One Marines take on the election

By Troy = Okinawa Japan

I didn’t realize how absolutely ignorant and closed-minded liberals were until today. The utter amount of ignorance, immaturity, and disbelief I have seen all over the internet since Trumps victory has been astounding. Him being elected is not going to change your day to day life whatsoever. He is not going to personally find you and ruin your life like y’all are making it seem he will. You will literally only notice an extra few bucks on your pay checks from taxes lowering and that you may be able to find yourself cheaper health care. It doesn’t matter if you’re Mexican, Muslim, gay, black, white, female or male. As long as you are a law abiding citizen and do not engage yourself an illegal activities you will literally not have a single thing to worry about.

If you are here illegally, then you have no right to complain about the president, and no right to be upset if you get deported, you’re here illegally! That’s you’re own fault. It’s astounding how illegals believe they deserve anything from this country and have even the slightest urged to try and protest this election and our future president as well. It has been such a large surprise to see how close minded those I used to associate with are and how truly ignorant they really are. I have to stop myself from almost feeling bad for them as they try to paint themselves as victims in this situation. Seeing people pretend to be scared for their life because of the election results is absolutely ridiculous as well. There’s still law in the land, the only fear you need have is the law if you do something you’re not supposed to.

Quit dramatizing a situation in which you didn’t get your way or choice such as Hillary in office. If you want to ensure the best life you can have then continue being productive members of society, shut up about the election, and unite the country. Complaining on Facebook and creating over dramatic reactions is only going to put a greater divide in a very large and powerful country and will do nothing for Americans moving forward. The only way this country will realistically improve is when we are together as one county undivided.

The ignorance of the left wing nut heads has grown to an unacceptable point. There are people inciting riots across the country as they speak because they didn’t get their way in this election and are currently yelling F*** Donald Trump over and over. How does that make them any better than the supposed Trump the media has portrayed this entire election, which now has been proven to be entirely corrupt and biased to the left wing liberals. The inaccuracy of the medias reporting of this election season has been entirely disgusting as well. For an outlet for information which is supposed to remain unbiased and true it sure did not do the American people justice this year. It is absolutely sickening the amount of power and persuasion that they have ahold of in today’s society.

I’m sorry but the amount of bullsh*t I’ve seen on my feed today gave me such an uncontrollable need to type out what I was thinking. I could go on and on about the hypocrisy of the left now that this election is over and go through facts and prove everything to a deeper point but that’d fall upon deaf ears and ultimately be a waste of time. I can only hope people open their eyes and work together towards a move progressive and united future. How about you actually listen to Trump speak, actually hear what he has to say about America moving forward and assist in improving this country for all who live in it. Ignore it if you’d like, or try to fight it, but this is the America you live in. ✌🏼

constitution_quill_pen

We the People

Advertisements

Donald Trump, Mutiny on the Constitution, and the Hostile takeover of US Corp.

“Mutiny” – Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers.

“Hostile Takeover” – A takeover is considered “hostile” if the target company’s board rejects the offer, and if the bidder continues to pursue it, or the bidder makes the offer directly after having announced its firm intention to make an offer.

Imagine that we are a ship. We are on the US Constitution. We have sailed into the shoals and are in distress. We are taking on water and are in danger of sinking. The crew (American citizens) are not trusting of the officers. (Republican establishment)  They have taken the crew for granted too long and failed to keep their promises. There is a mutiny in process. The crew is rising up, choosing a leader and are willing to make the establishment and their minions “walk the plank”. They are accused of treason, greed, dishonesty and dereliction of duty.

970721-N-6483G-002 Off the coast of Massachusetts (Jul. 21, 1997) -- The USS Constitution the worlds oldest commissioned war ship fires its starboard guns while underway in Massachusetts Bay, MA.  Commissioned on October 21st, 1797, Constitution set sail unassisted for the first time in 116 years.  Constitution will celebrates her 200th birthday on October 21st of this year after completing a 40 month overhaul.  U.S. Navy Photo by Chief Photographer John E. Gay (Released)

970721-N-6483G-002
Off the coast of Massachusetts (Jul. 21, 1997) — The USS Constitution the worlds oldest commissioned war ship fires its starboard guns while underway in Massachusetts Bay, MA. Commissioned on October 21st, 1797, Constitution set sail unassisted for the first time in 116 years. Constitution will celebrates her 200th birthday on October 21st of this year after completing a 40 month overhaul. U.S. Navy Photo by Chief Photographer John E. Gay (Released)

 

The crew has responded to one man who is a symbol. A symbol of strength, honesty and tenacity. A new Captain of industry who pledges to “make America great again” resonates with the crew of commoners.

This man is Donald Trump.  He has the recognition, the strength and the independence to Captain a “Hostile Takeover” / Mutiny of the Republican party.

What Donald Trump and his supporters are supporting is change. The goal is to reshape politics in Washington and the “Status quo” that exists between both parties.

What the media and the leaders of the party do not realize is that they have alienated the base. This is why they have lost the last 2 Presidential elections.  Their supporters elected their congress on another promise of change. To kill Obamacare, to close the borders, to reduce spending, to be strong against Iran and ISIS. NOTHING HAS HAPPENED! The leadership goes back to their old ways and backroom deals. Boehner and McConnell have lied and manipulated processes to stop change and the fulfillment of their promises. Yet they still send emails with their lies and false promises, saying “We need your money to effect change”. We we gave you our money and you used it AGAINST the wishes of your supporters to support your agenda!

 

We are now rallying behind Donald Trump. Call us Antiestablishmentarians. (my word of the day) “Antiestablishmentarians adhere to the doctrine of opposition to the social and political establishment. Their purpose is to subvert from within. This doctrine holds that establishments lose connection with the people and have their own agendas that frequently blindly destroy whatever they fail to address.”

The pundits say “but Trump is not a true Republican. THAT IS THE POINT! For too long we have expected our politicians and representatives to fit into a box of political ideology. If you do not fit you are not a true Republican or Democrat. That is the problem with our system! We need a President who can blend the best of each party and then lead with strength! Tell the truth and follow through on your promises! This is what we see in Donald Trump.

My prediction is that Donald Trump will win the primaries and the Presidency in a landslide, taking support from both sides of the political spectrum. We will tell the establishment “Your fired”, and complete a corporate takeover of Washington. Then we hope he will complete a corporate restructuring. Tearing down the established ways and forever changing the face of Washington and the Republican party.

trump1

 

Why America is in love with Donald Trump

As of today Donald Trump is still surging in the polls. This is aggravating to many people.

  • The Mainstream Media
  • The Democratic Party
  • The Republican Pary
  • The Obama Administration

I was never a Donald Trump fan. Yes I watched “The Apprentice” for entertainment, but that was it.

Then he gave his speech in 2015 on illegal immigration. I live in Arizona so I hear first hand of the criminals crossing the border smuggling drugs, guns and people. I have seen home invasions by illegals and reports of how the drug runners have penetrated 100’s of miles north to establish smuggling routes going so far as to place sentries on mountain peaks to track police and sheriff patrols.

Daily there are reports of crimes committed by illegals and of 100’s in not 1000’s crossing the border illegally daily. I have driven through the Yuma sector of the border that is an armed camp with Border Patrol agents, lights and sensors trying to cover every inch of the border fence. I have seen our schools struggling to keep up with the non english speaking children dumped into public schools slowing down the learning progress of the children of legal citizens.

So I went to his rally and you know what? I was impressed.

First I stood in line with 1000’s of normal Americans. Not radicals, not maniacs, not crazies. Normal Americans from every walk of life, of every color. We all wanted to hear what Donald would say. He did not disappoint.

He started out talking about illegal immigration and the cost to the nation. He spoke of American exceptional-ism, the greatness we were known for.

He actually pointed his finger at the media covering the event and told them to their face “You lie to the American public”
You will take my words and twist them and take me out of context.

Then he said he would rebuild the American military back to being the strongest fighting force in the world. So strong, nobody would risk crossing us.

What he said was many things many of us knew were true. But he did not have a filter of political correctness.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump finishes up speaking before a crowd of 3,500 Saturday, July 11, 2015, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump finishes up speaking before a crowd of 3,500 Saturday, July 11, 2015, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Donald Trump has a way of cutting through the political BS and we liked what we heard.

This nation is under assault. We are being destroyed right before our eyes.
America is exceptional, we are the leader of the free world, even after President Obama’s attempts to back all our enemies.
We are being crushed by political correctness and the needs of the minority instead of the majority.

America is ready for a leader not a politician. A man or woman who can cut through the B.S., tell the truth and put us back on the right path.

It is to be seen if he can survive, but looking at Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jessie Ventura, Al Franken and my hero Ronald Reagan, I would not be surprised to see the Donald take it all the way in a landslide. It could happen!

If so I will express joy in seeing the Republican establishment squirm and be torn apart.

Maybe then we can restore a Government of the People, by the People and for the People that shall not perish from this earth that Abraham Lincoln spoke of.

The Pirate

unclesam1

Hillary destabilized the Middle East and made MILLIONS for her and Bill

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

466520736
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Yana Paskova/Getty Images

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes.

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

Winning Friends, Influencing Clintons

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions — a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and “as appropriate” the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., urged the Clinton Foundation to “forswear” accepting contributions from governments abroad. “Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,” he said. The Clintons did not take Lugar’s advice. In light of the weapons deals flowing to Clinton Foundation donors, advocates for limits on the influence of money on government action now argue that Lugar was prescient in his concerns.

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”

Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.

“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the ‘favor bank’ and to be well thought of,” said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.

Questions about the nexus of arms sales and Clinton Foundation donors stem from the State Department’s role in reviewing the export of American-made weapons. The agency is charged with both licensing direct commercial sales by U.S. defense contractors to foreign governments and also approving Pentagon-brokered sales to those governments. Those powers are enshrined in a federal law that specifically designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In that role, Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject deals for a broad range of reasons, from national security considerations to human rights concerns.

The State Department does not disclose which individual companies are involved in direct commercial sales, but its disclosure documents reveal that countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a combined $75 billion increase in authorized commercial military sales under the three full fiscal years Clinton served, as compared to the first three full fiscal years of Bush’s second term.

The Clinton Foundation has not released an exact timetable of its donations, making it impossible to know whether money from foreign governments and defense contractors came into the organization before or after Hillary Clinton approved weapons deals that involved their interests. But news reports document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia.

Sales Flowed Despite Human Rights Concerns

Under a presidential policy directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to specifically take human rights records into account when deciding whether to approve licenses enabling foreign governments to purchase military equipment and services from American companies. Despite this, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such sales to nations that her agency sharply criticized for systematic human rights abuses.

In its 2010 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department inveighed against Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption,” and a “lack of judicial independence.” The report said the Algerian government “used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria — nearly triple such authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose Algeria’s donation until this year — a violation of the ethics agreement it entered into with the Obama administration.

The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term. The department also approved the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.

Clinton foundation donor countries that the State Department criticized for human rights violations and that received weapons export authorizations did not respond to IBTimes’ questions.

That group of arms manufacturers — along with Clinton Foundation donors Boeing, Honeywell, Hawker Beechcraft and their affiliates — were together listed as contractors in 114 such deals while Clinton was secretary of state. NBC put Chelsea Clinton on its payroll as a network correspondent in November 2011, when it was still 49 percent owned by General Electric. A spokesperson for General Electric did not respond to questions from IBTimes.

The other companies all asserted that their donations had nothing to do with the arms export deals.

“Our contributions have aligned with our longstanding philanthropic commitments,” said Honeywell spokesperson Rob Ferris.

“Even The Appearance Of A Conflict”

During her Senate confirmation proceedings in 2009, Hillary Clinton declared that she and her husband were “committed to ensuring that his work does not present a conflict of interest with the duties of Secretary of State.” She pledged “to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work and the duties of the Secretary of State” and said that “in many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation or President Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict.”

Even so, Bill Clinton took in speaking fees reaching $625,000 at events sponsored by entities that were dealing with Hillary Clinton’s State Department on weapons issues.

In 2011, for example, the former president was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual awards gala, which was held at the home of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Ben Affleck spoke at the event, which featured a musical performance by Grammy-award winner Michael Bolton. The gala was emceed by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. Boeing was listed as a sponsor of the event, as were the embassies of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar — the latter two of which had donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

The speaking fee from the Kuwait America Foundation to Bill Clinton was paid in the same time frame as a series of deals Hillary Clinton’s State Department was approving between the Kuwaiti government and Boeing. Months before the gala, the Department of Defense announced that Boeing would be the prime contractor on a $693 million deal, cleared by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to provide the Kuwaiti government with military transport aircraft. A year later, a group sponsored in part by Boeing would pay Bill Clinton another $250,000 speaking fee.

“Boeing has sponsored this major travel event, the Global Business Travel Association, for several years, regardless of its invited speakers,” Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing spokesperson, told IBTimes. Johndroe said Boeing’s support for the Clinton Foundation was “a transparent act of compassion and an investment aimed at aiding the long-term interests and hopes of the Haitian people” following a devastating earthquake.

Boeing was one of three companies that helped deliver money personally to Bill Clinton while benefiting from weapons authorizations issued by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The others were Lockheed and the financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Lockheed is a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to speak at an event in 2010. Three days before the speech, Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved two weapons export deals in which Lockheed was listed as the prime contractor. Over the course of 2010, Lockheed was a contractor on 17 Pentagon-brokered deals that won approval from the State Department. Lockheed told IBTimes that its support for the Clinton Foundation started in 2010, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

“Lockheed Martin has periodically supported one individual membership in the Clinton Global Initiative since 2010,” said company spokesperson Katherine Trinidad. “Membership benefits included attendance at CGI annual meetings, where we participated in working groups focused on STEM, workforce development and advanced manufacturing.”

In April 2011, Goldman Sachs paid Bill Clinton $200,000 to speak to “approximately 250 high level clients and investors” in New York, according to State Department records obtained by Judicial Watch. Two months later, the State Department approved a $675 million foreign military sale involving Hawker Beechcraft — a company that was then part-owned by Goldman Sachs. As part of the deal, Hawker Beechcraft would provide support to the government of Iraq to maintain a fleet of aircraft used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Goldman Sachs has also contributed at least $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to donation records.

“There is absolutely no connection among all the points that you have raised regarding our firm,” said Andrew Williams, a spokesperson for Goldman Sachs.

Federal records show that ethics staffers at the State Department approved the payments to Bill Clinton from Goldman Sachs, and the Lockheed- and Boeing-sponsored groups without objection, even though the firms had major stakes in the agency’s weapons export decisions.

Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, told IBTimes that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, defense contractors and foreign governments seeking weapons approvals is “a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”

“It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t,” he said. “American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn’t an issue. And that was probably better.”

Proof that Obama is a Liar a Hypocrite or both. He does not keep promises.

The Boston Globe

Barack Obama’s Q&A

By Charlie Savage

Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

Text size – +

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops — either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.

7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president’s authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?

No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

Disagree strongly.

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court’s several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

Some further points:

The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

11. Who are your campaign’s advisers for legal issues?

Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University

Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago

Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)

Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)

12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama #Bravo #Benghazi #IRS #NSA

Today, 19:09

Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama

Барак Обама g8 саммит северная ирландия

Photo: EPA

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“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.

THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

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.”

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

ARTICLE 1

He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.

Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (3) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.

Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:

On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.

Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars. It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.

ARTICLE 2

He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’

ARTICLE 3

He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

ARTICLE 4

He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.

ARTICLE 5

He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012.

Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington — Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.

ARTICLE 6

He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012.

ARTICLE 7

He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.

ARTICLE 8

He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.

ARTICLE 9

He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ARTICLE 10

He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined. Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.

Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

#Benghazi It’s about Gunrunning #Stupid Obama, Clinton in their own Iran Contra but WORSE

Mainstream Media on Benghazi: It Was About Gun-running

Written by  

  • Mainstream Media on Benghazi: It Was About Gun-running

The mainstream media in the United States have increasingly come to the conclusion that the Benghazi attacks were related to a secret gun-running operation managed by the U.S. government to ferry weapons that had been used by Libyan rebels to Syria. Establishment media outlets reporting on the reputed CIA gun-running operation over the past week included Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, London’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, and CNN television. The New American reported the same likely theory back in October and December 2012.

The September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks against the U.S. government compound in Benghazi in Libya resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Stevens was officially on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, though it has become abundantly clear that the U.S. “Special Mission Compound” building had more to do with the CIA than diplomacy. The idea that Stevens could have been involved in redirecting arms from Libya to Syria is hardly a stretch. He had the perfect résumé for gun-running, as he had helped manage gun-running to the Libyan rebels during the insurgency against former dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The White Housenamed Stevens liaison to the Libyan rebels in March 2011, months before Gadhafi’s August 2011 ouster.

The August 1 CNN story on Benghazi mentioned above reported the gun-running story only as “speculation,” but CNN charged that there were “dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during the Benghazi attack,” and that “the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.” These attempts include “frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” in an attempt to intimidate witnesses who may be called before congressional investigators.

The CIA has responded to the CNN story with denials that it is trying to quash whistleblowers. “CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,” a CIA statement to the August 2 London Telegraph claimed. “The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.”

Of course, the same cannot be said of State Department employees. State Department officer Gregory Hicks told congressional investigators, in the words of the New York Times, that he “was later ‘effectively demoted’ to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up” to congressional investigators.

The most significant impact of the revelations of the gun-running operations lies in the fact that gun-running to oust a foreign government is an act of war, and the gun-running had not been authorized by Congress (which has the exclusive power over war under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).

Almost as important as the constitutional violations is that revelations of a gun-running operation would put the lie to the Obama administration’s reports on Benghazi. A petulant December 2012 report by the U.S. State Department’s Accountability Review Board (under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) investigating Benghazi put all the blame on Congress for the deaths: “One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives.” The report also concluded that “the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.”

The Accountability Review Board report didn’t touch on anything resembling an alleged gun-running operation other than a passing reference that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to meet with an unnamed “Turkish diplomat” on an undisclosed topic. The gun-running story — as originally reported in both The New American and Fox News back in October — involved the distribution of Libyan guns to Syria through Turkey, which borders Syria.

According to Fox News Channel back on October 25, 2012:

“Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means ‘The Victory,’ was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.” Arms being sent to Syria reportedly included Libyan-owned, Russian-made anti-aircraft weapons called MANPADS.

That same Fox News story also noted that the Turkish-based charity that chartered the ship denied it had been involved in gun-running. According to Fox News, the Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) in published Turkish reports said it “will take legal action against this article which was written without concrete evidence. It is defamatory, includes false and unfair accusations and violates publishing ethics.”

Gun-running revelations would also cast the CIA talking points memo scandal in a completely different light.

A September 14 draft CIA memo on Benghazi noted: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.” This reference was deleted before the final version was released, and the White House stressed: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

Benghazi wasn’t the first time unauthorized gun-running schemes initiated by the Obama administration have cost American lives. Indeed, the Obama administration — though it has publicly attacked America’s gun laws for American civilians as not restrictive enough — has a long history of gun-running. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (still known as ATF) gave some 2,000 high-powered weapons to Mexican-based drug cartels in 2009 and then lost track of the guns. The death toll from weapons used in the ATF program (dubbed “Fast and Furious”), according to the Dallas Morning News, is “more than 200 deaths to Fast and Furious weapons,” and it is continuing to rise. Among the dead was U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul noticed this pattern back in May: “The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.” The former congressman added: “The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.”

Photo of gunmen in Benghazi, Libya: AP Images