The Statue of Liberty represents the triumph for democratic society over tyranny and corruption, and because of its location in New York’s harbor it represents the hopes and dreams of anyone from anywhere who wants to come to America in search of a better life. The Statue of Liberty is one of the most recognized symbols of American freedom anywhere. Thomas Jefferson enshrines this vernacular in the Declaration of Independence, describing our inalienable rights in the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Patrick Henry cried “Give me liberty or give me death!” James Madison proclaimed, “The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.” Benjamin Franklin declared, “Where liberty is, there is my country.”

When Obama was campaigning for the presidency of the United States he promised to end the wars and bring the troops home. It was this promise that gave him the presidency. Then why break the promise that gave him and the Democrats the White House? Fear. The entire US government is afraid of its own army. It is afraid of withdrawing its armies because of what both the Republicans and the Democrats did to the United States of America. Both the Republicans and the Democrats destroyed the United States of America. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are responsible for bankrupting the United States of America with unjustified wars and looting the US treasury with $trillion gifts to the bankers of the privately owned US Federal Reserve. The US government and the bankers of the US Federal Reserve robbed the United States people. The US government and the US Federal Reserve took away the homes and jobs of the working class people of the United States of America. Iraq, Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda did not take away the homes, jobs and $trillions in tax dollars belonging to the US people, the US government and the bankers of the US Federal Reserve did.

The people are arming themselves for another war but this time its going to be on US soil. Gun sales in the United States have sky rocketed since Obama became president and took up the same anti-American policies of George W Bush. It is the group of people who are buying most of the guns that is scaring the US government. The families of the soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are buying high power rifles and handguns in large numbers. US intelligence believes the soldiers and their stateside families are arming themselves for when they return to the United States. The US soldiers are apprised of the situation back home. They know that their families have lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings. The US soldiers know that while their government sent them off to fight a phantom enemy their government was looting their homes and their bank accounts. The US soldiers know that their homes, their money and their dreams are gone, thanks to the US government and the bankers of the privately owned US Federal Reserve. The US people are arming themselves to take back what is rightfully theirs. The US people are arming themselves to take back their freedom. The US people are arming themselves to take back their Independence.

It is the families of 1/2 a million US soldiers arming themselves that the US government fear for their lives. The US government is certain that the US people are arming themselves, not for a civil war but for an armed fight to regain their independence. The US government are certain that they, the US government, are the US peoples’ target and that is why Obama has asked and Germany has agreed to provide 18,000 German troops, to fight and kill US civilians, police and soldiers on US soil. In a move showing the rapidly deteriorating conditions in the United States, where news reports are showing nearly 1 out of 5 Americans are now jobless and another 20 million have been thrown from their homes into the street, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has ordered her Federal Ministry of Defense to ready over 18,000 Bundeswehr troops for “immediate” redeployment to the United States of America. Merkel reportedly received an “urgent” plea from Obama for these German troops to keep an expected American revolution from occurring during the expected bank failures set to occur in the US in late April and early May. German troops will once again be killing US soldiers, only this time the US soldiers and US people will be fighting them on US soil. But like before the US people and their US soldiers will easily defeat the Germans - 18,000 against over 300 million people determined to be free again. It’s probably a very good time for the people in both the Republican and the Democratic parties to start running. Independence Day is coming again to the United States and the US government is their target.

Fighting, preventing and curing cancer is as simple as eating the right foods. Eating healthy foods is also a cure for skyrocketing health care costs.

To prevent or cure cancer you need to examine the work of Dr. Max Gerson. This physician, who died in 1959, had a 50% cure rate, even on far-advanced cancer cases, but he didn’t use surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy.

He realized that cancer was a symptom of disturbed metabolism; that treating the symptom was rarely efficacious; and to get at the underlying cause the first step was to detoxify the whole body.

Gerson understood that liver activity was tied into all aspects of human physiology. Not only does it filter out toxins from the body, it transforms them so they can enter into the bile ducts, and can thus be eliminated with the bile.

The liver also works interdependently with the pancreas and stomach in the production of trypsin, pepsin, and lipase, the digestive enzymes. The liver has many, many more very important functions. One of them is the reactivation of oxidizing enzymes that are at a low level of function in cancer patients.

Gerson knew that cancer cells thrive in a low oxygen, low potassium condition—an anaerobic environment. When he took away the conditions that cancer needs to continue to live, by providing the malignant cells with a high level of potassium and oxidizing enzymes to absorb, the cells died by themselves.

He observed that in advanced cases of cancer the liver went to hell in a hand basket. Therefore he had to restore the function of the liver–the tissue and the function of the liver.

To that end he gave his patients liver injections, and as most of them needed an increase in their red blood cell count, he added vitamin B12. They received 3 cc of crude liver extract together with 100 mcg of B12.

When Gerson learned that our fruit and vegetables no longer provide a normal content of the mineral potassium, and not enough of the oxidizing enzymes, he looked for the best source of potassium in the best composition and the best supply of oxidizing enzymes.

That source turned out to be calves liver! Don’t like liver? Other good sources of potassium include bananas, citrus juices (such as orange juice), avocados, cantaloupes, tomatoes, potatoes, lima beans, flounder, salmon, cod, chicken, and other meats.

He gave his patients freshly pressed calves liver juice, combined with equal parts of carrots.

He took ½ pound fresh calves liver (not frozen) and ½ pound of carrots to make one glass of 200 cc (approx. 8 oz.) of fresh juice.

Quoting Dr. Gerson: “The patients, the far advanced cases, get two glasses a day, even three glasses, and they like it!”

Calves liver turns out to be a mineral accumulator, and cobalt is one of the minerals it accumulates; and this was key to Gerson’s success. Foods containing cobalt include meat, milk, eggs, figs and cabbage.

Humans and all vertebrates require the mineral cobalt, the center of the vitamin B12 molecule.

Cobalt activates several metabolic enzymes. It is needed for the production of thyroid hormone and for myelin, the insulating material found around nerves. We require cobalt for protein, fat and carbohydrate metabolism, and the production of DNA and RNA, the body’s genetic material.

Indigenous bacteria manufacture the B12 molecule in the human small intestine, primary site of B12 absorption, provided they have cobalt and certain other nutrients to work with. The B12 is stored in the liver and subsequently cycled to bone marrow for red blood cell production..

Sadly, cobalt has been disappearing from the soil, and thus our diet, for decades. Under deficient conditions, we draw down the liver’s cobalt-containing B12 reserves.

In Gerson’s own words:

“What we have to do in cancer–a degenerative, deficiency disease–is to refill the organs which are empty and poisoned.”

Gerson cleaned out his patients and, in his own way, reintroduced them to the diet of their healthy ancestors—a diet dense with minerals—that refilled their organs. And he had proof of this.

His proof of the pudding, so to speak, came from taking tiny tissue samples from the liver by liver punctures. As time passed and patients recovered, their livers showed microscopically and chemically that recovery had taken place. Cobalt content, as well as that of potassium and iron increased.

He had given the body the nutrients it needed to mount a powerful immune response to seek and destroy cancer cells throughout the blood, lymph, organs, and glands.

Black water can very easily be converted into a renewable fuel source for every major city around the World. No more expensive drilling for fuel deposits. No more US waging wars of aggression to steal control of the last remaining oil and natural gas. No more Exxon Mobil oil spill disasters.

It is possible for cities to produce their own energy fuel supply as well as be eco friendly. The infrastructure is already there and the fuel is already being pumped through the cities. What is it that will provide cities with fuel and at the same time drastically clean up the environment? The fuel source is free for the taking and is renewable. The answer to a major city’s energy needs is sewage.

Currently Ontario cities pump billions of liters of untreated sewage into the Great Lakes every year. The main reason for pumping raw sewage into the Great Lakes is a financial reason. Before now cities saw sewage as worthless. It costs $millions to treat sewage and some cities just don’t have the budget to treat all of the sewage. “Millions of Ontarians and their kids, drink, bathe, and eat food grown with Great Lakes water yet cities are to this day pumping billions of liters of “untreated” sewage into them. The answer to the cities needs both for energy and water treatment is treating the sewage as a fuel source.

How can sewage be used as a fuel source to say generate electricity for use in the cities to power street cars, lights, air conditioners, home appliances and business computers and machines? As unappealing as it may seem sewage can cut greenhouse gases, help cleanup water supplies and add a new source of green and endlessly renewable fuel. Left on its own to decay, waste pumped from septic systems (known as septage) produce methane gas (a powerful greenhouse gas in itself) and carbon dioxide, the most popularized greenhouse gas. The result is steady supply of methane that can be used directly as fuel or mixed with natural gas for pipeline distribution. (Natural gas is mostly methane. The mix is relatively easy.) Septic waste could become a valuable commodity since it could be used to make fuel. If septic waste were channeled away from wastewater treatment facilities those facilities would be left to process only gray water, like dirty dish water.

Methane Fuel Generation From Human Wastes

- Anaerobic fermentation or digestion is the most promising process for converting organic materials to methane and other gases.
- A simple apparatus can be constructed to produce bio-gas.
- Bio-gas usually contains about 60 to 70 percent methane, 30 to 40 percent carbon dioxide, and other gases.

Converting organic materials, such as human wastes, to an easily used form of fuel can be accomplished by several methods. The process with the greatest potential is anaerobic fermentation or digestion.

The extraction of fuel from wastes using anaerobic digestion to produce bio-gas is not new and the general technology is well known. Bio-gas, which is methane and other gases, has been known as swamp gas, sewer gas and fuel gas. Sewage treatment plants generate bio-gas from the sewage sludge as part of the sewage treatment processes. Since sewage treatment is a 24/7 process bio-gas is being produced 24/7 as well. Today though, the bio-gas is not collected and used as a fuel source for the energy needs of the city, it is all vented. Using human waste to produce a renewable fuel source is not rocket science. All you have to know is how the fuel is produced and then you simply make modifications to the sewage processing plants to start producing an unending supply of fuel.

First off methane is produced by bacteria. The bacteria are anaerobes and operate only in anaerobic environments (no free oxygen). Constant temperature, pH and fresh organic matter promote maximum methane production. Temperatures usually are maintained at approximately 95 degrees F. Other temperatures can be used if held constant. For each 20 degrees F decrease, gas production will be cut approximately one half or will take twice as long. A constant temperature is critical. Temperature variations of as little as 5 degrees F can inhibit the methane-formers enough to cause acid accumulation and possible digester failure.

Anaerobic digestion is a series of processes in which micro organisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen and is widely used to treat wastewater. As part of an integrated waste management system, anaerobic digestion reduces the emission of landfill gas into the atmosphere. Anaerobic digestion is widely used as a renewable energy source because the process produces a methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas suitable for energy production helping replace fossil fuels. Also, the nutrient-rich digestate can be used as fertiliser. The digestion process begins with bacterial hydrolysis of the input materials in order to break down insoluble organic polymers such as carbohydrates and make them available for other bacteria. Acidogenic bacteria then convert the sugars and amino acids into carbon dioxide, hydrogen, ammonia, and organic acids. Acetogenic bacteria then convert these resulting organic acids into acetic acid, along with additional ammonia, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Methanogens, finally are able to convert these products to methane and carbon dioxide.

Anaerobic digestion is a two-part process and each part is performed by a specific group of organisms. The first part is the breakdown of complex organic matter (manure) into simple organic compounds by acid-forming bacteria. The second group of microorganisms, the methane-formers, break down the acids into methane and carbon dioxide. In a properly functioning digester, the two groups of bacteria must balance so that the methane-formers use just the acids produced by the acid-formers.

Anaerobic digestion facilities have been recognised by the United Nations Development Programme as one of the most useful decentralised sources of energy supply, as they are less capital intensive than large power plants.

A simple apparatus can produce bio-gas. The amount of the gas and the reliability desired have a great influence on the cost and complexity of the system. A simple batch-loaded digester requires an oxygen-free container, relatively constant temperature, a means of collecting gas, and some mixing. Because methane gas is explosive, appropriate safety precautions are needed.

The solution to 2 very major problems (energy needs and waste treatment) that all cities face is already flowing beneath their streets. The solution is provided by its citizens 24/7 making it the most abundant and endlessly renewable source of fuel. Just redirecting sewage into a digester in urban areas meets the entire Kyoto protocol requirements for North American cities without even considering the natural gas production.

At least two people were injured and a third still unaccounted for after Joseph Stack intentionally crashed his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas on Thursday February 18, 2010.

According to officials at the scene, Stack also lit his house on fire after becoming upset with the IRS.

Fire and thick black smoke poured from the seven-story Echelon Building. Stack flew the plane out of the Georgetown Municipal Airport about 30 miles north of the crash site in Austin.

Joseph Stack’s website may explain his motive for why he flew his plane into the Echelon Building. It contained (FBI has since ordered it taken down) a long, angry statement where he blames the IRS for the loss of large sums of money in his retirement and savings accounts. nbGazette.com was able to get a copy of what Stack wrote on his website.

The Stack Manifesto:

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

This photo shows Canadian JTF2 Special Forces personnel escorting three detainees early Monday, Jan. 21, 2002, as they arrive at the airport in Kandahar, Afghanistan aboard a US military aircraft.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in direct violation of Parliamentary Law for unlawfully suspending Parliament. Harper did so to prevent more questioning about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan and whether we are acting responsibly or are we giving POWs over to foreign forces which we know engage in torture and abuse of POWs such as the Afghanistan military or the American military neither of whom Canada can trust not to abuse and torture prisoners in Afghanistan. Torture is a criminal offense. Torture is a war crime and an international crime and evidence surfaced that showed that Prime Minister Stephen Harper knew that Afghan detainees that were being transfered from Canadian custody to Afghan and US military authorities would be and were being tortured. To cover-up Harper’s Conservative government involvement in the most heinous of war crimes Harper decided unlawfully and without authority, to suspend Parliament.

Harper’s proroguing is taking place outside of what we would normally consider valid, democratic processes requiring the majority of MPs to approve it. That’s usurping the authority that is normally invested in our elected officials. MPs were supposed to return to work Jan. 25 after a holiday break, but Harper said he delayed the resumption of Parliament to focus on strategies for Canada’s economy. Harper has suspended Parliament twice now to his political gain.

Less than one-in-five Canadians (18%) agree with the Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament, while three-in-five (61%) disagree.

To understand just what Harper has done I am going to explain to you, our readers, Canada’s Parlimentary system After you’ve read this you too will understand the blatant abuse of the office of the Prime Minster and Parliamentary Law by Stephen Harper.

Canada’s parliamentary system

Canada’s parliamentary system is a central component to its government. This system frames the relationship between Canadians and their political leaders, the manner in which laws are passed, and the organization and authority of key government positions and institutions.

What is a parliamentary government?

Generally speaking, parliamentary governments are defined by an absence of clear separation between two key branches of government: the legislative branch, which is responsible for enacting laws, and the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing laws. Instead, in parliamentary governments, the executive branch is “fused with” and “dependent upon” the legislative branch.

In Canada’s parliamentary system, this interrelationship between the legislative and executive branches is expressed in several ways. First, key members of the executive, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are usually drawn directly from the legislative branch. The Prime Minister, for example, is usually an elected member of the House of Commons. As such, s/he performs the dual functions of leading the government, as well as representing his/her riding as a regular member of the House of Commons.

Second, and most importantly, the executive branch (Prime Minister) is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot decide the direction of government or administer enacted laws if it does not enjoy the continual support of the majority of members in the House of Commons. If the executive loses majority support in the legislature, then typically the government will fall, and elections will be held to select a new executive.

While all parliamentary governments are the same in that they fuse the executive and legislative branches of government, they often differ substantially otherwise.

Canada’s parliamentary system is referred to as a “Westminster Model.” This model was first developed by the British and is named after the Palace of Westminster, which houses the British Parliament. Many former colonies of Great Britain, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, adopted this British parliamentary model once they became independent nations.

The Westminster parliamentary model is distinctive in several ways. First, most Westminster parliaments include a monarch; that is, a king or queen who represents the national sovereign. In most modern Westminster models, however, the monarch is primarily a symbolic figure with little actual political power. Second, most parliaments based on a Westminster model are bicameral, meaning they have two legislative houses or chambers. This generally includes a “lower” house made up of members elected directly by citizens, and an “upper” house made up of appointed or hereditary members.

Under a Westminster model, typically each of these components must approve legislation for it to become law. In other words, the monarch, as well as both the lower and upper legislative houses must pass it.

In Canada’s Parliament, the national sovereign is the Canadian Monarch, which the country shares with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations. Most of the monarch’s day-to-day parliamentary responsibilities, however, are performed by the Governor General, the Monarch’s representative in Canada.

Before any legislation becomes law, the Monarch (or, in practice, the Governor General) grants “Royal Assent,” that is, formal approval. In addition to approving legislation, the Governor General (as the Monarch’s representative) also has the power to appoint key parliamentary officers and leaders, including the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and leaders of the legislatures. The Governor General opens and closes parliamentary sessions (periods when the legislative houses sit and undertake parliamentary business), and to dissolve a particular parliament (which usually leads to an election and the forming of new parliament).

It is important to note, however, that while the Governor General (as the Monarch’s representative) holds these parliamentary powers in theory these powers are rarely exercised independently of the Prime Minister and the elected legislature. It is general custom that the Governor General always grants Royal Assent to legislation passed by the legislative houses. Moreover, the Prime Minister usually decides when to open and dissolve parliaments, with the Governor General simply carrying out the Prime Minister’s decision. It is important to note that the Prime Minister has no authority to suspend Parliament.

In Canada’s Parliament, there are two legislative houses or chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is an elected house, which is constituted by representatives elected at the local constituency level. The Senate, in contrast, is an appointed house consisting of members appointed by government.

The House of Commons is the primary legislature in Canada’s Parliament. All legislation must be approved by the House of Commons (by majority vote) in order for it to become law. Moreover, the government of the day is highly dependent upon the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are usually drawn from the elected members of the House, and the government must maintain majority support in the House in order to stay in power (cabinet minister have also been drawn, in rare cases, from the Senate).

The Senate also plays an important role in Parliament, albeit a less politically powerful one. All legislation must be approved by the Senate (again, by majority vote) in order for it to become law. It is, however, generally customary for the appointed Senate to automatically approve legislation that has been passed by the elected House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Senate does engage in extensive review of parliamentary legislation and will, on rare occasion, reject legislation passed by the House. Moreover, the Senate does not enjoy the same level of interaction with the government of the day as the House. Rarely are Cabinet members drawn from the Senate, and the government does not need to maintain majority support in the Senate in order to remain in power.

Responsible Government

The concept of responsible government is at the heart of Canada’s parliamentary system of government. For many people, however, it is a confusing concept. When asked to define responsible government, most people intuitively believe it means that government (that is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is responsible to the citizens it presides over. While there is an element of truth to this, the technical meaning of responsible government is that the government is responsible to Parliament, and, in particular, the elected representatives of the House of Commons.

Under Canada’s system, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. This means that a majority of Members of Parliament (MP) must support the government. This support, or lack thereof, is most commonly expressed when the government submits legislation to the House for its approval. If a majority of MPs vote in favour of the legislation, then the government has maintained the confidence of the House; if a majority vote against the legislation, then the government has lost the House’s confidence.

Votes against important pieces of government legislation, such as the federal budget, will result in the government falling. In the event this happens, the Prime Minister usually submit his/her resignation to the Governor General, who, typically, calls for an election or, in rare cases, asks another Member of Parliament (customarily the Leader of the Opposition Party with the greatest number of sitting members) to try to form a government that will have the confidence of the House.

Another way in which confidence is expressed in a particular government is through direct votes on the government itself. A Member of Parliament may, for example, introduce a motion calling for the resignation of the government. If the motion passes with a majority of votes, then the government is deemed to have lost the confidence of the House, and the Prime Minister will submit his/her resignation to the Governor General.

In addition to votes on the government or its legislation, the House further holds the government responsible through the relentless review of individual cabinet ministers and their actions. Ministers must account to the House for the way they run their departments, their policies and budgets, and any mistakes made by department officials. This is what the daily Question Period is all about: it provides a forum for individual MPs to ask questions of Ministers. It is one of the most visible ways the government is held responsible to the House of Commons.

Harper will be held accountable to the Canadian people for his unlawful actions. Harper only temporarily suspended the inevitable. The people are now more determined than ever to charge Harper and other members of his government with war crimes as soon as Parliament reconvenes. The majority, the opposition, is more determined to call for his resignation as soon as Parliament reconvenes. The people demand the removal of Harper. The people demand the resignation of the one who would dare to make a mockery of our Parliamentary system. The people will never allow anyone to assume dictatorial authority over them.

“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.” Obama was forced to retake the Constitutionally required oath of office. In case you never noticed this swearing was botched too as nowhere is there a Bible with Obama’s hand on it while he retakes the oath.

In case you missed Obama’s blatant disregard for the US Constitution, President Obama declared dictator powers in his State of the Union Address:

“That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I’ll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

Executive orders are unconstitutional. They were not authorized by the Founding Fathers, and are a product of 20th century presidents to cirumvent the legislative process.

It is reasonable to grant the President certain powers to act swiftly in extreme emergencies, but those powers are few, and can be overturned or stopped by the Congress.

President Obama’s statement, if followed by action, is grounds for impeachment. This abuse of power has no place in our Constitutional government. If Presidents are given the power to override any denial, we may as well toss the other two branches of government and the U.S. Constitution. Dictator Obama would not need them.

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.

Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that’s by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

The following are the powers of the Executive (president): veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out (especially the Supreme Law of the land - the US Constitution); commander in chief of the military; pardon power.

The following are the powers of the Legislature (The House and Senate): Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President.

The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional.

Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process (legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers); however, the Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate is uniquely empowered to ratify treaties and to approve top presidential appointments.

To protect against abuse of power at the federal level, the United States Constitution mandated separation of powers, with responsibilities divided among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress’ primary checks on the executive branch.

Most importantly and relating to Obama’s false assumption of dictatorial powers, Congress, not the executive branch, has the exclusive power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch (the president of the United States - Obama). Congressional oversight is usually delegated to committees and is facilitated by Congress’ subpoena power. Congress also has the exclusive power of removal, allowing impeachment and removal of the President, federal judges and other federal officers.

The Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and it has been theorized that that is one reason they are described in Article One.

The Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future.

The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only nominate for appointment Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers “by and with the advice and consent” of the Senate. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect.

The United States Constitution clearly declares in

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

George W. Bush photographed with war crimes co-defendants in the Cabinet Room of the White House in December 2001. From left: Vice President Dick Cheney, George W Bush, National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, White House chief of staff Andrew Card, C.I.A. director George Tenet (seated), and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan began in 2001 as a war of aggression similar to the attack on Iraq. Prior to the start of that war on Oct. 7, 2001, the Taliban government in Kabul offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the US alleged al-Qaeda leader, if the U.S. provided proof he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Bush deemed Kabul’s response insufficient and he attacked without adequately seeking an alternative or peaceful way to resolve differences…and the UN was not given a proper role. This attack violated Article 2 of the UN Charter that states “All members shall refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity…of any state…”

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the United States, so neither war was based on self-defense. Preemptive war is not an accepted form of self-defense under international law.

On June 5, 2006, reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI Headquarters to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. He spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

The list of U.S. war crimes committed in Afghanistan alone include the following:

# The U.S. bombed the children’s hospital in Kabul and a hospital in Herat, resulting in 100 deaths. This violated the Red Cross Convention of 1864 that established even military hospitals as “neutral” and that must be “respected by belligerents.”

# Clearly marked Red Cross warehouses were bombed on three occasions in the Afghan War during October 2001, a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929 that protects “the personnel of Voluntary Aid Societies.”

# During its 2001 offensive in Afghanistan, at least 1,000 civilians were killed by U.S. carpet bombing. This violates Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions prohibiting “indiscriminate attacks” against civilians.

# While the Hague Convention of 1899 requires that prisoners be “humanely treated,” this was often not the case in Afghanistan where the conditions in the prisons were so shocking that Canadian forces stopped sending prisoners to the American-run prisons at the end of 2005, preferring to send them to facilities run by the Afghan government.

# Although the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbids “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,” captives were murdered in Afghanistan’s prisons. Some were chained naked to the ceiling, cell doors, and the floor. One man, Ait Idr, had his face forced into a toilet that was repeatedly flushed. Another, Mohammed Ahmed Said Haidel, was hit with his arms tied behind his back until his head began to bleed. Another, Ahmed Darabi, was hung by his arms and repeatedly beaten, though he survived—unlike (a) taxicab driver (named) Dilawar, who died from the same treatment.

# Prisoners of war “shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks,” says the POW Convention of 1929 but many cells at American-run prisons in Afghanistan lack windows and adequate ventilation. Some prisons lacked heat during cold weather so that prisoners died of exposure. What’s more, some prisoners have been held in solitary confinement for years.

# Where the Geneva Convention decrees sick or wounded prisoners “shall not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey,” some prisoners transferred in Afghanistan were thrown to the ground from helicopters and badly injured. Still others were kicked or beaten en route and others died while stuffed into sealed cargo containers. Not surprisingly, the deaths of some Afghan prisoners have never been recorded, another war crimes violation.

Aggressive war was first declared to be illegal when the U.S. and France coauthored and later ratified the multilateral Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, thus incorporating that document into what the U.S. Constitution calls ”the law of the land.” Furthermore, the U.S. is a signatory to both the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, and the Tokyo Charter of 1946.

The Nuremberg Charter, for example, defines crimes against peace as “planning, preparation, initiation or the waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties…,” a definition that fits U.S. actions in Afghanistan during 2001.

It is not only the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq whose rights have been trampled, for today the globe is being transformed into an unchecked superpower playpen where might appears to make right. Hundreds of years of human rights progress are in serious jeopardy as long as governmental war criminals live blissfully in the knowledge that they will never be accountable for their crimes.

The more the public observes reference in the news to possible war crimes violations, the more decision makers will be accountable. Otherwise, the impunity of former high Bush administration officials for the immense violations documented….threatens to turn back the clock on human progress by shredding the Magna Carta, the American Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and similar agreements that have advanced humanity from barbarism toward civilized behavior.

Bush has accomplished a transformed United States where leaders have abandoned democratic principles and loyal citizens are profoundly ashamed of how the ideals of the country they love so much have been abandoned. Something must be done or Americans will believe that whatever Bush has done was right.

Bringing George W. Bush and his former administration to justice for war crimes is the most compelling way in which to dispel the fiction that what has been done was necessary and proper. Otherwise, the specter of war crimes will continue to haunt the world, and civilization itself will unravel helplessly.

On Oct. 7, 2001 the United States. launched a war of terror against Afghanistan. U.S. leaders are continuing a war that is now opposed by a majority of the American public. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released on Sept. 1 indicated that 57 percent of Americans questioned stated they oppose the Afghan war. The percentage in opposition to the war is the highest ever in CNN polling since the war began.

President Obama has repeatedly referred to Afghanistan as a “war of necessity.” The initial invasion was “justified” as a self-defense reaction to 9/11 according to the Bush regime. But a National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) was submitted to the White House on September 9, 2001 that essentially outlined the same war plan that the United States put into play after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11Commission Report stated that on Sept. 10, 2001, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks served as a convenient excuse to do what the United States was already intent on doing—attacking Afghanistan.

What have nine years of war accomplished?

Thousands of Afghans have been killed and millions continue to be refugees —either within Afghanistan or in nearby nations. The Afghan economy is shattered and Afghanistan is among the poorest countries in the world. Women are still oppressed as they were under the Taliban. Last year the US installed Afghanistan legislature passed a law that requires Shi’ite women to get permission from their husbands to go to school, visit a doctor, to work, and to do other ordinary activities. US installed President Karzai who was originally hand-picked by the United States signed the legislation to advance his election chances within Shi’a areas. Government corruption is so extensive that even the U.S. State Department has condemned it. The recent “democratic” elections are to this day still being contested because of massive fraud. War and drug lords are part of the government. One of Karzai’s vice-presidential running mates, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, is a notorious human rights abuser. In many areas such as poverty rates, life expectancy, unemployment, child mortality, life expectancy, and lack of human rights, Afghanistan is near the worst in the world.

Afghanistan is number one in opium production, not under the Taliban rule but under US and NATO occupation. Entire US battalions are used to protect the Opium fields of Afghanistan - to ensure that the fields are not destroyed as the illegal drug trade has financed all CIA illegal black opts since Vietnam.

After taking office, Obama escalated the war by sending additional troops to Afghanistan, with 68,000 to be there by November. There are also 38,000 NATO troops present and Afghan conscripts include 216,000 police and soldiers. As of March 2009, the U.S. military also employed 68,000 “mercenaries” in Afghanistan. These mercenaries do not include other hired killers on the payrolls of the State Department or other U.S. agencies. And despite nearly 400,000 personnel working for the U.S. military, “The insurgents (resistance groups) control or contest a significant portion of the country,” according to General McChrystal.

Last September CIA Director Panetta announced that the CIA is adding extra bases in Afghanistan to support the military buildup in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since taking office, Obama has asked Congress for more funds to expand the U.S. ran prison in Bagram, which holds prisoners taken in the US war of aggression and terror in Afghanistan and those captured and kidnapped by U.S. forces and their allies from around the world. Bagram’s record of human rights abuses rivals Guantanamo’s.

In addition to escalating the Afghan war, Obama has expanded the war into neighboring Pakistan by launching frequent missile strikes that have killed countless numbers of civilians. The United States has pressured Pakistan to attack Islamic militants within the country and civil war has broken out in parts of the country as a result. Continuing to expand the war of terror into nuclear-armed Pakistan is a dangerous proposition.

U.S. military leaders openly admit that they are engaged in a “long war” in the Afghanistan region. Depending on which one you listen to, the war will last anywhere from 5 years to a few more decades. Obama claims the United States must fight this war so that the Taliban and al Queda can not retake control of the country. Supporting the U.S. government to defeat the Taliban and their allies will not advance the interests of the Afghan or American people. It was in the interest of the US government to put the Taliban in power after the Taliban and other Afghanistan nationalists groups successfully ousted the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Now it is only in the interest of the US government to commit genocide against the very same people who liberated the Afghan people from the Soviet war of aggression and occupation. The US needs the Afghanistan opium to finance all their future illegal CIA operations of terror, sabotage and political assassinations using CIA recruited operatives called al Queda. If the US leaves Afghanistan the Taliban would surely wipe out the Opium drug trade, just as they did in March of 2001. The Taliban are not drug warlords the US imposed Afghanistan government is made up entirely of drug warlords - including US imposed Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The Taliban would also take back control of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) that the US stole from them when the US illegally attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

This war must be ended, not escalated. The U.S. and NATO must withdraw its forces. We must deliver a powerful message to the world that people in the United States will not allow their government to commit war crimes in Afghanistan.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

1. George Walker Bush,
3. Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney,
4. Donald Henry Rumsfeld, and
5. Barack Hussein Obama
Defendants.

VERDICT FORM

We, the jury, unanimously find the following:

Count 1
A) We, the jury, find the defendant George Walker Bush
GUILTY
of the crime of crimes against peace - planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing - against the sovereign nation of Afghanistan and its people.

B) We, the jury, find the defendant Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney
GUILTY
of the crime of crimes against peace - planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing - against the sovereign nation of Afghanistan and its people.

C) We, the jury, find the defendant Donald Henry Rumsfeld
GUILTY
of the crime of crimes against peace - planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing - against the sovereign nation of Afghanistan and its people.

D) We, the jury, find the defendant Barack Hussein Obama
GUILTY
of the crime of crimes against peace - planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing - against the sovereign nation of Afghanistan and its people.

Count 2
A) We, the jury, find the defendant George Walker Bush
GUILTY
of the crime of Crimes against humanity - Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against the Afghanistan civilian population, during the war, and the persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of International Law, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

B) We, the jury, find the defendant Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney
GUILTY
of the crime of Crimes against humanity - Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against the Afghanistan civilian population, during the war, and the persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of International Law, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

C) We, the jury, find the defendant Donald Henry Rumsfeld
GUILTY
of the crime of Crimes against humanity - Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against the Afghanistan civilian population, during the war, and the persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of International Law, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

D) We, the jury, find the defendant Barack Hussein Obama
GUILTY
of the crime of Crimes against humanity - Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against the Afghanistan civilian population, during the war, and the persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of International Law, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Count 3
A) We, the jury, find the defendant George Walker Bush
GUILTY
of the crime of WAR CRIMES including violations of laws or customs of war. In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows: Torture, Cruel or inhuman treatment, Murder, Mutilation or maiming, Intentionally causing serious bodily injury, Rape, Sexual assault or abuse, and Taking hostages.

B) We, the jury, find the defendant Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney
GUILTY
of the crime of WAR CRIMES including violations of laws or customs of war. In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows: Torture, Cruel or inhuman treatment, Murder, Mutilation or maiming, Intentionally causing serious bodily injury, Rape, Sexual assault or abuse, and Taking hostages.

C) We, the jury, find the defendant Donald Henry Rumsfeld
GUILTY
of the crime of WAR CRIMES including violations of laws or customs of war. In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows: Torture, Cruel or inhuman treatment, Murder, Mutilation or maiming, Intentionally causing serious bodily injury, Rape, Sexual assault or abuse, and Taking hostages.

D) We, the jury, find the defendant Barack Hussein Obama
GUILTY
of the crime of WAR CRIMES including violations of laws or customs of war. In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows: Torture, Cruel or inhuman treatment, Murder, Mutilation or maiming, Intentionally causing serious bodily injury, Rape, Sexual assault or abuse, and Taking hostages.

On February 16, at about 10:00 am ET, the U.S. will be hit by a massive, crippling cyber attack from a supposedly unknown entity. The same people who will be coordinating the attack will convene in the White House situation room and plan the response, from mitigation to retaliation.

For the second time in US history the US will be attacked while the entire US intelligence and security systems are fully engulfed in a war-game. Like the attacks of September 11, 2001 the US police and security forces will not be able to differentiate between exercise and the real thing. It will be very realistic, featuring senior intelligence and national security officials, including former directors of intelligence agencies and combatant commands and homeland security advisers.

A production company (rumoured to be AMC formerly called Allied Media Corp - the ones who made all of the al Qaeda and bin Laden terrorist videos for the US government of George W Bush) has been hired to re-create a White House Sit Room in the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, and professional scriptwriters have been working with experts to create a real-life scenario.

Corporate sponsors of the event include companies with financial stakes in the future of cyber defense — General Dynamics is reported to be one — but also companies whose transactions are the lifeblood to the American economy (mainly the banks of the privately owned US Federal Reserve and their share holders and AIG, all who have received $trillions from the George W Bush and Barry Obama administrations in fake bailouts), and who want to foster a greater sense of urgency among the public and policymakers. (PayPal has joined as a sponsor.)

CNN has agreed to broadcast live the attack to make it as real as possible, just like the false flag US government coordinated attack against the US on September 11, 2001. The US government is hoping CNN doesn’t screw up again and broadcast somehting that hasn’t happened yet like they did on September 11, 2001 whereby CNN broadcasted live that World Trade Center Tower 7 had collapsed before it was actually “brought down” (demolished by explosives). CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 “has collapsed or is collapsing” over an hour before it fell. The BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 at least 25-minutes prior to the actual collapse of the building. All is proof of a scripted broadcast by both the BBC and CNN to create a real-life scenario.

In the BBC’s documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“ top CIA officials openly admit that Al Qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. This highly revealing BBC documentary digs deep into the roots of the war on terror, only to find that much of the widespread fear in the post-9/11 world has been fabricated by those in power for their own interests. Fear has been used widely in the media to manipulate the public into giving up civil liberties and turning over power to elite groups with their own hidden agendas. The Power of Nightmares clearly demonstrates that the nightmare vision of a powerful, united terrorist organization waiting to strike our societies is largely an illusion. Wherever the BBC team looked for Al Qaeda, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the sleeper cells in America, they found that we are chasing a phantom enemy. The documentary exposes the Bush administration’s need for a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al Qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after.

“Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working … but this has the hallmark of that approach.” People the US claim to be Al Qaeda are not Al Qaeda they are actually POWs and Resistance Fighters, taken from the countries the US illegally attacked. They are POWs and Resistance Fighters who have been illegally deported, tortured and murdered by the US and NATO forces . The people who are fighting to free their country and countrymen from the illegal US and NATO invasion and occupations are called Al Qaeda by the US government because the US government needed an enemy. If the US people knew the truth that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist the US would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is the US government propaganda, used to falsely and illegally justify the US and NATO invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both attacks, wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are deemed by US, Canadian and International Law as crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, wars of aggression and war crimes. The Iraqi, Afghan and Taliban people the US call terrorists are guilty of no crime. The Iraqi, Afghan and Taliban people are doing exactly as any country would do if attacked and occupied by a foreign state’s military, they are resisting. They are freedom fighters. Their actions of killing US and NATO soldiers are legal as their battles against the US and NATO forces are one of self-defense whereas the actions of the US and NATO are clearly attacks of aggression - war crimes. The US, Canadian and NATO countries are the terrorists. The US, Canadian and NATO countries are the enemy as they attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the US, Canada or any other NATO country. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are the innocent victims of US, Canadian and NATO wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes - kidnapping, deporting, torture and murder.

On June 16, 2004 staff members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States testified that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in attacks against the United States. No link has ever been found between Al Qaeda and Iraq or Al Qaeda and Afghanistan because Al Qaeda does not exist. Al Qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication. The CIA is trying to tell us something that they publicly can’t with their “official” terrorist buster logo. They are stating that terrorists are like ghosts. Everyone is afraid of them, but nobody has proof they even exist.

Another eye-opening video available online for free viewing is Unconstitutional. In this documentary, interviews with ranking members of Congress, top legal experts, and even a former CIA chief describe many insidious efforts to take away freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution for over 200 years.

Compelling video footage shows US citizens, from law-abiding store clerks to a US Olympian, who have been the victims of unconstitutional policies established under the Patriot Act. Members of Congress describe the replacement of the previously agreed upon Patriot Act by another version quietly slipped into its place just hours before the final vote in Congress, leaving no one time to read the many devastating changes inserted at the last minute.

Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties, is the third in a series of Public Interest Pictures films that follows Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election and Uncovered: The War on Iraq. True to their legacy, Unconstitutional provides the facts and stories that illuminate administration lies, wrongheaded policies, and the real victims of these actions–the American people. Here, you’ll get the real story behind the USA PATRIOT Act and other administration policies that tries, illegally, to strip the US people of their Constitutional Rights and Freedoms. Their goal is to one day permanently suspend the United States Constitution after launching another attack against their own country, the US, and falsely blame the totally fictitious terrorist organization they call Al Qaeda. They will launch another 9/11 style attack against the US but this time they will declare Martial Law.

The martial law in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established (in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act) to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities.[11].

On June 15, 1995, Norman Olson, along with militia leaders from other states, testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism. Olson’s opening statement included the following:

One other important point needs to be made. Since The Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant cannot become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be cancelled and differed back to the granting power. That is the people. And I’ll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable.

Al Jazeera used by the US government as it’s propaganda media outlet for its “War of Terror”

Al Jazeera is the largest and most controversial Arabic News Channel in the Middle East, offering news coverage 24 hours a day from around the world and focusing on the hottest regions of conflict. Founded in 1996, and based in Qatar, the Al Jazeera news network is the fastest growing network among Arab communities and Arabic speaking people around the world. It has been the main propaganda news media for the US immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the US government paid Al Jazeera to broadcast videos in which Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith defending and justifying the attacks. That broadcast has since been proven by both US government and International government officials as fakes. The fake video tapes that were sent to Al Jazeera through the CIA was created in the US at Allied Media Corp.

Every time Al Jazeera reported on a new video or audio from Al Qaeda or bin Laden which makes threats against the US the audio or video was actually made in the studios of Allied Media Corp. The financial trail connects the Bush administration to Allied Media Corp. Government documents reveal the work that Allied Media Corp was paid to do for the Bush administration to terrorize the American people. The Bush administration was able to strip the American people of their inalienable rights and freedoms because of the video and audio tapes that were made by Allied Media Corp and aired by Al Jazeera. The US government paid Allied Media Corp to produce video tapes and audio tapes that made terrorist threats against the American people. This is essentially the US making threats against itself.

Allied Media Corp has recently erased it’s connection with Al Jazeera. Its website use to have an entire section dedicated to Al Jazeera and it programming that was made in the US under the direction of Allied Media Corp. To further distance itself from its former main financial backer, the Bush administration, Allied Media Corp now markets itself under the name AMC. To try and erase its involvement in US government propaganda and terrorism via Bush administration ordered fake Al Qaeda tapes Allied Media Corp is not only erasing all Al Jazeera connection but is contacting independent news agencies including nbGAzette.com to get independent news agencies to erase any and all mention of connection between Allied Media Corp and Al Jazeera. This is our response. The truth cannot be concealed. The truth cannot be altered. History cannot be changed.

The following link no longer works. It existed for the entire George W Bush presidency. Allied Media Corp makes Al Jazeera terrorists threat videos

Every video, every audio tape of bin Laden or the phantom Al Qaeda making threats against the US has been made in the USA. The studios of Allied Media Corp has been making the videos and audio tapes for the former Bush administration to further the US War of Terror and wars of aggression against its own people and other sovereign nations. The post 9/11 video tape of bin Laden supposedly confessing to carrying out the attacks against the US was a fake and the person we are suppose to believe is bin Laden is an actor. George W Bush used Allied Media Corp to create videos and audio tapes of actors portraying bin Laden and al Qaeda making threats against the US in order to influence and coerce Congress into giving him dictatorial powers and rob the US people of their civil rights and freedoms. bin Laden did not take away your freedom the Bush White House did. bin Laden did not attack the US on September 11, 2001 your own government did. bin Laden didn’t bankrupt the US your own government did - throughout history all major empires have collapsed as a result of very costly prolonged wars of aggression campaigns. bin Laden and Saddam Hussein didn’t kill over 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians your US government did - first the Clinton administration, then George W Bush and Dick Cheney’s administration and now Obama’s administration. Al Qaeda is and always has been a Made in the USA terrorist organization. Terrorism is a Made in the US political agenda.

Just as dreams are not real, neither are these nightmares. The idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. The terrorist organization Al Qaeda does not exist and never did. Al Qaeda is the US government’s code name for illegal CIA terrorist operations against foreign states and the US people.

History and concrete evidence confirms that both the Bush and the Obama administrations are mimicking the actions and aggressions of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. The entire World is negligent in their duty to prevent the revival of Nazism (Nazism is the ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy). International agencies like the UN, NATO and the ICC are all either stupid or complicit for allowing the Bush and Obama administrations to continue their wars of aggression. It is absolute lunacy for the World to see the facts before them and not act to end the senseless slaughter of millions of innocent people. The facts clearly declare that Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Iran did not have anything to do with the criminal acts (hijackings) of September 11, 2001 yet they are the target of military attacks by the US. No country did anything against the US or any other country to warrant these unprovoked attacks by the US. All US attacked countries are victims. The US is the aggressor. The US attacked and now occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. They are now planning to attack Iran.

The people of Afghanistan and Iraq need our help to end the unlawful occupations of their country. The Afghan and Iraqi people who are resisting the US with lethal force are not terrorists they are defending their country from an enemy that has attacked and now occupy their country. If Canada were attacked by the US Canadians would take up arms against the invading enemy. If the US was actually attacked (no armed attack by a foreign country occurred on 9/11) the American people would also take up arms and defend their country.

The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are doing what any loyal and patriotic person would do - defend their country and family from the daily attacks and continued occupation of their homeland by a foreign country. Even if Iran is providing weapons to the Iraqi Resistance, Iran is not a terrorist state the US is. Iran has not attacked and does not occupy any country. The US has attacked 2 countries without provocation. The US continues to attack and kill the civilians of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, countries that never attacked the US. The US has murdered over 1 million civilians in their wars of aggression they call “War on Terror”. The entire legal system in the US and around the World are negligent in their duty to uphold the law. They are negligent for allowing the criminals and terrorists in the US White House to continue to attack and murder innocent people. They are negligent for not stopping the Bush and the Obama White House from plunging the World into another World War.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon is planning “potential” military actions against Iran. Planning for and preparing for any military action against any country without provocation, cause or self-defense is a crime.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Over 50 years ago the US wrote the laws that defined what is a war crime and they made it law so as to prevent any future wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. Today it is the US government which is breaking every law that has been written and passed to safeguard the World from another World War. Today the US tortures POWs. Today the US publicly threatens another country with nuclear annihilation. The US is planning to nuke Iran and has already tried twice but thankfully someone in the US Air Force has thwarted both unlawful, inhuman, immoral and crime against humanity attacks. While campaigning for the Democratic Presidential Nomination Hillary Clinton publicly threatened to wipe Iran off of the face of the Earth if she became president.

Addressing the United Nations on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, then United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan remarked, “On occasions such as this, rhetoric comes easily. We rightly say ‘never again.’ But action is much harder. Since the Holocaust the world has, to its shame, failed more than once to prevent or halt genocide.”

Following World War II, the international community cried “never again” in response to the Holocaust, and the newly formed United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention as a pledge to ensure that such horrors would never be repeated. Since that time, however, the world community has failed to prevent the occurrence of genocide in places like Cambodia (Khmer Rouge), Iraq (US 2003 unprovoked attack), Bosnia (both by their own government and the unlawful bombings ordered by Bill Clinton that killed more civilians than the civil warring factions), Darfur and Rwanda.

World Leaders Decry Unprovoked US Attack against Iraq
March 20, 2003

The declaration of war brought fierce criticism from world leaders today, as Russia accused the US of committing “a big political mistake” and France expressed its “regret” over the strikes.

His views were echoed by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the conservative Islamic opposition in Malaysia, who said: “This despicable war exposes the ugliness of America and its allies.”

It is time for us to ally ourselves to oppose the US axis of evil. Enough is enough. How do we end this US aggression against innocent sovereign states, without injuring or killing any innocent civilians? How do we stop any further unprovoked and unlawful attacks of foreign sovereign states by the US? We apply the game of chess and send our special forces to remove the leaders of the United States who have started these unlawful wars of aggressions.

In the game of chess the objective is to remove your opponent’s king in as few moves as possible. The object of the game is to checkmate your opponent’s king, whereby the king is under immediate attack (in “check”) and there is no way to remove it from attack on the next move. The game is over as soon as you capture your opponent’s king and your opponent surrenders to you. Wars of aggression can be ended quickly simply by applying the game of chess to your self-defense strategy. Defend your people by taking the course of action that will quickly capture and remove your opponent’s leadership.

There is absolutely no need, cause or justification for anyone to start a war. Any international incident can be resolved peacefully. Those who start wars are nothing more than criminals with a criminal intent to cause the death of another human being. The most effective course of action to end any war is to go after the person or persons who gave the order to attack another country. One person does not have the authority to launch a war against another especially in a democratic society. If a leader of one country decides to go to war with another country that leader is committing crimes that include crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

International law and domestic law allow lethal force to be used in self-defense against armed attacks.

Whether it’s George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama engaged in an unprovoked attacks against Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan or the United States own terrorist cell, the CIA, kidnapping foreign citizens from around the World, it’s legal to use lethal force in response to those kinds of attacks. There’s no special protection given to heads of state that protects them from the otherwise lawful use of lethal force in self-defense. Nuremberg established that heads of state have no immunity from responsibility for aggressive war. There’s no logical legal principle that says it’s better to spare George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama’s life, when they are the head war criminals who started the war and continue to wage wars of aggressions against sovereign foreign states and kill and continue to kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Aggression unopposed becomes a contagious disease. ~ Jimmy Carter

Laws of armed conflict

Any uniformed member of the Military is a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict. If he is the head policy maker (commander-in-chief, prime minister, president, emperor, chancellor, king or queen) in deciding to launch an aggressive war, then he’s committing an international crime; denying him any right to the kind of protection we give hospital workers or Red Cross workers or the like. If we want to deter aggression, we have to extract a cost from those who are making the decisions. A warmongering leader is not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that we have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression. George W Bush needlessly and recklessly sacrificed over 4000 of his country’s young men and women in his war against Iraq. He and Obama are certainly willing to give up thousands more in their wars of terrorism and aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan and threats and acts of aggression against Iran, Pakistan and Yemen. George W Bush was not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that the US people and the international community have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression.

The only logical and legal course of action to defend ones country and countrymen from an unlawful military attack from another country is to hold the person or persons who gave the order to attack, accountable for their criminal acts. Instead of retaliating against the people of the country whose leader ordered the attack on your country and countrymen one should only attack those leaders who gave the order. No one else should suffer or pay for the crimes of the war leaders. Only the leaders who order their country to attack and murder the people of another country should suffer and pay with their lives. The Nuremberg Trial established “Legal Self-Defense” against wars of aggression, kidnappings, torture and acts of aggression against another state.

The honorable and patriotic course of action to end any war is to target those leaders who gave the order to illegally attack, destroy and kill the people of another country. Every country and their people have the right to self-defense and their legal rights include only attacks against the attacking leadership, not against innocent civilians. As soon as the leader or leaders who gave the order to attack and kill your people are eliminated then the war will end. If someone takes over command of the military forces after the war leaders are eliminated and they too order more attacks against you and your country and your people, then they too are legal and legitimate targets. Infiltrating the enemy’s country and attacking only the leadership will end any war quickly and deter future warmongering leaders from ordering their armed froces to attack and kill another country and its people.

Had the Allied nations succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler at the beginning of WWII the War would have ended a lot sooner and millions of lives would have been spared. A war that needlessly killed 23,100,000 Soviets, 449,800 English, 418,500 US, 5,600,000 Polish, 2,700,000 Japanese, 7,233,000 Germans, 567,600 French, 20,000,000 Chinese, 45,300 Canadians for an estimated death toll of roughly 72 million.

If a team of snipers had been sent into Germany with the sole mission of killing Adolf Hilter six million European Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust. Snipers are the biggest psychological deterrent on the battlefield. The mere rumor they’re on the battlefield can send shivers through the enemy ranks. Imagine what a team of snipers inserted behind enemy lines could do to the aggressor’s chain of command. It does not matter how powerful a country might be. It would not matter if the aggressor had the most technologically advanced fighter jets, bombers, tank, or warships, once a sniper is able to infiltrate the aggressor’s country there is nowhere to hide. A good sniper could gain entry as a diplomat, tourist or business person. A good sniper would not need to smuggle in his or her weapon as he or she would have been trained to use the weapon of choice of the aggressive nation and acquire their weapon from the aggressive nation’s own police and military or even from citizens with hunting rifles. It took 3 weeks for the US law enforcement agencies to find and capture the Beltway sniper in October 2002 in Washington, D.C. How long would it take to find a team of highly trained and motivated snipers? That is if you even knew they were already in country.

The Nuremberg trials sets legal precedents in order to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

While the Nuremberg trials are, these days, seldom invoked or discussed, they were and still are, in the words of Tribunal President Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, “unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world”. Among the most groundbreaking aspects was the drive to formally criminalise three categories of crimes, and to establish responsibility by individuals for these crimes. This was simply unprecedented.

The effort to try the Germans in an international forum was directed in large part by the United States. The chief U.S. prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, opened the prosecution.

Today, when the Nuremberg trials are remembered, they are remembered primarily for the prosecution and punishment of individuals for genocide. Equally important at the time though, especially in the first trial, was the focus on aggressive war.

Thus, the first sentence of Justice Jackson’s opening statement: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility.”

Crimes against peace and the responsibility for them were defined in Article 6, the heart of the Charter of the IMT: “The tribunal…shall have the power to try and punish persons who…whether as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes…for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes Against Peace, namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”

The desire was not only to punish individuals for crimes but to set an international moral and legal precedent for the future. Indeed, before the end of 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International Law recognised by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.”

Founded in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations invoked in the first sentence of the preamble, the single most fundamental goal: “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”

To this end the United Nations Charter explicitly forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and the Allies at Nuremberg, there can be no doubt that the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to American security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

As a war of aggression, the invasion falls into the Nuremberg category of Crimes Against Peace. As such, there is individual responsibility for this crime.

Thus, if Americans chose to be bound by the precedent which they helped set and for which they punished leaders of World War II Germany, they would arrest and prosecute those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and their enablers in government and in the media.

Those who justify the invasion of Iraq, invoking the U.S. self-declared mission to rid the world of evil, would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.”

And, for those who have difficulty visualising American leaders as defendants in a criminal trial, Justice Jackson’s words again: “(T)he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgement. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbours.”

The Bush and Blair administrations commenced a war against Iraq and its people in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The Iraq war is unlawful because it was waged in contravention of international law. The relevant articles that prohibit one nation or alliance of nations waging war against any other nation or nations are embodied in Chapter VII of the 1945 United Nations Charter under the caption “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”. No member or members of the United Nations are entitled to wage a war against any nation in defiance of the UN Security Council. It is also clear that a “war of choice” is not permitted. A “war of necessity” in self defense if attacked by another country is permitted under Article 51 – this too is a temporary measure till the Security Council takes steps necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 does not legitimize a pre-emptive war against any nation on the pretext that there is an imminent threat of attack by the said nation.

Aggressors do not have the legal right or authority to declare self-defense.

The people of Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked by the US. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of the US wars of aggression. The civilian population have been and are still being attacked by the US military - clearly defined as war crimes according to International and US laws. The Taliban are not terrorists. They were the legal governing political party of Afghanistan before the unlawful war of aggression by the US and NATO forces. The Taliban are doing what every patriotic citizen would do to defend their country and countrymen when attacked by a foreign state - they are resisting. The Taliban are Afghan civilians who have been forced to take up arms against the invaders in order to defend their country and fellow countrymen from the brutal and unlawful occupation. The Taliban did not attack the US on September 11, 2001. Iran did not attack the US on September 11, 2001. There is no threat to the US from Iran. The US has been planning to attack Iran since the Bush administration. Planning for such an attack is a criminal offense. Planning for such an attack is a crime against peace and a crime against humanity. The international community have the legal right to go after even US heads of state who have planned for, is planning for or engages in illegal aggressive wars.

“When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.” ~ Pope John Paul II