Showing posts with label Alan west. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan west. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2015
Monday, June 30, 2014
Will Conservative Movement Become Muslim? Homeland Security Adviser Believes So!
OBAMA ADVISER REASSERTS U.S. IS 'ISLAMIC COUNTRY'
Homeland Security senior fellow also touts rise of 'Caliphate'
Subscribe to feed- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Mohamed Elibiary
An Obama adviser who ruffled feathers last year claiming the U.S. is “an Islamic country with and Islamically compliant constitution” is reportedly at it again.
Mohamed Elibiary is a senior fellow of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council.
According to a report from the Investigative Project on Terrorism, or IPT, Elibiary revisited his October 2013 tweet in which he claimed the U.S. was an “Islamic country,” explaining in another tweet Saturday (reportedly since deleted), “I said America was an Islamic country not a Muslim country. Pls study up on the difference b4 attacking me.”
IPT reports a source close to Elibiary explained the Homeland Security adviser meant to say that he feels there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution and the American system that runs contrary to Islam.
IPT, however, also quoted Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who rejected Elibiary’s claims.
“His entire attempt to repeatedly say that ‘American is Islamic’ is pure deception,” Jasser said. “In fact it is not.”
“Islamism is incompatible with liberty and is a supremacist doctrine,” Jasser continued. “In all of [Elibiary's] work, you will not find any critique of Islamism, the Islamic state, or government imposed shariah in his opinions or any admission of the deep reforms necessary for American ideals to be compatible with Islam.”
The IPT report was also noticed by former Florida Republican Congressman Allen West, who wrote a blog piece in which he also opposed Elibiary’s assessment of America’s Islamic compliance.
“I hate to disagree with this fella, but he fails to understand that America is a Constitutional Republic,” West wrote. “And how he comes up with the conclusion that our U.S. Constitution is ‘Islamically compliant’ is beyond comprehension – considering Islamic law is rooted in the practice called Sharia rooted in the Koran. That is clearly a violation of our establishment of religion clause.”
Indeed, in nations where Islamic Shariah law has been implemented, Christians, Jews and women in particular have suffered discrimination, violence and court-supported persecution – a legal system in clear contradiction not only of America’s religious freedoms, but also of several other constitutional rights.
“This, ladies and gentlemen, is how it begins. Islamists infiltrate our governing systems and deceive us with lies, making us believe there is no true delineation in our fundamental beliefs,” West continued. “What I find disturbing [but] not surprising is this man is allowed to have a position in the most important domestic security government agency, our Department of Homeland Security.”
Elibiary, in fact, has a long record of reportedly working with those whose brand of Islam strays into the conquering, oppressive form of Islamism.
According to Judicial Watch Elibiary admits he’s a longtime friend of self-described Islamist Shukri Abu Baker, convicted in 2008 of financing the terrorist organization Hamas through his U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, the Holy Land Foundation. Judicial Watch reports Elibiary donated to the Holy Land Foundation monthly until it was shut down by the U.S. government and defends Baker, depicting his prosecution as a case of political persecution.
According to a Breitbart report, Elibiary was a speaker in 2004 at an event called “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” which honored the ruthless, theocratic Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, and in 2006, Elibiary penned an op-ed stating that everyone should read Sayyid Qutb, a man widely seen as the founder of radical Islamic groups like al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Elibiary wrote, “I’d recommend everyone read Qutb, but read him with an eye to improving America not just to be jealous with malice in our hearts.”
Elibiary’s Twitter account, though he vehemently insists it reflects only his personal opinions and not any official government positions, has repeatedly been a source of comments that can be interpreted as sympathetic to the Islamist cause.
Earlier this month, for example, Elibiary tweeted, “As I’ve said b4 inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns. Choice only whether we support #EU like Muslim Union vision or not.”
A week later, Eliabary also tweeted, “It’ll be hard at times but over next 10years conservative movt will evolve towards Muslim majority world.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/obama-adviser-reasserts-u-s-is-islamic-country/#SK1Wi252uoacE0FZ.99
Sunday, June 8, 2014
If Impeachment Charges Are Brought Against Obama Will He Resign? NO WAY!! He Will Fight To Stay As President.
JUDGE JEANINE: VA 'CRIMES' ARE 'IMPEACHABLE'
To Obama: 'Admit this job is just too much for a community organizer'
- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Jeanine Pirro, host of the Fox News show “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” is blasting President Obama for his “impeachable” handling of the Veterans Affairs scandal, openly challenging his claims about the crisis and describing his management as “an organized criminal enterprise.”
“Criminally negligent homicide. Involuntary manslaughter. Falsifying records. Obstruction of justice. Tampering with evidence. Obstruction by intimidation,” she ticked off in a commentary.
“Because of the intentional wrongdoing on the part of VA employees, veterans were left to die,” she charged. “Premised on the oldest of motives: greed.”
Obama, she said, has “brought disgrace on our nation and [it] should be an impeachable offense.”
“Mr. President, we are weary of your fake outrage and your claim that bad news just doesn’t get to you. … Why don’t you just admit this job is just too much for a community organizer?”
It wasn’t the first time she’s called for impeachment.
She uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up.
“Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty,” Pirro said. “You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have NOT protected us. This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment.”
And she’s just one of many who have brought up impeachment.
The idea recently was broached in response to Obama’s exchange of five Taliban leaders for an Army soldier who has been accused by his former colleagues of desertion.
Former Rep. Allen West, R-Florida, said, “I call upon the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives; Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to draft articles of impeachment.”
Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano supported West’s opinion.
“We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization. It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, include human assets,” he said.
Earlier, Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who brought the evidence that convicted perpetrators of the first Islamic terror bombing of New York’s World Trade Center, said Obama likely broke the federal law against supporting terror.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who said it’s clear “high crimes and misdemeanors” were committed in Obama’s deal with terrorists, also talked of impeachment.
“This was about emptying out Guantanamo,” he said. “This was a backdoor deal. The reasons for it, the details of it will probably never come out in its entirety, but this is an ugly story.
“It was really bad form for him not to at least call in the chair and ranking member of the intel or armed services committee and tell them what he was about to do with regard to the release of these prisoners,” he said. “It’s an example of how this president only obeys the laws and follows the policies that he wants to. In our Constitution, it falls under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors, where you just selectively obey certain laws and ignore others.”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin:
“Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, outlines multiple grounds for action that could be taken against Obama.
It has been called a blueprint for impeaching Obama, outlining the high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution.
The Daily Mail called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” saying the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
Among the offenses enumerated in the book before the Bergdahl deal erupted:
- Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
- Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
- The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
- The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
- Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
- And more.
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, wrote recently that impeachment is a valid response to Obama’s Benghazi scandal.
“But White House lies about Benghazi are only the tip of what is really a very large impeachment iceberg,” he wrote in a commentary on WND. “We will hear many pundits say that whatever the truth of what happened in Benghazi, it’s ‘only politics’ to lie about foreign events during an election campaign, and so, it’s not a scandal on the scale of Watergate. That argument misses the point that what Benghazi and Watergate have in common: What brought Nixon down was not the crime but the cover-up. And when it comes to cover-ups, Obama and his team make Nixon look like a rank amateur.”
He continued: “There is a pattern here of abuse of power through the deliberate disregard of constitutional norms and standards. And what makes that pattern so egregious and dangerous is the participation of a partisan media that actively supports and condones the ongoing cover-ups of Obama’s arrogant disregard of the Constitution.”
The list of leaders who have discussed impeaching Obama is growing.
U.S. Senate candidate Mark Callahan, who recently called out a reporter who apparently was disrespectful to another candidate, according to Now Renew America, has signed a “Pledge to Impeach. It calls for members of Congress to agree to “acknowledge that my sworn oath of office, if I am elected, will require me” to “support the initiation of House impeachment proceedings against President Barack Hussein Obama, and his inner circle.”
It was Washington Post commentator Paul Waldman who reported the impeachment drive has gone mainstream.
“Now we have the Benghazi select committee, and a select committee is what you form when there may be crimes and misdemeanors to uncover,” he pointed out.
“It has no other business to distract it, and it will be led by Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor who excels at channeling conservatives’ outrage,” Waldman wrote. “To be clear, this doesn’t mean that [House Speaker John] Boehner or the party establishment he represents want impeachment, not by any means. They realize what a political disaster it was when they did it in 1998, and they understand that the effects would likely be similar if it happened again.”
But Waldman wrote that “there are multiple Republican members of Congress who have at least toyed with the idea, and the committee’s hearings could build pressure in the Republican base for it.”
Among the people who have raised the prospect of impeachment are Watergate reporter Bob Woodard, actor Steven Seagal, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin and Oliver North, the former Marine Corps lieutenant colonel first known for his testimony as a National Security Council staff member under President Reagan.
“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for,” North said. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”
Seagal, whose dozens of films feature action and violence but also have an underlying theme of seeking justice, said Obama would be impeached if the truth about the Benghazi attack was revealed.
His charge came Feb. 22 in an appearance at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix
“Never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people like the people who are running it this day,” said Seagal.
“I think that when we have a leadership that thinks the Constitution of the United States of America is a joke, when we have a president who has almost 1,000 executive orders now, when we have a Department of Justice that thinks that any kind of a judicial system that they make up as they are going along can get by with whatever they decide that they want to do – like Ted Nugent said the Fast and the Furious, what’s happening with the Fast and the Furious? What’s happened with the truth about any of the greatest scandals of American history that have happened right before our eyes?” Seagal said.
“If the truth about Benghazi were to come out now, I don’t think that this man would make it through his term. I think he would be impeached,” he said.
Seagal has company in his worries.
As WND reported, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said it’s time for millions of Americans to “stand up” to a federal government that is “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws.”
He’s calling for marches, a legislative vote of “no confidence” in President Obama and congressional leaders, even citizen arrests, drawing inspiration from the 33 million Egyptians who stood up to their government and removed Muslim Brotherhood officials from office.
The impeachment drive has been fueled by Georgetown professor Jonathan Turley’s congressional testimony.
The liberal professor has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.
He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”
Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”
Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.
WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.”
“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.
His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-S.C., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 118 co-sponsors.
Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”
“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.
A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.
“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”
WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”
“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”
Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.
See the Hannity segment:
Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh says Obama won’t be impeached. But Limbaugh also is making the case that the Constitution is in crisis, an emergency for which the founders probably created the impeachment process.
“You can’t impeach the first black president,” he said on his radio show recently. “No matter how corrupt or lawless.”
But he said the danger is very high, citing Boehner’s recent comments that the House wouldn’t adopt amnesty legislation this year because the president probably wouldn’t follow it.
“This is the president of the United States effectively nullifying the legislative branch of government,” an outraged Limbaugh said. “He’s basically saying … and he has in practically these words, said this, ‘I got a pen and I got a phone and if they don’t do what I want I’m going to it anyway.’
“That’s not a ho-hummer to me. That is major. If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don’t think it’ll matter, because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that’s a breach of serious proportion,” he said.
“That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about because of the president’s race,” he said.
Ambassador Alan Keyes, however, wrote in a WND column that Limbaugh isn’t right about impeachment.
“When Rush Limbaugh says that ‘efforts to try to have Obama impeached or held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,’ he is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters. With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ. The judgment about ‘wasted effort’ depends on what we’re trying to achieve. If politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted effort. After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow Obama to be removed from office. Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? ”
He continued: “Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist No. 65) that ‘… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’”
But Keyes said: “The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr. Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan factions. But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e., individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests. From Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is therefore a test of their concern for the common good. If they act, or refuse to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold, whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.”
Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
Polls have revealed American support for impeachment is growing, and rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached.
Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”
He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”
“It’s so diabolical,” he said.
Nugent made his comments in an interview with radio host Alex Jones.
Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.
On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.
A recent comment was from Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican who was seeking to replace the retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
A video from a forum featuring candidates for Chambliss’ seat shows Broun and two others, Derrick Grayson, an engineer, and Eugene Yu, a businessman, raising their hands when asked whether they would support impeachment.
A forum moderator asked the candidates: “Obama has perjured himself on multiple occasions. Would you support impeachment if presented for a vote?”
Broun, Grayson and Yu raised their hands.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
Stockman even handed out in Congress copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations and possibly prosecutions are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.
He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.
WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
Earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
Woodward said: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaida. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.
See Dennis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/judge-jeanine-va-crimes-are-impeachable/#ihpolxj2ZUUo5SYE.99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)