft weapons.
A petition launched earlier this month asks the White House to cease all funding and support for Syrian rebels, noting that, “Funding terrorists is a crime under the National Defense Authorization Act.”
In related news, the brother of the leader of Al-Qaeda, Mohamed al-Zawahiri, has been captured by government forces in Syria, offering further proof that the terrorist group is heavily involved in the bid to topple President Bashar Al-Assad.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama








For sedition against the Constitution
Alex Jones
Infowars.com
January 15, 2013
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
There can no longer be any doubt – the forces of tyranny are running wild across our once great Republic. The time has come for all good men and women to rally to the aid of their country. We have now entered a historic crossroads that will decide the destiny of the United States. Arrogance and corruption has long festered in Washington DC, but the last decade has seen an extreme acceleration of criminal looting and attacks on liberty – every freedom is under sustained assault.
We the People, the rightful masters of this Republic, will either rise up through Congress and the states or we can trade in our birthright of liberty for the chains of a technocratic slavery. Below we list some of the more egregious acts of seditious treason against the Republic of the United States. Anyone who wishes to continue to live in a free country and to pass that birthright on to their children must research this document and then lobby state legislatures and the Congress to do their duty and remove the would-be dictator.
The time has now come for a bill of impeachment to be introduced and debated in Congress. Obama’s crimes are public, and the debate in the House will serve as a court in which to display the tyrannical activities of President Obama and his cohorts. As in the case of Richard Nixon, the exposure of Obama’s crimes may cause him to resign in disgrace. If he does not step down, the full House will then vote to begin the impeachment trial in the US Senate. The time has now come to make your decision – to stand up to evil or get on your knees as a willing slave.
Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama – Filed by Citizen Alexander Emric Jones, January 15, 2013.
- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.
Below, Congressman Stockman has pledged to move for impeachment against Obama. I am standing up against Obama right beside him, will you?
“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” reads a statement by Rep. Steve Stockman. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”
- He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
- He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.
- He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
- He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.
- He has flagrantly violated article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution by accepting rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council. The clause states, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
- He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.
- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.
- He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed out preferential waivers to corporations friendly to his administration.
- He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
- He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
- He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive usurpation of power.
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”
Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas.Americans Move to Impeach Obama: http://youtu.be/S3nmLRUvtrg via @youtube
For these, and other offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, including perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming and refusal to obey a lawful order, we call for the immediate impeachment of Barack H. Obama.
Impeachment Clauses in the Constitution

  1. Obama’s Anti-Second Amendment Executive Orders May Result in Articles of Impeachment
  2. Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama
  3. Kucinich to Introduce 60 Impeachment Articles if Stymied in House
  4. O’Reilly: Obama Could Face Impeachment If He Pardons Illegals
  5. The Clear Case for Obama’s Impeachment
  6. Texas Congressman Threatens Obama With Impeachment If He Uses Exec. Orders on Guns
  7. The Kucinich 9/11-related Articles of Impeachment
  8. Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War Authorization from Congress
  9. GOP lawyer drafts Obama impeachment
  10. Obama Impeachment 2012
  11. Constitutional lawyer drafts Obama impeachment
  12. Nancy, Is Impeachment Still Off the Table?