White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

     The reasons keep piling up to impeach this president. Where is Kuchinich or Harkin, or Sanders on this issue? Simple answer: they are hypocrites, one and all.
    
     ------lee

Political Punch
Jake Tapper
May 20, 2011 7:14 PM

     In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.
     “Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”
     A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”
     “The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
     From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
     The president thanked the congressional leaders – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky --- for the support that they have “demonstrated for this mission and for our brave service members, as well as your strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime.”
     The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”
     Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.”

 For more .....

Soetoro follows treasonous Bush, Clinton, and Bush II with LOST decrees

"...lack of full scientific certainty (italics by rng) shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

From Prisonplanet Forum

National Ocean Council
http://www.morphcity.com/home/79-national-ocean-council



By Cassandra Anderson
July 28, 2010

Thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama's Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Council for control over America's oceans, coastlines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states' coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations' Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 program. America'a oceans and coastlines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama's Executive Order is not Constitutional as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama's Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

In fact, our Constitutional form of government is being completely destroyed because buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a provision for a new council to oversee the outer continental shelf- it appears that this Regional Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council. This means that if Congress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the implementation of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National Ocean Council's agenda, will be "ratified" in a convoluted and stealth manner, in full opposition to the Constitution and its intent.

The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emergency in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama and Congress have always had the legal and military power to force BP Oil to take all necessary action to stop the gusher and clean the oil spew. While there is evidence that the problems in the Gulf have been a result of collusion and planned incompetence, it begs the question, why in world should America's oceans and resources be controlled by Obama appointees?

NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCIL MEMBERS:

John Holdren, Obama's science and technology advisor, is the co-chairman of this new council. He is also a depopulation enthusiast and advocates sterilization by way of using infertility drugs in water and food as well as forced abortions which he describes in his book "Ecoscience".

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of Interior, and its subagency, MMS (Minerals Management Service)has authority over offshore drilling and responsibility for enforcing spill prevention measures. The Department of Interior's BLM (Bureau of Land Management) is the entity that controls federally managed land extending across 30% of America in 11 western states. Last week, Congressman Louie Gohmert said that Ken Salazar personally prevented drilling on land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, thereby also preventing energy independence. In addition, the federal lands have been grossly mismanaged and present fire dangers. The federal government is $3.7 billion in arrears for maintenance of the federally managed lands.

US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, by way of the US Forestry Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service, has been complicit in the decline of our country's food independence. For example, US Fish & Wildlife (along with the Department of Commerce) shut the water off in California using Endangered Species Act; it was later proven that partially treated sewage was the primary culprit in killing the salmon and delta smelt that was previously blamed on farmers. This is phony environmentalism. The US Forestry Service has also misused the Endangered Species Act to limit farmers and ranchers. Remember that the USDA co-owns the Terminator Gene patent with Monsanto that makes seeds sterile.

Lisa Jackson is the EPA administrator who has threatened to impose 18,000 pages of new regulations to curb global warming which is based on lies, claiming that carbon dioxide is a danger to human health.

Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: it is unclear how these two federal appointees will enhance environmental 'sustainability' over oceans and coasts. Traditionally, national security threats (like the War on Terror) have been used by the federal government to take control of resources. For example, many years ago when the interstate highway systems were first being built, the Feds got in on the action by claiming that they were building a defense highway system, and they encroached into an area that belonged to the states. Interestingly, there were no overhead structures on highways originally because of the Feds' claim that large missiles would be transported on these "defense" highway systems.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, a leading globalist, is likely to plunge our country into international entanglements and subjugation, based on her past performance; an example is her support of the UN Small Arms Treaty, which is contrary to the Constitution.

Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke are logical choices for this destructive council as some of the planned funding for this program will come from permits and leases (oil drilling leases, for example). These agencies will limit America's energy independence.

Click here to see the full list of the 24 member council.

THE SMOKING GUN:

Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control, and the National Ocean Council is clearly an Agenda 21 program:

The National Ocean Council is headed by John Holdren, an avowed eugenicist which is selective breeding through brutal means like forced abortion.

The National Ocean Counci's own report (Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, pg. #8) incorporates a section of the 1992 Rio Declaration which is an original UN Agenda 21 document!

In fact, the report says that it will be guided by the Rio Declaration in cases "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." (pg. #8) This means that regulations will be imposed even if the science is not understood or if the science is based on global warming manipulated data.(6)


to read entire article (highly recommended)

Treason –The Obama Administration Drops CAIR Terror Financing Indictments [Updated]

from Ironic Surrealism

Islamic America hating vultures salivating at the thought of the opportunity to gnaw at the carcass of what was once was the greatest country in the world. Forget prosecuting terror on US soil, Muslim feelings are at stake!

It is a felony offense to know or have reason to know that seditious activity is underway and do nothing about it.  The term used in the U.S. Code for such a crime is “misprision of treason.” —Frank Gaffney

(PJM Exclusive) Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions?
High-level source concedes DOJ let off CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons.

Patrick Poole

Treason - The United States' Red Green Alliance - The Obama Administration and Terrorist Front CAIR

…a number of leaders of Islamic organizations (all of whom publicly opposed the King hearings on Muslim radicalization) were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges by the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which had been investigating the case for most of the past decade.But those indictments were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House. Included in those indictments was at least one of the co-founders of CAIR, based on “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” a March 31 DOJ legal memo from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler. A second DOJ official familiar with the investigation independently confirmed these details. Omar Ahmad is one of CAIR’s co-founders and its chairman emeritus. He was personally named, along with CAIR itself, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial in 2007 and 2008. During the trial FBI Agent Lara Burns testified that both Omar Ahmad and current CAIR executive director Nihad Awad were caught on FBI wiretaps attending a 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders in Philadelphia.

……

According to my source, the chief reason outlined in the DOJ memo declining to prosecute CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad was the issue of potential jury nullification. The first Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007 ended in a hung jury. When the case was retried in 2008, all five defendants, former executives of the Holy Land Foundation, were convicted on all 108 counts.

to read complete article 

Rep. Trent Franks Calls For Impeaching Obama If He Doesn’t Reverse Course On The Defense Of Marriage Act

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Tea Party Patriots Policy Summit in Phoenix, AZ.
For the hard right, there is no shortage of reasons to impeach President Obama.
Last year, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) hinted atimpeaching the president over the issue of immigration, saying that Obama was “awfully close” to violating his oath of office. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) followed up by threatening impeachment proceedings against Obama because of the phantom “birth certificate” issue.
Now, in the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.
After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support”:

KEYES: What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don’t reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?
FRANKS: That’s probably the strongest leverage that we have. [...]
KEYES: Is defunding, using that threat of defunding DOJ, something you would support?
FRANKS: Absolutely. I would support that in a moment. [...]
KEYES: I know Newt Gingrich has came out and said if they don’t reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?
FRANK: If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts.

Watch it:

Treason –The Obama Administration Drops CAIR Terror Financing Indictments [Updated]

from Ironic Surrealism

posted April 17 2011

Islamic America hating vultures salivating at the thought of the opportunity to gnaw at the carcass of what was once was the greatest country in the world. Forget prosecuting terror on US soil, Muslim feelings are at stake!

It is a felony offense to know or have reason to know that seditious activity is underway and do nothing about it.  The term used in the U.S. Code for such a crime is “misprision of treason.” —Frank Gaffney

(PJM Exclusive) Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions?
High-level source concedes DOJ let off CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons.

Patrick Poole

Treason - The United States' Red Green Alliance - The Obama Administration and Terrorist Front CAIR

…a number of leaders of Islamic organizations (all of whom publicly opposed the King hearings on Muslim radicalization) were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges by the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which had been investigating the case for most of the past decade.But those indictments were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House. Included in those indictments was at least one of the co-founders of CAIR, based on “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” a March 31 DOJ legal memo from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler. A second DOJ official familiar with the investigation independently confirmed these details. Omar Ahmad is one of CAIR’s co-founders and its chairman emeritus. He was personally named, along with CAIR itself, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial in 2007 and 2008. During the trial FBI Agent Lara Burns testified that both Omar Ahmad and current CAIR executive director Nihad Awad were caught on FBI wiretaps attending a 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders in Philadelphia.
……
According to my source, the chief reason outlined in the DOJ memo declining to prosecute CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad was the issue of potential jury nullification. The first Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007 ended in a hung jury. When the case was retried in 2008, all five defendants, former executives of the Holy Land Foundation, were convicted on all 108 counts.

to read complete article 

9th Circuit will hear eligibility arguments But attorneys say dispute involves much more than birth certificate

Posted: April 29, 2011
8:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

     Only days after the White House released a copy of Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii, claiming to have put to rest the dispute over his eligibility to hold the office, attorneys will argue on Monday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the requirements of the U.S. Constitution simply are too important to ignore for the sake of political expediency, even when they involve a sitting president.

     The case has been pending since the 2008 election. The plaintiffs alleged that Obama's qualifications were not checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the requirements that only a "natural born Citizen" can hold the office.

     California attorney Orly Taitz told WND today that her hope is for a decision that will return the case to the district court for proceedings, which could include a discovery process through which a large number of Obama's life documents could be obtained.

     Another set of plaintiffs is being represented by Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation. 

     "What I hope comes out of the case is that the 9th Circuit will remand to the trial court for further proceedings, allow us to take depositions, subpoena witnesses and evidence to find out the truth," Kreep told WND.

     "Let's assume the [White House-released birth] document is the real thing, that it's an actual copy of the birth certificate. There's still the issue of his half-sister [Maya Soetoro-Ng] who reported him being adopted by the Indonesia stepfather [Lolo Soetoro]. That raises legal questions. Maybe he lost his citizenship. There's also the issue of him traveling to Pakistan…"

     "There's even the question of whether he was a dual citizen," he said. "That raises all sorts of different questions."

     Also, "if the document that the White House released is accurate and is what it appears …. That still doesn't resolve all the issues, and perhaps the most important question is why spend all this private money and taxpayer money to keep it from being revealed?"

     Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six dozen lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to keep his records concealed from the public.

     He even withheld the document he has released now when a career Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.

     "Why didn't he just release it in 2008 when he was running, or when Hillary Clinton asked for it? Why cause all the mistrust?" Kreep asked.

     And far from putting the issue to rest as Obama had stated he wanted, the interest continues to surge. Two networks that largely had ignored the case for the first several years of its arguments now have asked the federal court for permission to broadcast the Monday proceedings, officials confirmed.

     A team of U.S. attorneys based in California earlier argued in pleadings that there essentially is nothing the American public can do to determine if Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural-born citizen" in the Oval Office, and if they are injured, at least they are all injured  alike.

     The case arguments were presented in a brief submitted by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute in defense of Obama.

     The plaintiffs had warned that allowing the district court's dismissal of the case to stand would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority."

     That earlier brief was filed by Kreep, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.

     The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.

     However, Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no injury – they didn't have "standing" – and that the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues instead of a court.

     Government attorneys defending Obama's position said those who brought the case cannot "demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable to defendants' conduct as would be necessary to establish standing."

     The attorneys brushed off concerns that a violation of the Constitution was a serious matter and caused any injury to the plaintiffs, saying, "To put it another way, the relief sought by appellants, consisting of a determination by the court of the eligibility of the president to hold office, and, possibly, his removal from office, would have 'no more directly and tangibly benefitted [them] than … the public at large.'"

     Further, the U.S. attorneys argued that a possible violation of the Constitution is a political issue, not judicial.

     "Even assuming arguendo, that some of the purported 'injuries' alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III requirement of 'injury-in-fact,' the district court correctly held that no appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by a court," they continued. "The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant, because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate.

     "The political question doctrine serves to 'restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of government' by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches," they said.

     The documentation from the government in the case was unresponsive to the issue raised by the plaintiffs that courts have authority to remove an elected chief executive officer should he be documented as ineligible.

     The plaintiffs' brief had cited the removal of Thomas H. Moodie from the office of governor in North Dakota in the 1930s as proof that a government's chief officer can be removed from office by the courts – even after an election and inauguration. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway and installed, and ultimately removed from office by the court over that failure.

     The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the Constitution's age requirements.

     But the tax-paid U.S. attorneys said in defense of Obama that "disputes involving political questions lie outside of the Article III jurisdiction of federal courts."

     "The issues sought to be raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a 'natural born citizen of the United States' and therefore eligible to be president as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes … are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial," they said.

     They argued it is "preposterous" for the plaintiffs to seek a ruling that Obama is not eligible and therefore "should be removed from office."

     

For more...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293005

Impeach Obama Anyway (or will Larkin sue Obama?)

By rng
April 27, 2011

Obama has released his birth certificate.  If it turns out to be genuine, it makes no difference.  He should be impeached anyway for taking so long to release it.  Why?  A man, Lt. Col. Terry Larkin ruined his army career and went to military prison for demanding to see a document (long form birth certificate) Obama was legally required (see article below from Wikipedia) to provide.  What Obama did was criminal and deserves to be treated as such, and we can only hope Larkin will bring a civil suit for damages against Obama and all his aiders and abettors.  At any rate, Obama should be impeached for the high crime of withholding evidence from a defendant in a criminal case, evidence that would have led Larkin to not commit his so called "crime," of demanding that Obama meet his burden of proof of eligibility, and for the high misdemeanor of leaving the public in doubt over a legitimate constitutional issue.

From Wikipedia

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.^[1] Spoliation has two consequences: the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; also, case law has established that proceedings that might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.^[2]

^{to read complete article}

The following is from CRS Report for Congress.  For the complete article click on the bold face heading.  The point is that "use of deception...to prevent the production of evidence...destruction of concealment of evidence or attempts to do so..." are federal crimes of which Obama is fully guilty.  He should be impeached and then stand trial for the crimes in federal court.  By withholding this evidence, an officer was unjustly ruined, and Obama corrupted the entire U.S. Army court system.  The judge in the trial should also be cashiered for her participation in this illegal hiding of relevant evidence.

Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512).  Section 1512 applies to the obstruction 

of federal proceedings – judicial, congressional, or executive.  It consists of four 

somewhat overlapping crimes: use of force or the threat of the use of force to prevent the 

production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)); use of deception or corruption or 

intimidation to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(b)); destruction or 

concealment of evidence or attempts to do so (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)); and witness 

harassment to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(d)).