Taliban touts Bergdahl swap as key ‘achievement’

Okay, so the million dollar question is this:  When the Taliban achieved a lofty goal of getting back key Taliban commanders in exchange for America-hating traitor, Bowe Bergdahl, was it a case of President Barack Hussein Obama being dumb as a post and easily tricked by the terrorist Taliban or was Obama in on the scheme to aid the Taliban?

I doubt we will ever know but I would say that BOTH scenarios constitute treason against America by the Commander-in-chief and require impeachment.  Every single member of the House of Representatives serving at that time deserves recall but in the least must be voted out of office for failure to carry out their oath of office for not impeaching this traitor sitting in the White House.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

Taliban touts Bergdahl swap as key ‘achievement’

The Taliban says the exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five top Taliban commanders in 2014 was a major “achievement” in its war against the West and its allies. The claim was made in a lengthy video released on the Taliban’s official website, Voice of Jihad, earlier this month.

Footage from the exchange is shown early on in the production. The scenes include Bergdahl as he is about to be transferred to American forces and the five Taliban leaders being warmly greeted after their arrival in Qatar. Screen shots can be seen below.

As The Long War Journal has reported, all five of the Taliban commanders exchanged for Bergdahl had ties to al Qaeda prior to their detention in Cuba. [See LWJ report, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl exchanged for top 5 Taliban commanders at Gitmo.]

Norullah Noori and Mohammad Fazl were both senior Taliban military commanders in Afghanistan. Khairullah Khairkhwa was the governor of the Herat province and one of Mullah Omar’s trusted lieutenants. Abdul Haq Wasiq was a senior Taliban intelligence official. And Mohammad Nabi Omari was allegedly part of a joint Taliban and al Qaeda cell that targeted US and Coalition forces. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which oversees the detention facility, deemed all five jihadists to be “high” risks to the US, its interests and allies.

Bergdahl was initially taken into custody by Taliban fighters after he wandered off an American outpost in the Paktika province in June 2009. He was then held for years by the Haqqani Network, which is part of the Taliban coalition and closely allied with al Qaeda. Siraj Haqqani, who leads the network, is one of the Taliban’s top two deputies and has also worked with senior al Qaeda leaders. Siraj has even held a seat on al Qaeda’s elite shura (advisory) council.

The Taliban’s video is intended to highlight the jihadists’ progress in Paktika, a province in southeastern Afghanistan on the border with Pakistan. The people of Paktika have long resisted foreign “invaders,” according to the Taliban, including the Soviets in the 1980s and the Americans beginning in late 2001.

The propaganda production highlights footage of “martyrdom” operatives training, a class on how to build improvised explosive devices, and a suicide bomber detonating a car packed with explosives.

A brief montage of the “infidels'” alleged crimes against the “Islamic nation” is also shown. A photo of American soldiers inside a mosque is included, as is an image of Florida pastor Terry Jones, who made a name for himself by burning Korans.

But much of the video focuses on the Taliban’s military operations in several of Paktika’s districts.

The Taliban’s shadow governor for Paktika, Hafez Belal Fateh (seen on the right), speaks at least twice in the video. In one clip, he is pictured sitting between two armed guards. Fateh portrays the Taliban as being united behind Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, who became the group’s emir after Mullah Omar’s death was publicly exposed in 2015. Fateh also claims that the Afghan people are aiding the Taliban’s fighters in their insurgency against the Afghan government and its coalition partners.

The video ends with a recording of Mansour, who vows that the Taliban will continue to wage jihad until an Islamic state is resurrected in Afghanistan.

Why Impeachment of the Usurper Is Imperative

From Family Security Matters.

Impeachment Lessons


Well whaddya know: The topic of impeachment reared its head at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday.

Jonathan Strong's report here at NRO noted the wincing consternation of GOP-leadership aides at utterances of the "i-word" during the testimony of prominent legal experts. For the Republican establishment, it seems, history begins and ends in the 1990s: No matter how times have perilously changed, any talk of shutdowns or impeachment is bad, bad, bad. Yes, the Obama "uber-presidency," as left-of-center law professor Jonathan Turley called it, has enveloped the nation in what he conceded is "the most serious constitutional crisis . . . of my lifetime," but GOP strategists would just as soon have us chattering about immigration "reform" and bravely balancing the federal budget by, oh, around 2040.

But as we discussed in this August column - back when the first anniversary of the Benghazi massacre loomed, back when many Americans still believed that if they liked their health-insurance plans, they could keep their health-insurance plans - it is not crazy to talk about impeaching President Obama. And if you're going to have a congressional hearing about systematic presidential lawlessness, it is only natural that the word "impeachment" gets bandied about. Not only is impeachment the intended constitutional remedy for systematic presidential lawlessness; it is, practically speaking, the only remedy.

It is beyond cavil that the president is willfully undermining the constitutional system that he swore to preserve, protect, and defend. He presumes to rewrite, and dramatically alter, the laws he vowed to execute faithfully - not once in a blue moon but as a deliberate scheme of governance.

Before he took office, Obama boldly promised supporters that he would "fundamentally transform the United States of America." That is just what he is doing. There is fraud in the uber-presidency, but no mystery: Most of Obama's unconstitutional usurpations are happening in broad daylight. He brags that his "waivers" - i.e., his unilateral amending, repealing, or non-enforcement - of statutory provisions show him to be far-seeing and pragmatic, not lawless. That, of course, is the standard dictatorial self-image. Obama is the answer to Tom Friedman's China-envying prayers.

Just as there is no mystery in Obama's disregard for the Constitution, there is no secret about the Constitution's answer to executive imperialism. The Framers recognized that presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to wreck the republic. Adamant that the presidency they were creating must not become a monarchy, they carried on debates over the Constitution that were consumed with precluding this very real possibility. In the end, the Framers armed Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.

As we have seen through the years, the power of the purse is not a practical check on Obama. In the main, this is because the Framers, notwithstanding their prescient alarm over the problem of factions, did not anticipate the modern Left.

The Constitution assumes that the different branches of government will protect their institutional turf. That is, the Framers calculated that, faced with a Democratic president who usurps legislative prerogatives, a Democratic congressman would see himself, first and foremost, as a congressman. Valuing the duties of his office over party loyalty, he would join with other legislators to rein in executive excess.

Today's Democrats, however, are less members of a party than of the movement Left. Their objective, like Obama's, is fundamental transformation of a society rooted in individual liberty and private property to one modeled on top-down, redistributionist statism. Since statism advances by concentrating governmental power, Democrats - regardless of what governmental branch they happen to inhabit - rally to whatever branch holds the greatest transformative potential. Right now, that is the presidency. Thus, congressional Democrats do not insist that the president must comply with congressional statutes. Laws, after all, must be consistent with the Constitution to be valid, and are thus apt to reflect the very constitutional values the Left is trying to supplant. Democrats want the president to use the enormous raw power vested in his office by Article II to achieve statist transformation. If he does so, they will support him. They'll get back to obsessing over the "rule of law" if, by some misfortune, the Republicans someday win another presidential election.

While Democrats quite intentionally defy the Framers' design, Republicans frustrate it by aggressive passivity. The Constitution divides power by subject matter, not percentage of governmental control. The party that controls the House has full primacy over taxing and spending, every bit as much as the party that controls the executive branch has plenary control over prosecution decisions. Constitutional authorities are not contingent on how much, if any, control the party in question has over the rest of government. In theory, then, nothing in government can happen unless the House, with ultimate power over the purse, agrees to fund it. If a corrupt administration uses the IRS as a partisan weapon to audit and harass its detractors, the House can refuse to fund the IRS - or other parts of the executive branch - to quell executive overreach.

Nevertheless, Republicans incessantly tell supporters that, since they control only the House (just "one-half of one-third of the government," as the tired refrain goes), they are impotent to rein in Obama's excesses. And when conservatives in the House or Senate urge that Republicans use their command over the purse to stop Obama's excesses - just as congressional Democrats have historically used the power of the purse to stop Republican presidents from prosecuting the Vietnam War and aiding the Nicaraguan Contras - Republican leadership turns on those conservatives with a ferocity rarely evident in their dealings with the president.

With Democrats energized by Obama's lawbreaking, and Republicans paralyzed by the prospect of government shutdowns, there is no realistic prospect that Congress will starve Obama of funding. That leaves impeachment as the sole remaining constitutional safeguard against executive imperialism.

There is nothing else.

Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing was enlightening. To the extent that members needed educating on impeachment standards, the experts affirmed the principles we outlined in August. "High crimes and misdemeanors," the Constitution's standard for impeachment, are the misdeeds of high officials - what Hamilton referred to as abuses of the "public trust," violations of a "political" nature in the sense that "they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Hamilton's emphasis on "political" is salient. It is the point that Republican leaders, still licking their wounds 13 years after Bill Clinton left the Oval Office, must grasp if they are ever to take the right lesson from the Nineties.

Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. Thus the quasi-legal component - proving high crimes and misdemeanors - is the easy part. As a practical matter, fundamental transformation cannot occur without high crimes and misdemeanors being committed against the constitutional order that is being transformed. That's the whole point.

So, as one would expect, President Obama is intentionally and sweepingly violating his oath of office. He is not faithfully executing federal law - he picks, chooses, "waives," and generally makes up law as he goes along. He has willfully and materially misled the American people - his Obamacare and Benghazi lies being only the most notorious examples. He has been woefully derelict in his duty to protect and defend Americans overseas. His administration trumped up a shameful prosecution (under the guise of a "supervised release violation") against a filmmaker in order to bolster the "Benghazi massacre was caused by an anti-Muslim video" charade. His administration has used the federal bureaucracy to usurp Congress's legislative powers and to punish political enemies. Obama has presumed to make recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. His administration intentionally allowed firearms to be transferred to Mexican drug cartels, predictably resulting in numerous violent crimes, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent. His administration - and, in particular, the Justice Department - has routinely stonewalled lawmakers and frustrated their capacity to perform agency oversight, to the point that the attorney general has been held in contempt of Congress. The Obama Justice Department, moreover, has filed vexatious lawsuits against sovereign states over their attempts to vindicate their constitutional authorities (and, indeed, to enforce federal immigration laws), while the Justice Department itself adheres to racially discriminatory enforcement policies in violation of the Constitution and federal civil-rights laws.

This is not an exhaustive list of Obama abuses, but you get the idea. If the only issue were commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution requires only one for impeachment - not the Obama pace, which is more like one per week.

But here is the important thing: High crimes and misdemeanors are a subordinate consideration. In an impeachment case, they are necessary but they are not close to being sufficient. Because impeachment is a political remedy, its most essential component is the popular political will to remove a president from power.

The charges against Bill Clinton plainly satisfied the "high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold, and he was clearly guilty of them. But the American people obviously did not want Clinton removed over them.That is the lesson of the Clinton impeachment. It doesn't matter what can be proved. You can have a hundred articles of impeachment; what counts is what Americans think of their president. The question is not whether the president has done wrong - that will rarely be in dispute. The question is how convinced the public is that a president's continued hold on power profoundly threatens their safety, prosperity, and sense of what kind of country we should be.

As things now stand, the public is not convinced. There is no political will to remove the president.

Could things change? Of course they could. Richard Nixon won a landslide reelection in 1972 - prevailing by 503 electoral votes and 18 million popular votes - and resigned to avoid certain impeachment and removal less than two years later. Obama, by contrast, won a fairly close reelection (in which his popular-vote tally dropped by about 4 million from his initial election), and his approval ratings are now tanking. Yet, he remains defiant about his agenda - desperately pivoting this week from the Obamacare debacle to that old class-warfare favorite, U.S. "income inequality." He has signaled every intention to plow ahead for the next three years with unpopular edicts. As he does so, the hard truths about his legacy health-care "reform" will be visited on tens of millions of Americans. Concurrently, his stewardship is making the world an increasingly unstable place. Obama is causing pain, and pain can change people's minds.

Two things, however, are certain. Absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. And absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.

This article appears at NRO.

The Great Purge

The security of the American people is at risk.  That risk has been created by Barack Hussein Obama.

Impeach his ass.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

The Great Purge


During the years 1934-1939, Soviet dictator and Communist Party General Chairman Josef Stalin ordered what later became known to history as the "Great Purge" - a period of brutal political repression, torture, imprisonment and mass murder in the Soviet Union.

Launched under the auspices of purifying the Communist Party of ideologically-unreliable elements and rooting out fifth columnists within its ranks, the purges focused initially on party leadership. However - fueled by Stalin's paranoia - they soon expanded into the military, government bureaucracy and wider Soviet society.

Members of the intelligentsia, senior government bureaucrats (nomenklatura), professionals, land-owning farmers (kulaks), members of the military and anyone else suspected of being an enemy of the state were swept up in the wave of suspicion and mutual distrust. Suspects were typically charged with espionage, anti-Soviet agitation, counter-revolutionary activity, or the like; if no "evidence" of wrong-doing could be found, it was manufactured by the secret police - the dreaded NKVD - or obtained via "confessions" extracted under torture. Following a perfunctory hearing or trial with a pre-determined outcome, most of those charged were imprisoned in the vast Soviet system of gulags (concentration camps) or executed. At the height of the purges, in 1937-1938, an estimated 1.2 million people lost their lives.

Aware of a resurgent Germany on his western flank, and a militarized and powerful Japan on his eastern frontier, Stalin - fearful of infiltrators and fifth-columnists within the ranks - ordered Commissar of State Security Nikolai Yezhov to purge the Soviet senior officer corps. Acting under orders from Premier Stalin, who sought a pretext to move against the officer corps, the NKVD instructed agent Nikolai Skoblin to pass incriminating misinformation implicating Red Army Field Marshall Mikhail Tukhachevsky, to Reinhardt Heydrich, the head of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) - the intelligence arm of the German SS-Gestapo. Heydrich arranged for the information to be planted in such a way as to implicate Tukhachevsky and a number of other top Soviet general officers.

So began the purge of the senior officer corps of the Soviet army and navy. By the time the process ended in 1939 - with war on the horizon - the military had been decimated. Three of the five Marshalls of the Soviet Army - including Tukhachevsky himself - were executed; 13 of 18 army commanders, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, and 154 out of 186 division commanders were removed; some were executed, while others were imprisoned or forced into retirement and exile. Some of the survivors were later ideologically-rehabilitated and brought back into uniform, but by then, the damage had been done.

Among its many effects, Stalin's purges left the Soviet Union utterly ill-equipped to fight the Second World War. Many of the most-experienced and proficient military officers in the Soviet army and navy - men like Marshall Tukhachevsky - were lost during the madness. More often than not, these able commanders and leaders were replaced by ideologically-reliable but militarily-incompetent Communist Party hacks. When the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union in June, 1941, the Russian people paid an unspeakably terrible price for Stalin's short-sightedness, cruelty and paranoia.

Stalin's purge of the Red Army is historically-significant for many reasons, but perhaps none more important than that he episode illustrates the folly of allowing ideology to trump military necessity, practicality and pragmatism. Stalin's evil and feckless acts left his nation and people all-but-defenseless in the face of the Nazi onslaught - as the purges crippled the ability of the Soviet armed forces to respond to the invasion in a timely and effective manner. It is no exaggeration whatsoever to state that the U.S.S.R. came within a hair's breadth of surrendering when the Germans were approaching the gates of Moscow in the winter of 1941-1942. Final victory over the fascist invaders took four long years and cost some twenty million Soviet lives.

----

For the historically-inclined, it is difficult not to think of Stalin's purges in light of the recent revelations of waves of coerced retirements, resignations, and firings of senior flag/general officers presently occurring throughout the upper reaches of the U.S. military. History does not repeat, it is said, but it does echo. Obama is not Stalin, but nothing prevents him and his advisors from adapting the methods of the Soviet dictator to their own purposes. The neo-communist and Pan-Islamic ideological proclivities of Obama himself and many of his top officials are a matter of public record. Likewise, the basic hostility of the regime to the traditional values and ethos of the military is well-known. Consider the following....

In 2012, Lt. Colonel Matthew Dooley, a much-decorated combat veteran and soldier with an impeccable record and fitness reports/evaluations to match, was summarily-dismissed from his post at the Joint Forces Staff College and publically-criticized by Army Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey for making remarks critical of Islam in his course, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism. The Joint Forces Staff College, which had approved the content of the course a number of years previously - came under pressure from more than fifty Muslim interest groups - recanted and fired Dooley. Today, it is government-wide policy (including military and federal law-enforcement agencies) that educational materials must portray Islam in a favorable - even flattering - light. This edict from on-high amounts to an official whitewash of the real history of Islamic world and its relations with the Judeo-Christian civilization.

Likewise, military personnel who are not one-hundred percent "on board" with the pro-feminist and pro-homosexual agenda of the White House and its advisors are being shown the door in record numbers. The case of U.S. Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk illustrates the ideological fanaticism now found in the "new" armed forces. Despite his reluctance to do so, Monk was ordered by his commanding officer, a lesbian, to go on record with his views about homosexuality. A practicing Christian, Monk replied that he was against it - and was then relieved of his duties and censured by his command.

Not only are U.S. military personnel being indoctrinated to hold favorable but historically-inaccurate views of Islam, they are being taught that traditional American and Judeo-Christian values have no place in the military. Indeed, they are being taught that these values are those of the enemy. Military chaplains report that they are being pressured - in some cases, against their religious vows - to perform homosexual marriages; other personnel report that crosses have been ordered removed from chapels located on bases in Afghanistan. It has come to light that certain administration officials want proselytizing by Christians outlawed within the ranks, but no such prohibition has been put forth for Islamic initiatives of the same kind.

If Obama's new military isn't only anti-Christian, it is atheist. Because of the objections of a single atheist at that institution, cadets graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy are now sworn-in as officers using an oath which contains no reference to God. On similar lines, an Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible from his desk for fear that it would "offend" someone.

Team Obama is relentlessly purging the U.S. military of individuals who do not share its ideological worldview, but that is not all; it is also removing high-ranking officers who have knowledge of an incriminating nature concerning the fiasco at Benghazi, or who have made statements critical of the administration's handling of the incident - which led to the deaths of four Americans.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked, was summarily-relieved of his post and forced to retire in April, 2013, after making remarks critical of the State Department's decision not to send available reinforcements to rescue the besieged embassy. Likewise, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette - the former commander of Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3, U.S.S. John C. Stennis) - was relieved of his post after contending that aircraft from his strike group could have made it to the scene in Tripoli in time to aid/rescue the trapped personnel. Officially, Gaouette was forcibly-retired for making "racially-insensitive remarks" and public use of profanity; the real reason he was forced out was for daring to contradict administration propaganda about Benghazi.1

There are many other examples of equally-disturbing - if not alarming - behavior on the part of administration officials. This author is acquainted with numerous veterans of the U.S. military, as well as a number of personnel presently on active/reserve duty. They independently corroborate the substance of these findings.

Former Congressman (R-FLA) and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Allen West has called for a Congressional investigation, noting that almost two hundred high-ranking officers have been dismissed from the military during Obama's administration. Such a high number of dismissals in so short a period of time is virtually unprecedented, West notes.

A number of high-ranking former army officers have gone on record in agreement with West, including Major General Paul Vallely, Lieutenant General William G. Boykin (one of the founders of Delta Force, the U.S. Army's elite counter-terrorist unit), and Medal of Honor recipient Major General Patrick H. Brady. "'There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him' over such issues as ‘homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester...'" Brady commented to World Net Daily investigative reporter F. Michael Maloof. Commenting for the same story, retired U.S. Navy Captain Joseph John stated that the "bigger picture" is that "the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years." 2

Like the Soviet military prior to the Second World War, the present-day United States military is being gutted in the name of ideology. It is also being hollowed-out by corruption, political and interest-group patronage and leftist social experimentation. Finally, the upper ranks are being purged for reasons of political expediency and to allow the regime to cover its tracks concerning the Benghazi debacle.

The Founding Fathers greatly-feared large standing armies; James Madison spoke of them in the following terms, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."

By tradition and legal precedent, the U.S. armed forces are supposed to remain ideologically- and politically-neutral. Under Obama, that neutrality has been tossed out the window. The on-going purge of the U.S. armed forces makes abundantly-clear that he means to transform the fundamental nature of the military and in so doing, mold it into a force which will do his bidding, no questions asked. That fact ought to worry all thoughtful Americans. Some of our most-decorated and honored soldiers are doing their best to warn us of the danger - but will we - and the members of Congress - listen?

Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama

Posted on July 13, 2011 by a12iggymom

My apology to the original author as I forgot to make note of your URL…

Articles of Impeachment

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

Article 1: Corruption
Count 1, IG Gate : Barack Hussein Obama interfered with Gerald Walpin, who was inspector general of the government volunteer organization AmeriCorps as payment for assistance and support provided to his presidential campaign by Kevin Johnson.

Count 2, Union PayOff: Barack Hussein Obama directed that union supporters receive 53 percent ownership of the General Motors Corporation in payback for Millions of Dollars in Donations and support provided to his Presidential Election Campaign.
This act violated 200 years of American bankruptcy law by placing unsecured interests before the secured interests of bond holders.

Count 3, Union PayOff: Barack Hussein Obama repaid Unions for cash and support provided to his presidential campaign in the form of exemption from taxation on “Cadillac Health Insurance Plans”.

Count 4, Acorn PayOff: Barack Hussein Obama repaid ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) for supporting his presidential campaign with voter registration drives (frequently fraudulent), “get out the vote drives” (including fraudulent votes), and cash donations (through fraudulent internet donations) with targeted payment via his Stimulus Bill (2009) making ACORN eligible for up to 4 Billion Dollars in Taxpayer monies.

Count 5, Bribe in Colorado Senate Seat Election: Barack Hussein Obama did offer a bribe to Colorado Senate Candidate Andrew Romanoff in the form of a paid federal job with his administration in exchange for dropping his primary bid against Senator Bennett.

Count 6, Bribe in Pennsylvania Senate Election: Barack Hussein Obama did offer a bribe to Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Joe Sestak in the form of a paid federal job (Appointment to Secretary of the Navy) with his administration in exchange for dropping his primary bid against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter.

Count 7, Bribe in Mollohan Obamacare Vote: Barack Hussein Obama bribed Congressman Alan Mollohan, D-WV by canceling a corruption inquiry into the congressman in exchange for his vote for Obamacare.

Count 8, Bribe of Rep. Jim Matheson: Barack Hussein Obama bribed Congressman Jim Matheson in the form of a federal judgeship in exchange for changing his prior NO vote on obamacare to yes.

Count 9, Bribe of Congressman Bart Stupack: Barak Hussein Obama bribed congressman Bart Stupak with appropriations benefiting his district two days before Stupak changed his vote in favor of Obamacare.

Count 10, Union Payoff:
Barack Hussein Obama did pay back union organizers for their their support and monies during his election and during the Obamacare debate with an executive order directing that billions of dollars in government contracts only be issued to companies using union labor.

Count 11, ACORN Corruption:
In March of 2009 Barack Hussein Obama in payback to his campaign supporters and former employers the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) did order the department of Justice to halt its investigation into the voter fraud activities being conducted by ACORN in Massachusetts.

Count 12, Conspiracy to sell Senate seat for Illinios:
Barack Hussein Obama did conspire with Valerie Jerrett, Illinios Govenor Blagojevich, union Official Balanoff, and union president Stern to sell the nomination for the Senate seat for the state of Illinois, recently vacated by Barack Hussein Obama.

Article 1, Count 13, Acorn Corruption:
In violation of H.R.3571 – Defund ACORN Act, signed into law October 1, 2009 by Barack Obama, Barack Obama and his agents have paid to ACORN affiliate
Affordable Housing Centers of America $78, 819.

Article 1, Count 14, Solicitation of contributions on Federal Property:
Barack Hussein Obama did violate 18 USC 607 – Sec. 607. Place of Solicitation by filming a campaign funding solicitation video in the Map Room of the White House.

Article 2: Obstruction of Justice

Count 1, Panthergate: Barack Hussein Obama, Through his appointed agent, Attorney General Eric Holder, dropped charges against three agents of the New Black Panther Party, convicted of voter intimidation in payment for support for his presidential campaign.

Count 2, Richardson Corruption Investigation: Barack Hussein Obama obstructed justice by cutting funding into the corrupt conduct of his supporter and nominee as Secretary of Commerce, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Count 3, Mollohan Investigation: Barack Hussein Obama Obstructed Justice by canceling a corruption inquiry into the conduct of Congressman Alan Mollohan, D-WV in exchange for his vote for Obamacare.

Count 4, Witness Tampering in Sestak Bribery: Barack Hussein Obama Obstructed of Justice into the investigation of his attempted bribery of congressman Joe Sestak by contacting Sestak’s brother and campaign manager.

Count 5, Obstruction of Criminal Investigation into ACORN:
In March of 2009 Barack Hussein Obama in payback to his campaign supporters and former employers the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) did order the department of Justice to halt its investigation into the voter fraud activities being conducted by ACORN in Massachusetts.

Count 6, Obstruction of Justice and Coverup of Project Gun Runner:
Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Holder, USAG, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, ATF Acting Director Ken Melson have lied to congressional investigators to obstruct justice and coverup their illegal program allowing illegal “strawman” purchases of guns and to allow these guns to be exported illegally to Mexico.

Article 3, Fraud

Article 3, Count 1: Perpetrating a Public Fraud
Barack Hussein Obama knowingly lied to the American people and to the Congress of the United States about the cost of his “health care reform” legislation and suppressed reports produced by his administration detailing the true costs of his program.

Article 3, Count 2: Perpetrating a Public Fraud.
Barack Hussein Obama knowingly lied to the American people and to the Congress of the United States about the unemployment figures facing Americans in an attempt to influence public opinion about his failing administration.

Article 4, Negligent Homicide

Article 4, Count 1: Negligent Homicide through Depraved Indifference.
Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Holder, USAG, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, ATF Acting Director Ken Melson have lied to congressional investigators to obstruct justice and coverup their illegal program allowing illegal “strawman” purchases of guns and to allow these guns to be exported illegally to Mexico.
The depraved indifference of these men in allowing illegal weapons to fall into the hands of known criminals resulted in the death of Border Agent Brian Terry.

Obama Sure Is On A Roll ... Now He's Pissed Off the Pakistani Military

Holy fuck, people. I had NO doubt that we, as Americans, had installed the most incompetent Commander-in-Chief in the history of the country when we elected Barack Hussein Obama but now even I could have guessed this guy would be this sinister and also, inept. Today, the Pakistani military came out dismissing the U.S. conditions on military aid to Pakistan and the Paki military basically is shunning the U.S. and trying to influence the Pakistani government to do the same.

This bill concerning aid to Pakistan was co-authored by Sen. John Kerry - need I say anymore about the idiocy of it? And a real leader...a President of the United States who had his head in the game militarily would know that this is the absolute WORST time to be trying to control the inner workings of Pakistan. But no, Barack Hussein Obama is all set to sign this piece of shit.

So, let's just review the "brilliance" of our leader, Obama. The CIA has had free reign for pretty much the past six months to conduct predator airstrikes in northwestern Pakistan and at the same time, the Pakistan military has decimated the Taliban in the Swat Valley and is all set to begin a huge purge of Taliban in South Waziristan province ....and with all of that fantastic setup to see the Taliban FINALLY pushed out of Pakistan, Barack Hussein Obama decides to piss off the fucking Pakistani military. This is either the most sinister and evil plan ever baked up by a U.S. President or this is a clown who simply is as dense as a bag of nickels.

Considering the fact that Obama's decree of much tighter Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan was implemented in June of this year and that he is currently balking on the advice of generals on the ground, it's apparent to me that this is a calculated plan of evil. I am serious here folks... if someone in Congress does not stand up soon and call out Obama on this plan of destroying our military and jeopardizing the security of our Nation, it will fall upon the people of this country to gather at the steps of the Congress.....AND BLOODY WELL DEMAND THAT THIS PRESIDENT BE FACE IMPEACHMENT CHARGES.

Here's the story from Breitbart:

Pakistan's military rejects US aid bill

ISLAMABAD (AP) - Pakistan's powerful military on Wednesday rejected U.S. attempts to link billions of dollars in foreign aid to increased monitoring of its anti-terror efforts, complicating American attempts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan border.
Although the U.S.-backed government of President Asif Ali Zardari has the final say on whether to accept the money, the unusual public criticism threatens to force its hand and undermine military cooperation with the Americans just as the Pakistani army prepares for what could be its most important offensive against extremists since the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign began exactly eight years ago.

Any breakdown in intelligence sharing and other types of cooperation would hurt the American fight against a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO commanders say the war there cannot be won unless Islamabad does more to tackle extremists on its side of the border.
In Washington, President Barack Obama met with his national security team for a strategy session on Afghanistan after signaling that he was not considering a troop withdrawal. The session came amid new polls showing waning support for the war in the United States.
The military's criticism of the bill came in a brief written statement that said senior commanders, including the army chief, "expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security."
Among other strings, the bill conditions U.S. aid on whether Pakistan government maintains effective control over the military, including its budgets, the chain of command and top promotions.
Some analysts said the military's statement had little to do with genuine dislike of a bill that stands to help crumbling schools, roads and hospitals. They said the army was sending a message to the Pakistani and U.S. governments about the limits of civilian control in a country that's been subject to military rule for nearly half of its 62-year history.
"Clearly the government is under direct pressure from the army," said Cyril Almeida, a columnist for Dawn newspaper. "The army's public statement indicates that it is sending a message that says look, we are in charge of security issues."
The military is believed to have increased its cooperation with U.S. forces over the past year, shared intelligence for numbers of U.S. missile strikes on militant targets—most notably the one which killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. The U.S. military clearly hopes for more Pakistani cooperation in hunting down other targets as well, including al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban leaders who are less of a priority for the Pakistanis.
Political tension in Islamabad would pose another obstacle to U.S. war goals. The debate comes as the army stepped up preparations for a new offensive in South Waziristan, an operation that would face steep challenges, ranging from harsh terrain to well dug-in militants. An estimated 10,000 well-armed militants, including foreign fighters, are believed to be in the region.
Opposition lawmakers jumped at the opportunity to weaken a president widely viewed as a U.S. puppet, calling on the government to reject the legislation as an unacceptable intrusion into Pakistan's internal affairs. A recent poll by the International Republican Institute found that 80 percent of Pakistanis surveyed said they did not want the country to assist the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.
The aid bill, which Obama is expected to sign, would triple U.S. nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, providing $1.5 billion a year over the next five years. U.S. officials say the goal is to alleviate widespread poverty, lessening the allure of Islamist extremists and supporting the country's transition to democracy.
Zardari has championed the legislation as a break from past U.S. aid packages, which he says came with more strings. He says the bill is proof that Washington is committed to helping the country long-term.
But to many here, it is sign of growing—and unwanted—U.S. influence. In addition to civilian aid, the legislation authorizes "such sums as are necessary" for counterterrorism assistance—but only on several conditions.
Those include yearly certification that Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups, cooperating in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that its security forces are not subverting the country's political or judicial processes. Failure to do those things would mean the aid stops flowing.
The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Dick Lugar of Indiana, also calls for strict monitoring of how all the funds are spent. Much of past American assistance to Pakistan has fallen into the wrong hands. Between 2002 and 2008, as al-Qaida regrouped in the country after fleeing Afghanistan, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two Pakistani army generals told The Associated Press recently.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly tried to ease Pakistani concerns.
"Since we are stewards of U.S. taxpayer funds, we have to build in certain consultation mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms," Kelly said. "These are in no way intended to impinge on Pakistan's sovereignty."
The Pakistani military's statement referred to the parliament's deliberation on the subject, which it said would allow "the government to develop a national response."
Hours later, lawmakers began a debate over whether to accept the aid. They are empowered only with making a recommendation to Zardari's government.
"Each and every page of the bill is reflective of the insulting attitude towards Pakistan," said opposition leader Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, part of a chorus of politicians and columnists that have criticized it in recent days. "It seeks to safeguard the interests of the United States."
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was more conciliatory, telling parliament the government would look into the concerns of the military, and had not yet agreed to accept the money.
"We have not done anything so far without consensus and we will develop consensus on this, too," he said.
On a trip to Washington, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi played down the military's statement, calling the aid package the "first, very strong signal of a long-term commitment with the people of Pakistan."
But opposition leaders objected to demands that the country dismantle "terrorists bases" in the southwestern city of Quetta—where U.S. officials say Afghan Taliban leaders are based—and the eastern town of Muridke, the home of an Islamist group implicated in attacks on India.
Another potential sore point is language on nuclear proliferation that calls on Pakistan to provide "direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks." That appears to allude to nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is alleged to have spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
The outcry over the bill follows a backlash over U.S. plans to add hundreds more embassy staff in Islamabad.
Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.
"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money, but we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest."