Sunday, February 17, 2013

Obama's War Crimes Gone Too Far - Cooked Goose

Has Obama gone too far? Green lighting a black op for a war crime is a war crime. If Obama would be so devious to stage chemical attacks in Syria, would he have no problem with ordering children shot by professionals at the Sandyhook School in Newtown, Connecticut, to blame some drugged up dufus kid to end the 2nd Amendment and confiscate all guns held in American hands? The video at the bottom of this post should give an idea of who Obama really works for and what his real motivation is.

 stevengerickson AT

The above photo was found here


The below text was found here:

Veterans for Peace (VFP) adopted the following resolution at their annual meeting, Portland, Oregon, August 2011.
The text of this resolution was sent to members of the US House of Representatives on August 22, 2011.

Impeachment Of President Barack H. Obama For War Crimes

Whereas, Barack H. Obama is Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and the head of the Executive Branch of the United States government, and

Whereas, President Obama, on 19 March 2011, committed a criminal act by ordering the U.S. military to war in Libya without first obtaining the consent of the U.S. Congress in a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, and

Whereas, the illegal U.S. invasion, bombing and occupation of Iraq initiated by the Bush administration continues under the Obama administration; and

Whereas, the U.S. government is currently engaged in illegal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and President Obama pledged to increase the number of military personnel and tax dollars spent on the these wars, and

Whereas, the U.S. military used and continues to use depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs and white phosphorous in densely populated areas in violation of U.S. laws and international laws and treaties prohibiting the indiscriminate killing of civilians; and,

Whereas, the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of especially injurious weapons and materials causing unnecessary harm that remain active and lethal after battle, and over large areas of land, and

Whereas, large numbers of babies born in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer life-long illness and deformity like severe disfigurements and brain damage, Down’s syndrome, and weak hearts doctors state are caused by the U.S. military’s massive and widespread use of toxic and radioactive materials, and

Whereas, millions upon millions of Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Somali, and Libyan civilians have been maimed, poisoned, displaced from their homes, and killed in a direct result of ongoing, illegal acts of war by the United States, and

Whereas, illegal, immoral and counterproductive detainee torture and brutalization at the hands of the U.S. military’s Immediate Reaction Force continue at Guantanamo under the Obama administration and in particular, the torture of Pfc. Bradley Manning at Quantico, Virginia, and

Whereas, President Obama is an accessory after the fact in obstructing justice by failing to order the Department of Justice to initiate investigations into numerous and blatant U.S. war crimes committed by the Bush administration, for which it is manifestly accountable under the law, and

Whereas, Millions of Americans, including Veterans For Peace and Prosecute Them Now, supported the impeachment of Bush/Cheney for the same war crimes that are being committed now by Obama in violation of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. federal laws, the United Nations Charter, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, The United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, and

Whereas, Veterans For Peace and Prosecute Them Now are committed to the stated mission to restrain our government from intervening overtly and covertly in the internal affairs of other nations, to seek justice for veterans and victims of war, to increase public awareness of the exact costs of war, and to abolish war as an instrument of national policy;

Therefore Be It Resolved that Veterans For Peace call on the U.S. House of Representatives to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack H. Obama for failure to uphold his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, and for his commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, obstruction of justice and the violation of numerous national and international laws, treaties and conventions.


The below post and picture was found here.

Hacked Emails Reveal ‘Washington-Approved’ Plan to Stage Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

Obama administration complicit in war crime?

Paul Joseph Watson
January 28, 2013

UPDATE: Britam has admitted that it was hacked but denied that the emails released by the hacker were genuine. Click here for a statement by a Britam spokesman.

Alleged hacked emails from defense contractor Britam reveal a plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime, fulfilling what the Obama administration has made clear is a “red line” that would mandate US military intervention.

The leaked emails, obtained by a hacker in Germany, feature an exchange (click here for screenshot) between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and the company’s founder Philip Doughty;
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
The fact that the plan involves delivering a CW (chemical weapon) that is “similar to those Assad should have,” clearly suggests that the idea is to stage a false flag chemical weapons attack that could be blamed on Assad by Gulf states like Qatar and NATO powers.
If the claim that such as plot was “approved by Washington” can be verified, then the Obama administration is complicit in a war crime.

According to Cyber War News, which details the process of how the emails were hacked and includes screenshots of the leaked documents, the hack also uncovered, “extremely personal information,” including copies of passports of Britam employees, some of whom appeared to be mercenaries.

A full list of all the hacked documents can be found here. One software systems administrator who analyzed the ‘header’ details from the email in question concluded, “I have to admit that the email does indeed look genuine….all these facts check out. So with Mythbusters objectivity I have to call this one plausible.”

Online business profiles confirm that both David Goulding and Philip Doughty work for Britam Defence.

Last year, reports began to circulate that that US-backed rebel fighters in Syria had been given gas masks and were willing to stage a chemical weapons attack which would then be blamed on the Assad regime to grease the skids for NATO military intervention.

Soon after in August, President Barack Obama warned that the use or even transportation of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would represent a “red line” that would precipitate military intervention. French President Francois Hollande followed suit, stating that the use of such weapons 

“Would be a legitimate reason for direct intervention.”

At around the same time, a source told Syrian news channel Addounia that a Saudi company had fitted 1400 ambulance vehicles with anti-gas & anti-chemical filtering systems at a cost of $97,000 dollars each, in preparation for a chemical weapons attack carried out by FSA rebels using mortar rounds. A further 400 vehicles were prepared as troop carriers.

The attack would be blamed on the Syrian Army and exploited as an excuse for a military assault. A March 2012 Brookings Institution report entitled Saving Syria: Assessing Options For Regime Change outlined this very scenario – where a manufactured humanitarian crisis would be cited as justification for an attack.

Yesterday, Israel’s vice premier Silvan Shalom told reporters that if Syrian rebels obtained chemical weapons from stockpiles belonging to the Assad regime, such a development would force Israel to resort to “preventive operations,” in other words – a military strike on Syria.

In December, a shocking video emerged of Syrian rebels testing what appeared to be a form of nerve gas on rabbits, bolstering claims that the rebels had already obtained chemical weapons.

As Tony Cartalucci also highlights, “Mention of acquiring chemical weapons from Libya is particularly troubling. Libya’s arsenal had fallen into the hands of sectarian extremists with NATO assistance in 2011 in the culmination of efforts to overthrow the North African nation . Since then, Libya’s militants led by commanders of Al Qaeda’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) have armed sectarian extremists across the Arab World, from as far West as Mali, to as far East as Syria.”
Last month, 29 different US-backed Syrian opposition groups pledged their allegiance to Al Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group which, as the New York Times reported, “killed numerous American troops in Iraq.

Numerous reports confirm that Al Nusra is the leading front line fighting force in Syria and is commanding other rebel groups. Given their prominent role, allied with the fact that the terror group has been responsible for numerous bloody attacks in Syria, the notion that the Obama administration would approve a plot that could see chemical weapons fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda terrorists could represent a foreign policy scandal even bigger than Benghazi-Gate.

In a related story, the Syrian Electronic Army, a separate hacktivist group, continues to release hacked files and emails from numerous sensitive foreign ministry and military websites belonging to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, including emails sent between these countries.


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for and Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Monday, January 28, 2013 at 6:01 am

* * * *

* * * *

The below videos were not found on Info Wars

Impeach Obama- Bruce Fein: Articles of Impeachment for Obama

Text with video:

Published on Feb 11, 2013
Bruce Fein is the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Bill Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath about having sexual relations with an intern.

Fein also drafted articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2011, he drew up formal articles of impeachment against President Obama for his use of military action against Libya without congressional authorization.

As for his political persuasion, Fein told WND, "I criticized Nixon. I criticized Clinton. I criticized Bush and Cheney. I criticize Obama. I don't have any reluctance because I view myself as an American first."

What Ever Happened to the Constitution- Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judge Napolitano - Obama Signed In Secret BILL H.R. 347 Anti-Protest Bill
Judge Jeanine asks White House 'How do you sleep at night'


The Movement to Impeach Obama - GRTV Backgrounder


by James Corbett
January 30, 2013

Whatever one thinks of the George W. Bush administration and its historical legacy, there is one fact that is beyond dispute: the war in Iraq galvanized the left in a manner that had not been seen in the streets of America since the era of the Vietnam war. Leading up to the Democrats regaining of the House in the 2006 midterm elections, the calls for Bush’s (and, perhaps even more importantly, Cheney’s) impeachment were echoed across the left-wing blogosphere and spilled out onto the streets. This crusade was led by organizations like Veterans For Peace, Code Pink, and The World Can’t Wait, who used a combination of rallies, resolutions and headline-grabbing photo ops to make the point, sometimes quite literally, that the Bush administration had blood on its hands and must be removed from office.

One would have thought, given this fervent anti-war sentiment, that these same groups would be overjoyed that Republican congressmen would be willing to reach across the aisle and submit a resolution to impeach the Commander-in-Chief should he wage another unconstitutional war by committing American forces to the destruction of Syria without so much as authorization from Congress. In fact, just such a move did take place last year, but rather than applaud it, the very same supposedly “anti-war” left that was so active against Bush has done its level best to ignore the very existence of the resolution and silence its advocates.

The resolution, known as House Concurrent Resolution 107 or HCR 107, was submitted to the House Judiciary Committee last March by North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones, the same Congressman who sued President Obama for violating the War Powers Act by committing American forces to Libya without congressional approval.
HCR 107 states:

“It is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

Last year I had the chance to talk to Congressman Walter Jones about the resolution, its origins, and its importance.

Such a resolution, if it had been introduced just a few years ago, would have seemed like manna from heaven for the left. Coming from a Republican, no less, it would have been the focal point for political action in the American anti-war movement. Coming as it did in 2012, however, few have even heard of the resolution.

You see, a funny thing happened four years ago. The letter following the President’s name switched from an “R” to a “D” and just like that, the energies and activism of the self-styled “anti-war” left evaporated overnight.

Under a Democrat, America could expand the so-called war on terror into Pakistan with impunity, because, after all, Obama is a Democrat and “doing what he must” to protect America from the threat of terror.

Under a Democrat, America could develop its drone strike program into a concerted warfare strategy, expanding it into Yemen, Somalia, and doubtless other countries not yet disclosed, and the “anti-war” advocates would fail to denounce it because, after all, he’s the President, and privy to information that we don’t have about emerging threats and hotspots.

Under a Democrat, the left is only too happy to look the other way while the President signs into law bills to detain Americans indefinitely without so much as a trial or develops a Presidential kill list that supposedly gives the commander-in-chief the authority to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time, including American citizens, without even having to explain that decision, a power that he has in fact already invoked.

To be fair, no one is more baffled or frustrated by this turn of events than those members of the anti-war left who are genuinely anti-war. The ones who do not care what party the president is associated with or what colour his skin is. To these anti-war protesters, the ones who were inspired by the depravity of the Bush-era atrocities to join the activist organizations years ago, Obama is every bit as much a war criminal as Bush was, and every bit as deserving of impeachment.

This was expressed most visibly by the membership of Veterans For Peace, a non-profit organization of American veterans dedicated to abolishing war as an instrument of national policy. Last September at their national convention in Portland, the VFP membership passed a resolution by majority vote calling for the organization to officially call for the impeachment of Obama for war crimes. The resolution was closely modeled on a previous VFP call for the impeachment of Bush, outlining the case against Obama from his unconstitutional unauthorized war in Libya to the ongoing war crimes in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, concluding:

“Therefore Be It Resolved that Veterans For Peace call on the U.S. House of Representatives to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack H. Obama for failure to uphold his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, and for his commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, obstruction of justice and the violation of numerous national and international laws, treaties and conventions.”

Amazingly, however, even after having been passed by a majority of its membership, the leadership of Veterans For Peace has, according to its own rank-and-file, done its level best to conceal the resolution and downplay the call for impeachment. In an article that has been widely circulated online, Phil Restino, the resolution’s chief proponent and a member of the Central Florida chapter of VFP, outlines how, exactly contrary to the Bush impeachment resolution has failed to promote the resolution or even make copies of it available to the public, and was pestered for over a year to make available a copy of the letter to Congress that they were required to send as a result of the resolution calling for Obama’s impeachment.

Last week, Phil Restino joined me on The Corbett Report to talk about Veterans For Peace and its leadership’s total unwillingness to pursue the impeachment of Obama.

When all of the facts are weighed, there is simply no other conclusion possible: the liberal “anti-war” left during the Bush years was never “anti-war” at all. They were anti-Republican. Unjust wars, after all, can only ever really be waged by Republican presidents, and the bombs and drones and instruments of warfare acquire magical properties under Democratic administrations where they only fall on the deserving and take the lives of the guilty.

The saddest part of all of this, of course, is that the prospect of impeachment and the chance for repudiation of the bloodthirsty American government is even further from the realm of political reality than it was under Bush. But another sad truth to fall out from this whole affair is that the left’s harshest critics were completely correct, after all: the anti-war movement was never about war after all. In the end, it turns out, the left now has the blood of Obama’s wars on their own hands.

The silver lining, if ever there was one, is that as a result of all of this there will be more and more waking up to the complete charade of party politics and realizing that a true, honest anti-war movement will have to be built from scratch, completely outside of the two-party duopoly.


All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Text with video:

Published on Feb 4, 2013
Written and spoken by Michael Rivero. The written version is here:

Video by Zane Henry.

You are welcome to make copies and to distribute this video freely.



Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats