Tuesday, June 30, 2015

DEMOCRATIC PARTY- "RULES FOR RADICALS" PART #1, - THE COMMUNIST ELITIST MARXIST THUG, SAUK ALINSKY”



"RULES FOR RADICALS" PART #1, - THE COMMUNIST ELITIST MARXIST THUG, SAUK ALINSKY”
WHAT MOST PEOPLE……….. DON’T KNOW!-
Hillary Clinton was a friend of, and worked for, this communist thug and is a disciple of his, as are Bill Clinton and Obama, and most of the elitist Marxist left.
Essentially, Alinsky says when you want to change (or in our Dear Leader Obama's word "TRANSFORM") a culture or nation like America, ANYTHING you have to do to win is OK.
Lie, cheat, steal, character assassination, ANYTHING to destroy your opponent and achieve your ends. In other words, the old "The ends justify the means" crap pushed by all tyrants throughout history. The character assassination and ultimate defeat of Mitt Romney is a classic example of this philosophy in action.
If conservatives and other lovers of America,…. the last beacon of personal freedom for all mankind, ever hope to defeat these totalitarian Marxists, they will unfortunately have to take off the gentlemanly gloves and adopt similar tactics or watch while their way of life is destroyed. In today's American politics, again unfortunately, most good guys……………. finish last!

Monday, June 29, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES..... & GOD

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES..... & GOD

"GOD... gives us choices and HE gives us rules to live by... We can choose to follow HIM or.... choose to disobey HIM... For which there are results... for each choice that we make"!!!

When I was a young child... My aunt took me to her church, it was actually a cult type... Christian Scientist...(I soon stopped going), and as I sat there and listened even as a young child, I felt "SOMETHING" was missing.... and that feeling grew as each Sunday that passed, to the point I kept coming home and asking my mother and father.... "WHERE IS GOD in all of this"?! We are "NEVER TO DENY THE DIVINITY OF GOD"!

Now..... years and years later, as I fight against injustice, and against corruption not only in America... I am SO deeply sad and FULL OF DISGRACE against the United States Supreme Court, who has NOW just lost their INTEGRITY!..... and sadly I think to myself and ponder the ideas that made our nation, America great... I ask myself this one simple thing.....
“Since a collective faith in the God of the Bible has been evident in American society since the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, AND since the Declaration of Independence, our founding document, sometimes referred to as America’s Charter, is abounding with references to God as “Nature’s God”, “Creator”, “divine Providence” and “the Supreme Judge of this world”….. I now ask myself and others…… . WHERE IS GOD IN ALL OF THIS"?!....... Because WE as Americans are "NEVER TO DENY THE DIVINITY OF GOD… in our lives, in our hearts…. And as Americans…….IN OUR COUNTRY”!

#TakingBackAmerica @AguilaFreedom

Friday, June 26, 2015

CONFEDERATE FLAG – THE TRUTH THE LIBERALS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!

CONFEDERATE FLAG – THE TRUTH THE LIBERALS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!

STOP THE “LIBERAL REVISIONIST HISTORY”! - KNOW THE FACTS!
DEMOCRATS “LIBERALS”…. ARE AGAIN TWISTING HISTORICAL FACTS REGARDING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG!
KNOW THE FACTS FIRST!!! So here is a brief American history about the Democrats, Republicans and Racism for you.
The liberals (Democrats) are trying to bait the conservative (Republicans) into a senseless debate on the use of the Confederate flag in South Carolina. But for the clueless and ignorant, THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS A DEMOCRAT BATTLE FLAG IN THE SOUTH THAT FOUGHT THE NORTHERN REPUBLICANS FOR SLAVERY. THE DEMOCRATS WERE PRO-SLAVERY AND REPUBLICANS WERE ANTI-SLAVERY. It was a Republican president (Abe Lincoln) that abolished slavery. A Democrat then founded KKK (Klu Klux Klan) that became a Democrat social club meant to intimidate black and white Republicans. It was the Democrats that created Jim Crow (segregation) and blocked the Republican efforts to grant citizenship to blacks. So if you hear of Democrats accusing the Republicans of racism, they are twisting facts and using demagoguery TO GET VOTES from the uninformed and clueless though racism is not a monopoly of a certain party, race, culture and religion. There are always racists among us in the world. Barack Obama and Al Sharpton are examples of "reversed" racists. Both these two are race-baiters and I've already enumerated before examples of their racism based on their actions.
When history is distorted someone needs to re-post the FACTS…
Because “FACTS REMAIN UNCHANGED”!
The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.
History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispel some of these rampant inaccuracies.
MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.
FACT - Terribly Untrue! THE NORTH FOUGHT THE WAR OVER MONEY. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WHEN THE SOUTH STARTED SECESSION, LINCOLN WAS ASKED, "WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH GO IN PEACE?" TO WHICH HE REPLIED, "I CAN'T LET THEM GO. WHO WOULD PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT?" SENSING TOTAL FINANCIAL RUIN FOR THE NORTH, LINCOLN WAGED WAR ON THE SOUTH. THE SOUTH FOUGHT THE WAR TO REPEL NORTHERN AGGRESSION AND INVASION.
MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves!
FACT - Entirely untrue! MANY NORTHERN CIVILIANS OWNED SLAVES. PRIOR TO, DURING AND EVEN AFTER THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION. SURPRISINGLY, TO MANY HISTORY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS, MOST UNION GENERALS AND STAFF HAD SLAVES TO SERVE THEM! WILLIAM T. SHERMAN HAD MANY SLAVES THAT SERVED HIM UNTIL WELL AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER AND DID NOT FREE THEM UNTIL LATE IN 1865. U.S. GRANT ALSO HAD SEVERAL SLAVES, WHO WERE ONLY FREED AFTER THE 13TH AMENDMENT IN DECEMBER OF 1865. WHEN ASKED WHY HE DIDN'T FREE HIS SLAVES EARLIER, GRANT STATED "GOOD HELP IS SO HARD TO COME BY THESE DAYS. "CONTRARILY, CONFEDERATE GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE FREED HIS SLAVES (WHICH HE NEVER PURCHASED - THEY WERE INHERITED) IN 1862!!! LEE FREED HIS SLAVES SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE WAR WAS OVER, AND CONSIDERABLY EARLIER THAN HIS NORTHERN COUNTERPARTS. AND DURING THE FIERCE EARLY DAYS OF THE WAR WHEN THE SOUTH WAS OBLITERATING THE YANKEE ARMIES!
Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.
FACT - NONE OF THE FLAGS OF THE CONFEDERACY OR SOUTHERN NATION EVER FLEW OVER A SLAVE SHIP. NOR DID THE SOUTH OWN OR OPERATE ANY SLAVES SHIPS. THE ENGLISH, THE DUTCH AND THE PORTUGUESE BROUGHT SLAVES TO THIS COUNTRY, NOT THE SOUTHERN NATION.
BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.
These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products made from raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.
This is the problem with Yankee History its overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.
FACT - Not true! WHILE THE SOUTHERN BATTLE FLAG WAS CARRIED INTO BATTLE, THE SOUTHERN NATION HAD 3 DIFFERENT NATIONAL FLAGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WAR.
THE FIRST NATIONAL FLAG WAS CHANGED DUE TO A RESEMBLANCE OF THE US FLAG.
THE SECOND NATIONAL FLAG WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED DUE TO THE SIMILARITY TO A FLAG OF TRUCE.
THE THIRD NATIONAL FLAG WAS THE ADOPTED FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY.
The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Stars & Bars".
FACT - A common misconception! THE FIRST NATIONAL CONFEDERATE FLAG IS CORRECTLY KNOWN AS THE "STARS & BARS". THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG IS KNOWN AS THE "SOUTHERN CROSS".
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.
FACT - THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG TODAY FINDS ITSELF IN THE CENTER OF MUCH CONTROVERSY AND HOOPLA GOING ON IN SEVERAL STATES. THE CRY TO TAKE THIS FLAG DOWN IS UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG WAS SIMPLY JUST THAT. A BATTLE FLAG. IT WAS NEVER EVEN A NATIONAL FLAG, SO HOW COULD IT HAVE FLOWN OVER A SLAVE NATION OR REPRESENTED SLAVERY OR RACISM? THIS MYTH IS CONTINUED BY LACK OF EDUCATION AND IGNORANCE. THOSE THAT VILIFY THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG ARE VERY CONFUSED ABOUT HISTORY AND HAVE JUMPED UPON A BANDWAGON WITH LOOSE WHEELS.
MYTH – Then, The United States Flag represented freedom.
FACT - No chance. THE US FLAG FLEW OVER A SLAVE NATION FOR OVER 85 YEARS! THE NORTH TOLERATED SLAVERY AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS A DIVISION OF LABOR. THE NORTH MADE A VAST FORTUNE ON SLAVERY AND IT'S COMMODITIES. IT WASN'T UNTIL THE SOUTH DECIDED TO LEAVE THE UNION THAT THE NORTH OBJECTED. THE NORTH KNEW IT COULD NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT THE SOUTHERN MONEY. THAT IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY.
MYTH - The South revered slavery.
FACT - A very interesting fact on slavery is that AT THE TIME THE WAR OF 1861 -1865 OFFICIALLY COMMENCED, THE SOUTHERN STATES WERE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF FREEING ALL SLAVES IN THE SOUTH. RUSSIA HAD FREED IT'S SERVANTS IN 1859, AND THE SOUTH TOOK GREAT NOTE OF THIS. HAD MILITARY INTERVENTION NOT BEEN FORCED UPON THE SOUTH, A VERY DIFFERENT AMERICA WOULD HAVE BEEN REALIZED THEN AS WELL AS NOW.
MYTH - The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.
FACT - Very far from the truth! THE VAST MAJORITY OF SOLDIERS IN THE CONFEDERATE ARMY WERE SIMPLE MEN OF MEAGER INCOME. MOST OF WHICH WERE HARD WORKING FARMERS AND COMMON MEN. THEN, AS NOW, VERY FEW RICH MEN EVER FIGHT A WAR.
MYTH - Only the North had men of color in their ranks.
FACT - Quite simply a major falsehood of history! MANY BLACKS, BOTH FREE AND OF THEIR OWN WILL, JOINED THE CONFEDERATE ARMY TO FIGHT FOR THEIR BELOVED SOUTHERN HOME. ADDITIONALLY, MEN OF OTHER ETHNIC EXTRACTION FOUGHT AS WELL. ORIENTAL, MEXICAN & SPANISH MEN AS WELL AS NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS FOUGHT WITH PRIDE FOR THE SOUTH.
Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.
MYTH - The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.
FACT - Quite the contrary. These despicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pride fully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.
MYTH - The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.
FACT - This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever! The SCV - SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS ARE A HISTORICAL, PATRIOTIC AND NON-POLITICAL ORGANIZATION COMPRISED OF DESCENDENTS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS DEDICATED TO INSURING THAT A TRUE HISTORY OF THE 1861 -1865 PERIOD IS PRESERVED AND PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC. THE SCV CONTINUES TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC OF THE MEMORY AND REPUTATION OF THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIER AS WELL AS THE MOTIVES FOR HIS SUFFERING AND SACRIFICE.
The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK!
@AguilaFreedom

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

STUDENT LOAN BILL- 37 SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK WARREN’S STUDENT LOAN BILL

37 SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK WARREN’S STUDENT LOAN BILL- Good!

Democrats…. And even some so called Republicans I hear Complaining that The Student Bill Was Blocked!
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS- Democrats give out free cell phones, pay the unpaid debt of lazy, irresponsible people who did not pay their Mortgages…. And gives discounted student loans who by the way are in debt of over usd 1 Trillion Dollars and not to mention Welfare Reforms, Immigration etc… whereas REPUBLICANS- want the poor and needy to “EARN THEIR BENEFITS”! ……..NOT to simply HAND OUT MONEY!.... make them LEARN A TRADE AND WORK then the Government can help! DEMOCRATS- “””STOP PUTTING THE COUNTRY IN DEBT”””! – its all political to try and make issues they can raise for the upcoming elections!
Let me ask you this..... when the Moron Obama PAID THE LATE AND OVER DUE MORTGAGES of the poor and irresponsible people in our country.. what happened?? - Obama had to print money.... then what happened next??? Recession hit! And with these damn loans.... that students NEVER PAY has now reached over 1 TRILLION dollars right??? if I remember correctly. so if we give them an open end incentive to payback what they never paid in the first place we will be more in debt as the years go by... does it make sense to raise the debt to 1.5 Trillion or more??? that is a huge burden on the country... let them be working students and take responsibility for themselves! Why Should the average Middle-class American family pay that! Because that is who it effects!
The Obama administration said Warren’s bill could have helped some 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans..... BUT if you consider the time span of the loan.... HOW MUCH MORE WILL THEY BE IN DEBT?? HOW MUCH MORE WILL IT COST THE COUNTRY???
Student loan debt has topped $1 trillion and emerged as a drag on the economy and on middle-class families across the country AND NOW YOU PEOPLE COMPLAIN AND WANT IT HIGHER??? MY GOD
Its the same thing as walking in to an emergency room at the hospital and seeing 23 illegal immigrants that YOU and ME have to pay for !!!!!! that they will never pay!
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation aimed at letting people refinance their student loans at lower rates, a pre-ordained outcome that gave Democrats a fresh election-year talking point against the GOP.
Republicans said the bill wouldn’t have done anything to lower education costs or reduce borrowing, and they accused Democrats of playing politics by highlighting an issue that was bound to fail.
‘‘The Senate Democrats’ bill isn’t really about students at all. It’s really all about Senate Democrats,’’ said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. ‘‘They want an issue to campaign on to save their own hides this November.’’
Student loan debt has topped $1 trillion and emerged as a drag on the economy and on middle-class families across the country, making it a ripe target for politicians ahead of midterm elections where Democrats risk losing their Senate majority. Wednesday’s vote followed two days where President Barack Obama highlighted the issue from the White House, announcing executive action to let more borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income.
And A REMINDER….. Some 40 million Americans have outstanding student loan debt totaling $1.2 trillion, making it the second-largest form of consumer debt, second only to mortgages, according to Warren’s office. People 60 and older account for some $43 billion of outstanding student loan debt!
And Lets Look At This... "$1,000,000,000,000 - 1 TRILLION DOLLARS
The 2011 US federal deficit was $1.412 Trillion - 41% more than you see here.
If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have
NOT spent $1 trillion by now...
but ~$700 billion- same amount the banks got during bailout!!!

Monday, June 22, 2015

NATO - BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Secretary Of Defense Carter says US will provide weapons, aircraft, forces for NATO

NATO - BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Secretary Of Defense Carter says US will provide weapons, aircraft, forces for NATO

MUNSTER, Germany – The U.S. will contribute weapons, aircraft and forces, including commandos, for NATO's rapid reaction force, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday, to help Europe defend against security threats, including Russia from the east and violent extremists from the south.
Under the plan, the U.S. will contribute intelligence and surveillance capabilities, special operations forces, logistics, transport aircraft, and a range of weapons support that could include bombers, fighters and ship-based missiles. It would not provide a large ground force.
Carter announced the new details about the U.S. contribution after meeting with defense ministers from Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. Those countries had agreed to provide the initial troops for the so-called very high readiness task force, which was announced last year at the NATO summit in Wales. The U.S. had pledged to support the task force, but NATO has been waiting to hear specifically what America was willing to provide.
U.S. officials said there have been no final decisions on the number of troops that could participate, or where they could come from. The officials said many of the forces could come from those already stationed in Europe. But the plan could result in a temporary increase in US forces in Europe in the event of a crisis, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss details of the agreement publicly.
No U.S. troops or equipment will move immediately, but instead they would be made available if requested, and approved by American leaders, in response to a crisis. Officials said the top U.S. commander in Europe, currently Gen. Phil Breedlove, would make the request for any troops or equipment needed.
Carter said the U.S. is contributing aid "because the United States is deeply committed to the defense of Europe, as we have been for decades."
His remarks in Munster came shortly after he delivered a speech in Berlin, calling for Germany and other NATO allies to stand together in the face of Russian aggression and other security threats in the region. But Carter insisted that no one is looking for another Cold War or new hot conflict with Moscow.
Speaking not far from Berlin's iconic Brandenburg Gate, Carter pointed to the progress that Europe has made since the end of the Cold War, and said Russia must not be allowed to turn back the clock.
"We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot war with Russia," Carter said at Atlantik Brucke, a Berlin think tank that focuses on the German-U.S. relationship. "We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake: we will defend our allies, the rules-based international order, and the positive future it affords us. We will stand up to Russia's actions and their attempts to re-establish a Soviet-era sphere of influence."
Carter's stop in Berlin is the first of several in Europe, where a key theme is how the United States, NATO and other partners can best deal with the Kremlin in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and its military backing of separatists battling Ukraine's government on the eastern border.
Part of the calculous, Carter said, will be a new playbook for NATO that deals with Russia's aggression while also recognizing its important role in the nuclear talks with Iran and the fight against Islamic State militants.
He said that as Russia modernizes its military, it also is trying to undermine NATO and threatening to erode economic and security stability with its recent nuclear sabre-rattling.
He also continued to urge Germany and others to adhere to promises made at the NATO summit in Wales last year and increase defense spending. He warned against a tendency for countries to turn inward.
Carter will next travel to Estonia, in Russia's backyard, and Brussels, where he will attend a meeting of defense ministers.
The Pentagon chief, who will attend his first NATO meeting as secretary of defense this week, said he wants to lay out a two-pronged approach to allies, which involves bolstering Europe's military ability to deter Russia's military actions, while working with Moscow to fight terrorism and hammer out a nuclear agreement with Iran.
Carter's trip comes as the European Union extended economic sanctions against Russia until January to keep pressure on Moscow over the conflict in eastern Ukraine. And it follows Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement that he will add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles that are capable of piercing any missile defenses.
In other comments during a question and answer session, Carter said the U.S. is already supporting Ukraine through training and other equipment, and that "we provide weapons to Ukraine." Officials clarified that the U.S. has still not decided to provide lethal weapons, but continues to provide defensive equipment such as radars.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

CONFEDERATE FLAG- KEEP THE FLAG & RESPECT THE FLAG FOR THE AMERICAN HERITAGE THAT IT REPRESENTS

“KEEP THE FLAG….. AND RESPECT THE FLAG - FOR THE AMERICAN HERITAGE IT REPRESENTS”
Unfortunately There Were, According To Department Of Justice Statistics, Approx. 6000 To 8000 Blacks Killed Each Year….. HOWEVER! Approx. 90% To 93% Of Blacks Killed, Were Killed By Other  Blacks! To Me, A Thug Is A Thug! Race Has No Play In It!.... We Need To Keep The Confederate Flag For The American Heritage That It Stands For and RESPECT THAT FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL!
COLUMBIA, S.C. 2011 — A black college student who drew complaints for displaying a Confederate flag in his dorm room window said he sees the banner as a symbol of Southern pride and not racism.

The 19-year-old student at the University of South Carolina Beaufort took the flag down at the university's request, but he said he's considering putting it back up after the officials relented. Byron Thomas has drawn nearly 70,000 views since he posted a video online in which he acknowledges: "I know it's kind of weird because I'm black."

In a telephone interview Thursday, Thomas said a class research project made him come to the belief that the flag's real meaning has been hijacked. He said he wants people to thoughtfully consider issues of race and not just knee-jerk reactions to such symbols.

"When I look at this flag, I don't see racism. I see respect, Southern pride," he said. "This flag was seen as a communication symbol" during the Civil War.

He said university officials asked him to take the banner down just before Thanksgiving after students and parents complained when it was seen by them on campus tours, but have since told him he can put it back up.

The freshman from North Augusta said his generation can eliminate the flag's negative power by adopting the banner as a symbol of Southern pride.

"I've been getting a lot of support from people. My generation is interested in freedom of speech," Thomas said.

But Thomas says his parents don't like the flag and he's concerned about their point of view, particularly since they pay his bills.

"I don't want to make my parents mad," he said. "I may wait until Monday to put it up."

He said he's unhappy about such things as labels, and he doesn't like the term "African-American," which makes him feel like "a half-citizen," since he wasn't born in Africa.

Thomas' roommate Blane Reed, who is white, said in a separate telephone interview that he never heard any complaints after Thomas put the flag up shortly after Labor Day. Each student has a separate bedroom and share living space with three others, the 18-year-old from Walhalla, S.C., said.

He said the flag was on the inside of Thomas' bedroom window and moved it later to the window in their common living area. But the week before Thanksgiving, Thomas was asked by his hall director to take it down from the window and put it anywhere inside the student apartment.

Thomas then posted a video on CNN's iReport website that has logged more than 69,000 viewings. An article in The Beaufort Gazette Thursday touched off dozens of comments, both pro and con.

"I think he's got a really good point. It's just a flag, and in and of itself, it doesn't have any racial meaning. It only has as much meaning as you put into it," said Reed.

He described his roommate as a hardworking student who attends church services regularly and hasn't let the incident interfere with his studies.

"Byron is really smart, very outgoing. He's one of the nicest people you would ever meet and he'd give you the shirt off his back," said Reed, a biology major.

University spokeswoman Candace Brasseur said Thursday in an email that about two-dozen students had raised the issue of the flag with the housing office or with a resident adviser. On Thursday, she forwarded an email the school had sent to its students and staff, informing them that officials had asked Thomas to remove the flag "out of respect for his fellow students' concerns."

However, the e-mail added, because of "USCB's firm belief in the First Amendment and its right of free speech, the University cannot and will not prohibit these flags or other symbols that our students choose to display."

Thomas is free to return it to his window if he wishes, Brasseur said.

USC Beaufort is one of eight campuses in the University of South Carolina system and has about 1,750 students, of which about 16.5 percent are African American, according to the school web site

 #WakeUpAmerica #KeepConfederateFlag @AguilaFreedom 

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ASKED TO NULLIFY AND VOID THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW

SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ASKED TO NULLIFY AND VOID THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW WHICH MALACANANG BRANDED THE PETITION AS “BASELESS”!
Shortly Before March 11th, 2015 I, Myself called on the Supreme Court with respect to the Unlawful and Unconstitutional BBL, Bangsamoro Basic Law which reads…… “There MUST BE an "INJUNCTION PLACED AGAINST THE B.B.L.".... I Am Calling On The Supreme Power Of The Land and For Her People Of The Republic Of The Philippines For The Supreme Court To LAWFULLY Place A Temporary Injunction On The B.B.L. Whereas By Doing So, The Legalities Can Be Reviewed And Will Be Able To Withdraw The B.B.L. From Enactment Thereof.”
THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGNTY- ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHO VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND SUPPORTS THIS UNLAWFUL ACT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR TREASON!!!
“The Supreme Court Needs To Show Its Integrity And Place An Injunction On The Enactment Of The Unlawful BBL Thereof.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ASKED TO NULLIFY AND VOID THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW
Former National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, Bishop Romulo Dela Cruz, Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Former Senator Kit Tatad, Archbishop Fernando Capalla And Former Justice Manuel Lazaro File A Petition To Review The Draft Bangsamoro Basic Law Before The Supreme Court Yesterday.
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) was asked yesterday to void the agreement forged by the government with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) for the proposed creation of a Bangsamoro entity in southern Philippines.
Petitioners Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) and former Negros Oriental representative Jacinto Paras asked the high court to declare unconstitutional the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), including the earlier Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) and its annexes.
Both alleged that the government peace panel committed grave abuse of discretion in signing the FAB and CAB on Oct. 12, 2012 and March 27, 2014, respectively, as both are mere revivals of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) forged by the previous administration with the MILF and which was declared unconstitutional by the high court in October 2008.
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) spokesman Emmanuel Fontanilla welcomed the filing of the petition, saying the CAB will abrogate the 1996 peace accord, which was brokered by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
“It’s a welcome development as this will highlight our position that the CAB runs counter to the provision of the Constitution,” Fontanilla told The STAR in a telephone interview.
He added that CAB is a betrayal of the 1996 agreement of the government and the MNLF because it deals with the same people and territory, recalling that the government abandoned the older agreement in its final stages.
Malacañang, which has repeatedly called for the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), questioned the timing of the petition and branded it as baseless.
“The government will be ready to answer once the Supreme Court directs us to do so. It is interesting that these challenges to the FAB and CAB come at this time,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
She described the timing as “quite odd” because the FAB and CAB were signed in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
She added that it was baseless to claim that the MILF would be receiving “humongous social, financial and political benefits” after the BBL’s passage.
“Using the word humongous was being hyperbolic and meant to skew the opinion of the public against the BBL,” Valte also said.
Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, leader of the House’s independent bloc and Philconsa president, said they are merely making sure that the BBL is consistent with the Constitution and contains no legal infirmities.
He reiterated his support for genuine peace in Mindanao “that can only be ensured if the BBL is legal and constitutional.”
VOID MEASURE:
In its 24-page petition, Philconsa argued that the agreements violated Article X Section 1 of the Constitution, which authorizes and recognizes only five territorial and political subdivisions – provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and autonomous regions.
The group pointed out that the power to create the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was vested only in the First Congress under the 1987 Constitution.
“We submit that without the prior constitutional amendments, the FAB proposal to establish the Bangsamoro to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as the New Political Entity (NPE) is unconstitutional and void,” it argued.
The group also reasoned that “axiomatically, all subsequent acts/issuances arising from, connected with or related to the FAB and CAB, such as the draft House Bill 4994 (or BBL), are odious and treacherous violations of the 1987 Constitution.”
Joined by former senator Francisco Tatad, former national security adviser Norberto Gonzales and archbishops Ramon Arguelles of Lipa, Fernando Capalla of Davao and Romulo de la Cruz of Zamboanga, the Philconsa argued that FAB and CAB granted concessions to the MILF beyond the powers of the President and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and existing laws.
“The FAB and CAB made a real and actual commitment to fully implement their letter and spirit by effecting the necessary amendments to the Constitution and existing laws. Lamentably, respondents (officials of the peace panel) in their official and personal capacities had neither power nor authority to commit the government to statutory changes,” the petitioners argued.
Philconsa added that the conduct of the peace process with the MILF violated Executive Order No. 125, as issued by former President Fidel Ramos, which requires the presence of a panel of advisers composed of one each from the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Cabinet to be designated by the President.
“Contrary to and in violation of EO 125, the GPNP (Government Peace Negotiating Panel) were not assisted by the panel of advisers. The different GPNPs conducted numerous negotiations, dialogues and face-to-face discussions with the MILF here and abroad, bereft of the presence of the requisite panel of advisers,” the group concluded.
Apart from voiding the CAB and FAB, Philconsa also asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of the two agreements and the allotment of funds to pursue activities to implement them.
Petitioners sought to enjoin the implementation of all other acts and issuances such as the BBL that are related to the FAB and CAB. They said the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law in Congress is a “fruit” of the two “unconstitutional” agreements.
Petitioners also asked the high court to issue mandamus directing the Commission on Audit (COA) to disallow the audit of all funds incurred by the government peace panel.
Named respondents in the petition were former government peace panel chief and now SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, chief peace negotiator Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, MILF peace panel head Mohagher Iqbal, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and the COA.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Paras, for his part, alleged that CAB and FAB are unconstitutional when they defined the “territory” and “territorial waters” of the proposed Bangsamoro entity.
Article V Section 1 of FAB defines “core territory” as covering the current territory of ARMM, plus the cities of Cotabato and Isabela. Article V Section 4 of the FAB, on the other hand, provided for “territorial waters” of the entity.
“The term territory is an element of statehood. Article X of the 1987 Constitution allows only the creation of an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, not a separate state or sub-state,” he argued in 34-page petition.
Article I Section 2 of the FAB provides that “the government of the Bangsamoro shall have ministerial form,” which Paras said pertains to a parliamentary form of government.
“The Constitution contemplates a structure of government that is anything except a parliamentary government,” he stressed.
Just like Philconsa, Paras believes that the CAB and FAB were similar to MOA-AD as he pointed out that “the CAB, particularly its FAB and corresponding annexes, were negotiated and signed without any public consultation.
“This means that the herein respondents acted in a whimsical, capricious, oppressive arbitrary and despotic manner when they negotiated and caused the signing of the CAB, particularly its FAB and its corresponding annexes,” he added.
He named Ferrer, presidential adviser on the peace process Teresita Deles and other representatives of the government peace panel Senen Bacani, Yasmin Busran-Lao and Mehol Sadain as respondents in his petition.
Paras did not name Leonen as a respondent, but sought his inhibition from the case.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

SOUTH CHINA SEA - CHINA'S SOUTH CHINA SEA CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS OWN HISTORICAL RECORDS

CHINA'S SOUTH CHINA SEA CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS OWN HISTORICAL RECORDS

SCMP- CHINA
Is China starting down a path similar to that followed by Japan and Germany before 1945, when nationalism backed by new economic clout led to overconfidence and adventures which eventually proved disastrous?

The question needs asking in the context of China's latest moves ultimately aimed at making the South China Sea into a Chinese lake. Beijing has been railing against a US over flight of a China-controlled islet being expanded with a massive dredging operation.

Mainland-based academics have rushed to condemn this "dangerous provocation". Yet the brutal fact is that no international body or significant state recognizes China's claim that the sea and its islets and shoals are its territory; least of all neighboring states.

The artificial expansion of the islets may be more for show than to provide any significant strategic advantage. They may even prove impermanent, should they be hit by monster typhoons. But they are part of a pattern which in 2013 saw Chinese vessels occupy the Scarborough Shoal and drive out Philippine fishermen. The shoal lies well within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone and had long been fished by boats from nearby Luzon. The seizure was an act of imperialism.

The US, like any other country, has a right to overfly territory which is not officially acknowledged as part of this or that nation. The same applies to features occupied by Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia. China's claim that its reclamations are to improve security are viewed with derision by its neighbors. But those people do not count. They do not exist in the version of history by which Beijing claims the whole sea, stretching to the coast of Borneo, as defined by its nine-dash line, on the basis that the Chinese had always been in command of the sea.

Given that Hong Kong last week celebrated the Buddha's birthday, it is worth recalling the relevance of China's experience with Buddhism to the question of the sea. Far from showing Chinese maritime command, China's own records show clearly that long before Chinese vessels first became active - during the Song dynasty - shipping between China and the Strait of Malacca, and even to southern India, was the preserve of mariners from Sumatra, Java, Borneo and south and central Vietnam, with Tamils and Arabs later becoming major players.

The leading centre of Buddhism in Southeast Asia was the Srivijayan capital, Palembang, in Sumatra, to which Chinese Buddhist monks travelled on Srivijayan ships to study, sometimes proceeding from there to Sri Lanka or India.

A 7th-century Chinese monk wrote of it: "There are more than 1,000 Buddhist monks whose spirit is turned only to study and good actions. They study all possible subjects like in India." A Chinese wanting to study in India needed to go there "to learn how to behave properly".

Chinese texts from as early as the 3rd century refer in detail to ships from Sumatra more than 50 meters in length and able to carry 600 people plus cargo. By the 6th century, trade between Srivijaya and ports around the South China Sea was very regular, with the journey to Canton usually taking 30 to 40 days. Other links included routes from Butuan in northeastern Mindanao to the Cham ports, such as Nha Trang. Javanese traders had a settlement near Manila in the 9th century, long before Chinese settled there.

The single largest driver of trade was Chinese demand for and supply of luxury goods, buying aromatics, ivory, spices and tropical forest products and selling silk and porcelain and other goods. For a thousand years, the traders were primarily the people of island and coastal Southeast Asia - the Austronesia’s whose seamanship enabled them to colonize the island world from the eastern Pacific to Madagascar. It was also an era where India was the main outside cultural influence on the region, spreading Buddhism, Hinduism, writing systems and kingship ideas.

Yes, this was a long time ago, but Chinese claims today are best refuted by China's own written records, be they of Buddhist monks or in dynastic annals reporting trade missions and accounts of travelers to the southern lands. Chinese documents are the single most important source for the early history of maritime Southeast Asia and conform to evidence in more fragmentary Tamil, Javanese, Malay and Arab records.

Even though Chinese merchants and settlers in the region's ports came to play a major role in commerce, they always shared these roles, whether with the Arabs, the Muslim sultanates and later the Europeans. China only twice briefly attempted to use force to impose its will on the maritime region, during the Mongol period when an invasion of Java failed, and briefly during the Zheng He voyages of the early Ming.


Communist party governments everywhere, not just in China, are notorious for rewriting history. But if Beijing wants to know why it feels surrounded by enemies, it should ask itself the reason: riding roughshod over the interests and identities of its neighbors, raising issues of "unequal treaty" borders and engaging in colonialism in Xinjiang and Tibet, by fostering Han settlement to undermine the ethnic identity of those once-independent nations.

Friday, June 5, 2015

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION- STRAIT OF MALACCA

STRAIT OF MALACCA – “FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION”

There are still those narrow minded people who think the United States wants so called control of the south china sea for oil or other minerals etc so I would like to make clear one of the main reasons to “protect the International waterways” called the “Strait of Malacca” keeping in mind the worldly importance of FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION in International waters, not only for the security of the United States, and Asian countries but as well for a global trade aspect.

The Strait of Malacca, is a narrow, 550 mile stretch of water between the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia) and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, and the most narrow part is only about 1.7 miles wide. Globally the Strait of Malacca is the worlds 3rd busiest waterway with over 94,000+  ships passing through it each year, with a minimum of 50 Million barrels of oil passing through it every year carrying about one-third of the world's traded goods. About a quarter of all oil carried by sea passes through the Strait, mainly from Persian Gulf suppliers to Asian markets. It is a very dangerous area, not only because of the shipping lane traffic…. But as well piracy… as a International maritime institution which started in 1992, made a first estimate of piracy cases in the year of 2004 I believe it was and the number of piracy cases recorded were 445 per year!

The United States Secretary of Defense, Carter has been vocal about US opposition to Chinese land reclamation. He flew himself, over the crowded Strait of Malacca, in part to emphasize the need for continued freedom of navigation in the region. The busy waterway is “a very striking example of the link between security and prosperity and the importance of having security and stability in the Pacific,” a Pentagon official in the Carter survey observed.

“It is unclear how much farther China will go,” Carter said. “That is why this stretch of water has become the source of tension in the region and front-page news around the world. The United States will maintain a substantial presence in the region.” His statements were reported as some of the toughest on China’s island-building strategy that have come from a senior US official.

China obviously wants full control of the area and as well wants to have a possible way to assert its naval power throughout the whole China Sea / West Philippine Sea and The activity by China MUST STOP NOW…. Before there will be a serious Military confrontation.

OBAMA- ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA –

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA –
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

I have prepared these updated formal Articles of Impeachment as a Constitutional lawyer. They are in proper legal form and all allegations are provable. We have now confirmed that at least one, and possibly more, members of Congress have submitted the articles to the House judiciary Committee for consideration. Please feel free to forward this to your representative in Congress.

Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney

Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the executive branch to increase its power and destroy the balance of powers between the three branches of government that is established by the Constitution of the United States.



The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1)  Shortly after being sworn in for his first term as President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama began creating new departments and appointing Czars to oversee these departments. These Czars were never submitted to the United States Senate for approval as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. In addition, these Czars and the Departments have budgets that are not subject to being controlled by Congress as provided for by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. He also made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and these appointments were struck down by the Supreme Court.



(2)  Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his oath of office has repeatedly ignored this Constitutional mandate by refusing to enforce laws against illegal immigration, defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and refusing to enforce Federal voting laws.



(3)  Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the U.S. government and sets forth the powers of the Senate and House of Representatives to make laws. These powers are exclusive and the Constitution does not grant the President the power to either make laws or amend them on his own. Barack Hussein Obama has ignored these provisions and made or changed laws by either issuing unconstitutional executive orders or instructing governmental departments to take illegal and unconstitutional actions. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   Ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to implement portions of the Cap & Trade bill that failed to pass in the U.S. Senate.

B.   Ordering implementation of portions of the “Dream Act” that failed to pass in Congress.

C.   Orchestrating a government takeover of a major part of the automobile industry in 2009.

D.   Ordering a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas exploration and production without approval of Congress.

E.   Signing an Executive Order on March 16, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch extraordinary powers to control and allocate resources such as food, water, energy and health care resources etc. in the interest of vaguely defined national defense issues. It would amount to a complete government takeover of the U.S. economy.

F.    Signing an Executive Order on July 6, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch the power to control all methods of communications in the United States based on a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.

G.  Signing an Executive Order on January 6, 2013 that contained 23 actions designed to limit the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

H.  Amending portions of the Affordable Healthcare Act and other laws passed by Congress without Congressional approval as required by Article 1 of the Constitution.

I.      Issuing Executive orders in January 2014 amending the HIPPA law to allow the turning over of confidential medical records to Federal agencies if there is any information to be used to add individuals to the NICS list to prohibit them from purchasing firearms.

J.     Having the EPA impose regulations on the coal industry that will force many utility companies and coal mines out of business. This will cost the U.S. economy thousands of jobs and dramatically increase the cost of energy to the public. This is being done without Congressional approval.

K.  Hindering the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol Agency to not only stop illegal immigration, but to stop human and drug trafficking.

L.   Removing the work requirement from welfare reform legislation without Congressional approval.



Article II

(1) Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that from time to time the President “shall give to Congress information on the State of the Union….” Implicit in this is an obligation for the President to be truthful with the Congress and the American people. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office and the requirements of the Constitution by willfully withholding information on important issues or actively taken part in misleading the Congress and the American people. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   Using Executive privilege to block Congress from getting documents relating to the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious and the death of U.S. Border Patrol Brian Terry.

B.   Had members of his administration provide false information about the act of terrorism committed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and refusing to allow the State Department and other federal agencies to cooperate in the Congressional investigation.

C.   Falsely labeled the mass murder of American soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas as “workplace violence” instead of the act of Islamic terrorism it was.

D.   Falsely labeling the IRS targeting of conservative and Christian groups as a “phony” scandal and refusing to order an active pursuit of the investigation into who was ultimately responsible.

E.   Refusing to order an independent investigation of the actions of Eric Holder and the DOJ in targeting the phone records of members of the news media.

F.    Telling the American people on a television show that the NSA was not prying into the emails and phone calls of Americans when the facts prove otherwise.



(2) The oath of office of the President of the United States requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This obviously includes what may be the most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office by seeking to limit both the individual rights and the rights of the States guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.    Having the Department of Health and Human Services order religious institutions and businesses owned by religious families to provide their employees free contraception and other services that are contrary to their religious beliefs. This is being done under the auspices of the Affordable Health Care Act and violates the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment. 

B.    Having the military place restrictions on the religious freedom of Chaplains and other members of the military in order to favor gay rights advocates and atheists in violation of the First Amendment.

C.    Having the military place restrictions on the freedom of speech of members of the military and the civilian employees of the DOD in violation of their rights under the First Amendment.

D.    Using Executive orders and government agency actions to limit Second Amendment rights. This includes actions by the Veterans Administration to disarm American veterans without due process as required by the Fifth Amendment.

E.    Having the National Security Agency intercept and monitor the private communications of millions of Americans without a court order and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

F.     Joining with foreign governments in lawsuits against sovereign U.S. states to prohibit them from enforcing immigration laws. This is in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

G.   Filing suits under the Voting Rights Act against sovereign U.S. states to prevent them from enforcing Voter ID laws despite rulings by the Supreme Court upholding these laws. This is another violation of the Tenth Amendment and the balance of powers.

H.   Having the IRS propose new regulations on conservative 501 (C ) (4) organizations to limit their freedom of speech and political activities during election cycles in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I.      Having the FCC prepare new rules on internet neutrality in violation of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down such regulations.

J.     Having the FCC institute a plan to place agents in newsrooms of radio and television stations as well as print media to monitor whether they are providing the “proper” news content to the public, a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

K.   Having the Secretary of State sign the U.N. Small Arms Treaty despite the opposition of a majority of the U.S. Senate and with full awareness that the implementation of the treaty would violate the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.



(3) Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the United States military and as such is responsible for using them in a manner that best serves the national security of the United States and protects our soldiers from unnecessary risks and harm. Barack Hussein Obama has violated his oath of office in this regard. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   In the name of “political correctness,” he imposed unnecessary and dangerous rules of engagement on our troops in combat causing them to lose offensive and defensive capabilities and putting them in danger. Many American service personnel have been killed or wounded as a result of this policy.

B.   Releasing the identity of American military personnel and units engaged in dangerous and secret operations such as the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy Seal team 6.

C.   Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Yet, without consulting Congress President Obama ordered the American military into action in Libya.

D.   Having the Attorney General tell Secretaries of State that they do not have to comply with the Federal law requiring states to timely send absentee ballots to military personnel.



Article III

(1) Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the President as Commander in Chief of the United States Military. This requires him to use his power and authority to oversee the proper use of the military to properly protect and defend the people and territory of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. He is further responsible for using the U.S. military in a manner that is effective and protects members of the military and takes proper care of veterans.

The President takes an oath of office that encompasses these duties. Barack Hussein Obama has consistently violated these duties and violated his oath. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A.   Imposing Rules of Engagement on the active military in war zones that have unnecessarily endangered the lives of American soldiers.

B.   Allowed the leaking of classified information about U.S. military operations to the media in order to enhance his political image. Such leaks place the lives of U.S. soldiers in danger.

C.   Despite being informed in 2009 of problems in the Veterans Administration involving treatment of veterans, took no action improve the situation, but instead ordered the VA to spend a major part of its budget on green energy projects at VA facilities instead on veteran care.

D.   Endangered the lives of members of the American military and American civilians by negotiating with terrorists to trade five high level Taliban leaders in exchange for an American soldier who deserted his post and his fellow soldiers. In addition, he did the foregoing action in violation of Federal law since he did not provide the legally required thirty day notice to members of Congress of his intent to release prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

E.   Continues to refuse to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress in violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, and further has used illegal and unconstitutional Executive orders to grant amnesty or de-facto amnesty to illegal aliens currently in the United States.

F.   Has deliberately destroyed the morale and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents by interfering with their attempts to fulfill their oath of office and enforce laws legally passed by the U.S. Congress.

G.   By his deliberate actions encouraged parents of thousands of children in Central America to send their children, often unaccompanied by adults, across the U.S. border and then asking for billions of taxpayer dollars to care for these children.

H.   Ordered the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security to place thousands of these children on buses or planes and dumping them in communities around the country; often without any prior notifications to the local elected officials in these communities.

I.   Allowed the TSA to let these children, as well as possible teenage gang members and unidentified to fly in U.S. Airlines at taxpayer expense without proper identification required by Federal law.

J.   Has refused to respond to lawful requests by Governors of the southern Border States to close the Southern border to any further illegal immigration and has created a severe financial crisis for Border States and other states in order to advance his own political agenda. 

K.   Has ordered the release of thousands of illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to be released and stay in the country after they have served their sentences. This violates the requirements of Federal law that such people be immediately deported.

L.   Ordered the immediate release of approximately 68,000 other criminals in Federal prisons that have been convicted of drug offenses. These actions endanger the lives and property of honest and law abiding American citizens that the President is legally and constitutionally required to protect.

M.   Has authorized the IRS, HHS, BATF, DHS, and EPA to propose new regulations not authorized by Congress that will adversely affect the rights of Americans protected by the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.



In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.


Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.