Kucinich Wants to Impeach Obama For Libyan Strike

Posted by Join Or DIE on March 21, 2011

John Bresnahan & Jonathan Allen write in the Politico:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

Read More: Politico

Posted in: Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, Impeachment, Libya, Obama, War

elguapo

would be the first time that you gringos impeach a president that dont cheated on his wife
Anonymous

Sorry, you can only impeach a president over eavsdropping and elicit sex acts. Nothing else will do, apparently.
Anonymous

Interesting development. Kucinich is one of the few human mainstream politicians. Nader, Paul Sr., Sanders, and McKinney are also all right. Impeaching Obama would be tricky. First, it is unlikely the powers that be will let it happen. They can always assassinate Kucinich if he becomes too nosy. Even if Obama falls, we are not guaranteed that his successor will be worthy. Still, an impeachment of Obama would damage the establishment’s credibility, and may open the doors to a Ron Paul/ Ralph Nader presidency. Unlikely, I know…

Kucinich deserves praise for his balls and for his moral integrity.
—-
By the way, Obama, like most of his predecessors, is so blatantly impeachable it beggars belief.
David Kelly

Ha Ha Ha laughable. They’re all like flecks of dandruff on the president’s suit jacket. Swish! Gone. If they were ever noticed at all.
ArgosyJones

You LIE! How dare you insinuate that our commander in chief has dandruff.

Oh wait, I guess it could have come from Hilary’s balding dome. SRY
Liam_McGonagle

No, actually. Defined as authorization by the House of a trial of the president by the Senate, it has been done twice before Clinton:

1. Andrew Johnson in 1869, for what today would probably be considered the technical point of dismissing a legacy Lincoln appointee without leave from the Senate

2. Richard Nixon in 1974, for obstruction of justice. He resigned after impeachment proceedings had been authorized by the House, but before formal articles could be drafted and brought before the Senate.

None of these cases resulted in conviction by the Senate, including Clinton’s. However, they were still technically “impeached”.

But I get your point. It is pretty shocking just how twisted American impeachment priorities have become. If consistency were any criteria, it’s hard to imagine any president since 1980 that shouldn’t have been impeached.

It seems hard to deny that in the broad sweep of history, Obama does look like a pretty good candidate for impeachment. Of course it’s understood that he was relying on the precedent of letting war criminal -in -chief Bush II off the hook. That bargain may still be operative, because it’s hard to see how following a policy signed off by the previous administration and a large majority of the legislature could earn Obama an impeachment but Dubya a speaking tour.

Nonetheless, there have been many Republicans calling for impeachment, too, albeit on stupid charges like not persecuting gays enthusiastically enough. I find it a hilarious masterstroke on Kucinich’s part to call their bluff on a more substantive charge. I hope he succeeds.
Anonymous

I’m about as pinko as it gets but christ guys. You’re a member of NATO and the UN, are the treaties your country sign not worth a shit? The US storms other countries in the name of democracy, uncalled for or not. This time the people there actually asked for help, this time the UN agreed to do something and you’re going to ride Obama’s ass over it?
Anonymous

I’m about as pinko as it gets but christ guys. You’re a member of NATO and the UN, are the treaties your country sign not worth a shit? The US storms other countries in the name of democracy, uncalled for or not. This time the people there actually asked for help, this time the UN agreed to do something and you’re going to ride Obama’s ass over it?
Anonymous

I’m about as pinko as it gets but christ guys. You’re a member of NATO and the UN, are the treaties your country sign not worth a shit? The US storms other countries in the name of democracy, uncalled for or not. This time the people there actually asked for help, this time the UN agreed to do something and you’re going to ride Obama’s ass over it?
Liam_McGonagle

I hear what you’re saying. I’ve thought some about this, and the points you do raise would appear to mitigate the situation–if you weren’t aware that what’s at issue is a battle over the constitutional authority to wage war.

Section 8 makes it clear that only Congress has the power to authorize the declaration of war. However, Section 2 vests executive command of the armed forces with the President.

The executive has basically made the legislature its bitch over the last 50 years by simply trumping up some phoney threat to gin up public support for pre-emptory action by the president. Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, etc., etc. Congress is more or less neutered, its role limited to rubber stamping the president’s military budget. Step #1 in the accomplishment in any tyranny is takeover of the military.

This can’t go on any longer. And, in fact, the moral argument for action in Libya seems kinda hazy when you consider our total inaction in analogous situations like Saudi, Yemen and Bahrain where protesters are being slaughtered by a repressive police state. Couple that with the fact that the top military brass have not clue #1 what their goal is, when or what criteria they will declare it acheived or under what conditions they would withdraw, and you’ve got the makings of yet another interventionist clusterfuck.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/clark-opposes-libyan-no-fly-zone/

So what’s really going on here? Continued trampling on the sacred constitutional principle of separation of powers in favor of an oil-pragmatist gamble on a more pliant successor regime in a country we really don’t understand or have any deep commitment to.
Anonymous

Just remembered: Some Iraqi exiles asked the U.S. to intervene there, too.

We may say that there are significant differences between Libya and Iraq, but there sure are a lot of disturbing similarities, too. Whether or not individually we feel we ourselves can make clear distinctions, the body constitutionally authorized to do so (i.e., Congress) hasn’t even been consulted.
Anonymous

That’s some damn cold logic there mate. You’re not saving all possible lives, so you should save none? Gaddaffi was using his Air Force on civilians, the UN sat on it’s ass until the very last minute and then decided to have it’s members intervene. You’re not at war. The plan as it’s reported here is for the US to use it’s considerable expertise to establish a no-fly zone and then plans to take a backseat role. How hypocritical would the US look to the rest of the world if it did nothing.
Anonymous

There’s a huge difference between an civilian uprising that almost took their country back on their own, then cried for help as they were mercilessly bombed from the air and some iraqi expats used to support the beat-up that was involved in invading Iraq.

The difference in this case is people were dying and you did something right for once.
Anonymous

I can only speak from outside the US but you guys have established yourselves as the ‘defenders of freedom and democracy’ and have built a huge war-machine to that effect. You bomb, invade, install dictators in places like Chile all in the name of security for your ideals. The UN called for action and as it’s star player in the field, you responded.

The rest of the world doesn’t give a shit about your constitution. Sad, but true. Thank fuck they bypassed any red tape and took down that maniacs airforce.
Anonymous

I would invite you to consider that a power-grab like this is of international concern, precisely due to the behavior you describe. Consolidating the power to launch wars into the hands of an increasingly kinglike head of state makes interfering in the development of potential colonies even simpler (and cheaper for the beneficiaries, since they now have fewer politicians to bribe.)

With regard to the results of the UN Security Council vote, I don’t think that France, the UK, the US, and a handful of island micronations that exist for the sole purpose of offshore tax shelters like Gabon constitute the whole world.Gaddhafi is a scumbag of the first order, but he knows colonialism when he sees it. We’ve chosen sides in a civil war now. We’ve implicitly declared that we want the current Tripoli government gone. Given precisely the track record you’ve cited, why on Earth would anyone think we’re going to let the Libyans form their own government instead of trying to install another colonial governor like Hamid Karzai? Because we said so?
Anonymous

I would invite you to consider that a power-grab like this is of international concern, precisely due to the behavior you describe. Consolidating the power to launch wars into the hands of an increasingly kinglike head of state makes interfering in the development of potential colonies even simpler (and cheaper for the beneficiaries, since they now have fewer politicians to bribe.)

With regard to the results of the UN Security Council vote, I don’t think that France, the UK, the US, and a handful of island micronations that exist for the sole purpose of offshore tax shelters like Gabon constitute the whole world.Gaddhafi is a scumbag of the first order, but he knows colonialism when he sees it. We’ve chosen sides in a civil war now. We’ve implicitly declared that we want the current Tripoli government gone. Given precisely the track record you’ve cited, why on Earth would anyone think we’re going to let the Libyans form their own government instead of trying to install another colonial governor like Hamid Karzai? Because we said so?
Anonymous

I would invite you to consider that a power-grab like this is of international concern, precisely due to the behavior you describe. Consolidating the power to launch wars into the hands of an increasingly kinglike head of state makes interfering in the development of potential colonies even simpler (and cheaper for the beneficiaries, since they now have fewer politicians to bribe.)

With regard to the results of the UN Security Council vote, I don’t think that France, the UK, the US, and a handful of island micronations that exist for the sole purpose of offshore tax shelters like Gabon constitute the whole world.Gaddhafi is a scumbag of the first order, but he knows colonialism when he sees it. We’ve chosen sides in a civil war now. We’ve implicitly declared that we want the current Tripoli government gone. Given precisely the track record you’ve cited, why on Earth would anyone think we’re going to let the Libyans form their own government instead of trying to install another colonial governor like Hamid Karzai? Because we said so?
David Kelly

A leaked wiki-cable suggests that BO spends more than $34,000 annually on dandruff treatment! Err I could have made that up …
Anonymous

Don’t get me wrong, I truly hope you guys sort out the mess your government seems to be in. It’s blatantly corrupt. However this particular bleeding heart is more concerned with the lives of people in Libya.

It just seems damned strange that you guys would choose the situation in Libya to take him to task over. The US role in this will have largely been played out in a matter of days. This may change perhaps, but as it stands now it’s not another Iraq, it’s not even another Bosnia.

It’s true that Obama has called for Gaddafi to go, that’s not the same as a declaration of war. Everything I’ve read has shown that the US want’s to play as small a role as possible. You were clearly the best people to disable Gaddafi in those critical first moments and I thank Bob that you did.

As for the rest of the world, I mean in general no one cares about the intricacies of your constitution. It’s not relevant to us. What’s relevant is that you guys play out the role you’ve positioned yourself for, as a member of the UN, NATO and the self appointed champion of democracy- at a time when we called for it. Now if that ends up in you guys diddling around with who becomes leader after the fact, well that’s not great. But at least you don’t have a maniac blowing the shit out of civilians with his airforce.
Paul Panza (who are you)

Impeach Obama it’s gods will.
Other Mr. T

Thank you ‘join or die’, that’s all besides the point. It’s easy for congressmen to make political plays or comment afterwards. Kucinich is a clown. The point missing is: Obama really is a terrible politician. He doesn’t have the political kill instincts. If he was better at playing Congress politics, Obama should have forced an up and down vote to declare war in both houses. They would have voted for the war, just like in 2003 because their lobbyists / pimps / handlers would have forced / bribed / blackmailed all Republicans and most Democrats to authorize the declare the Libyan war ALL THE SAME (tea party types as well). If he’d done that, Obama would have come off looking cleaner than the Congress, raising his favorables and shifting public hatred toward the Congress for starting another pointless war. He could have grandstanded and vetoed it, for God’s sake. This is not what it’s all about. I guess Obama’s like a roll of toilet paper at this point. The whole of government is wiping their collective asses with Obama’s reputation and authority.
Andrew

As if this was a nation of laws!
Jason Wilczak

If we didn’t impeach Bush for spending billions of dollars against the will of the world and the country for a misinformed oil crusade, why would we impeach obama for a agree UN resolution to help a people crying for help… stupidest question of the year…
If you were walking down the street, and a child was getting pummeled by a bully, would you call the parents of the bully and the child, call your wife, talk to your local PD? Of course not, you would grab a few others on the street and hel…p the kid, sort the details out later. This is a different situation, he simply agreed with the UN, whether your voted for the UN or not, it makes no difference, your one opinion doesn’t matter to a world council for safety and peace. He supplied some military support, which by the way, will spark jobs in the manufacturing industry for companies like P&W and GE and all little companies that profit from their profits. I’m not for war, I think it’s f’in ridiculous, but these people cried for help, he went through the appropriate channels he needed to to help these people, who were almost able to do it on their own. What would have happened in the revolutionary war if nobody came to our help? Wake the f up and stop following your core values so hard and realize that every situation in life requires individual consideration. Read my blog post http://temporalrelativity.blogspot.com/ for more details.
Liam_McGonagle

Actually, Obama did NOT go through the appropriate channels. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, those powers specifically reserved to the Legislature:

“. . . . 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; . . . .”

You seem primarily interested in the moral merits of the Libyan opposition’s case rather than the operation of Law within the United States. Understandable because the Libyan case seems dire and compelling. Don’t cheapen it by likening it to the abuse of child on an American street. That is a gross mischaracterization that recognizes none of the complexities (i.e., it’s a part of the world the U.S. has not engaged and does not understand, and presents the U.S. as the proper albeit arbiter of justice in Libya). Don’t make yourself look like a Bushite.

But also understand that the #1 first task of any tyrant is to usurp the military to his own agenda at home, thereby making the Law what HE says it is. How would it be possible to assist in the creation of democracy in Libya by destroying it in the United States?

And in any event, isn’t the question you really mean to ask, “Why didn’t Obama bother to pressent this compelling case for intervention before the Legislature?” I suspect the answer is, “Because Obama doesn’t give two shits about the operation of law anywhere”. Propbably neither do you.
Jason Wilczak

Your comment is noted, however, your are using Article 1, without paying any mind to Article 2 Section 2:

[Article 2]
“Section 2: Presidential powers
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons“ The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. ”

The President is the military’s commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. (Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. “police action”, which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Authorization for Use of Force.[citation needed] This is also true in the case of the Korean War, which was only retroactively deemed a war—50 years to the day, after the fact—by a ceremonial Act of Congress.[citation needed]) This clause is included because it gives the President power over the troops, and under one commander, the military is bound to be more organized and efficient.[citation needed]

The President may require the “principal officer” of any executive department to tender his advice in writing. Thus, implicitly, the Constitution creates a Cabinet that includes the principal officers of the various departments.

The President, furthermore, may grant pardon or reprieves, except in cases of impeachment. Originally, the pardon could be rejected by the convict.[citation needed] In Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927), however, the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that “[a] pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed.”[4]”

He DID NOT declare war. Very simple. End of story. Also, I’m not sure about everyone else in the room, but whether it was an American kid or a libyan kid getting pummeled, it wouldn’t matter to me, I wouldn’t wait for approval to help.

I can’t even begin to explain the differences between the Bush era situation and this. There are so many differences and if you can’t see it then you have no business arguing this point.

-”And in any event, isn’t the question you really mean to ask, “Why didn’t Obama bother to pressent this compelling case for intervention before the Legislature?” I suspect the answer is, “Because Obama doesn’t give two shits about the operation of law anywhere”. Propbably neither do you.”

The answer is because he didn’t have to, plain and simple. This is not a declaration of war, it is complying with the ordinances of being part of the UN and supplying support for a UN agreement, we have the largest military budget in the world, what is wrong with living up to our obligation to provide support that was confirmed within a global organization that we are part of.

Your comment has been noted, but is of no consequence to this discussion.
Voidthought

I actually enjoy reading the comments on these message boards more-so than any other because most of the comments are clearly composed with critical thinking and evidence. Go to yahoo message boards and you see a host of emotional, sometimes radical thinkers and in some cases people who are hell bent on believing that the bible somehow forecasted all of this. Thank you all for educated opinions.
Liam_McGonagle

Sorry, but you’re using the equivocating Bushism of “military action” vs. “war”, which is bullshit. Not even an honorable mention, Jason.

There is no difference between “military action” and “war”. These things inevitably escalate. Look already:

” . . . . Like such other post-conflict states as Kosovo and East Timor, post-Qaddafi Libya will most likely need an international peacekeeping force. . . .”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22boot.html?_r=1

We’ve been through this at least TWICE in the last ten years. Inexperienced naivete is no longer an excuse.

Obama most definitely acted illegally in not presenting this to Congress.
Jason Wilczak

Ok, I can understand your statement here. But I greatly disagree, and maybe this is where the two sides fall? In my mind, the difference between “military action” and “war” is the same as (and pardon using my example that you disagreed with before, but I think it is relevant in this situation) saying that there is no difference in “helping” and “fighting”. If I stop a bully from attacking someone, there may have to be a small amount of aggression on my part, however, my intention is different than if I went into it deciding to fight. My intention in “helping” (or military action) is to end the conflict and “save the innocent” involved. My intention in a “fight” (or war) may possibly have the same intentions of “help”, but with the additional intent of injuring the attacker.

If we do not agree on this point, then I think we are both shouting upon deaf ears.
Liam_McGonagle

You won’t disagree in about two weeks from now.

By that time it will become clear that nothing less than a full scale on-the-ground intervention (aka “War” amongst those not adverse for calling a thing by its proper name) would have changed the outcome of the thing.

Please, no more naive equivocations. Leave that shit to the amoral pond scum that still think Cheney and Rumsfeld have any credibility.
Anonymous

That sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric flying around before the walk in the park Afghanistan was going to be, and ditto Iraq in 2003. Fast forward to today, and we’re now entering our 3rd ‘non-war’ to the tune of trillions of dollars funneled away from the needs of our societies into the coffers of the arms manufacturers and the banks who fund them.

Military action is war. A military enforced no-fly zone is an act of war.
Anonymous

Maybe but it’s hardly your war.
Anonymous

I am so disappoint. Were people in the US not watching the situation in Libya before you guys got involved? You’re willing to let some fucker bomb his people to death in the name of satiating bureaucracy? What’s more important..
Anonymous

You’re not the only ‘peacekeepers’ in the world.
Anonymous

So, good intentions alone make all the difference? We all know by now what the “road to hell” is paved with,
we been trodding that path to excess for a long while now. Remember “Operation Iraqi Freedom”?
The only freedom achieved there is alot of people being freed from their mortal coils.
Msdaviddreams

OIL, anyone?????????
Jenna

People of the United States need to understand the process and realize that the people of Libya, were being executed, starved, denied water and electricity. They appealed to NATO for help in order to avoid mass slaughtering of civilians by Qadhafi. The U.N. Security Council had taken action against Qadhafi warning him against violence against civilians. Qadhafi had not heeded the first actions of the Security Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians.Lebanon’s speaker stressed that the text would not result in the occupation of “one inch” of Libyan territory by foreign forces. The representative of the United Kingdom pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text., The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. In addition, the Security Council’s earlier resolution had called for an immediate end to the violence and had referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.
Jenna

Obama backed the Libyan no fly zone because the United Nations Security Council by unanimous vote backed it. The House Foreign affairs and intelligence committees backed the action. The Arab league backed it. And nearly every humanitarian group around has backed it. But most important, he backed it because it’s the politically and morally right thing to do. Kucinich and others would have screamed the loudest if Obama had done nothing and Gaddafi slaughtered thousands in a revenge blood lust rampage against the rebel groups
If Obama hadn’t acted, he would have been even more loudly damned as being weak, indecisive and a chronic ditherer when it comes to making tough decisions on foreign policy issues. Obama’s willingness to take the right stand, in the right place, and in the right way has earned the U.S. the praise and gratitude of the millions that struggle against repressive, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East and are daily being met with bombs and bullets for their effort. At any other time, Kucinich would lustily demand and cheer the action Obama and the UN took. The fact that he and few others don’t, but chose to nitpick instead, tells us more about their ongoing political anger at Obama than any real concern over whether Obama snubbed his nose at Congress. Impeach Obama over Libya, you got to be kidding. When Kucinich uttered the word even Obama’s Democratic critics howled at that delusional thought.
http://profiles.google.com/zorille38 Jacob Marcure

Jason, The problem is that its not illegal for you to help someone being beat up. The self defense laws extend to both you or a third party who is in immediate danger of bodily harm. This is not the case with using military force, which requires the president to submit a proposal to congress within 48 hours of deploying the military, which apparently he did not do. They are different situations with different legal rammifications.
http://profiles.google.com/zorille38 Jacob Marcure

The problem is that its not illegal for you to help someone being beat up. The self defense laws extend to both you or a third party who is in immediate danger of bodily harm. This is not the case with using military force, which requires the president to submit a proposal to congress within 48 hours of deploying the military, which apparently he did not do. They are different situations with different legal rammifications.
Detector

Dumb saint, I suppose you have never been duped B4? Go find the video of them bombing there civilians!!
Anonymous

As a US taxpayer I bear a certain amount of responsibility for the actions of my government. Of course neither of us thinks its my war.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C5SV3Y6GG7GRK3NBX64IXAXDGM Jessica Hurst

I like Kucinich very much, and I do see how impeachment would be a reasonable consequence for doing the right thing through illegal channels, but my concern is: who would take his place? Certainly we cannot get someone more liberal into the office at this time, at least not without some teabagger assassinating him/her. I hate having to compromise, but that’s how politics are played and I think Obama is the least evil and most viable option we have at this time.
http://twitter.com/Keith_R_Radford Keith R Radford Jr

Let me tell you about my families setting me up for an exorcism and
her need for money through political, and religious pandering
concerning sex.

I remember living behind a church were Brian Lamb, and a bunch of
these Cspan guys used too have a wood shop. At that place of residence
my mom thought I needed an exorcist, after playing in the mud the way
very young children will sometimes with my uncle who mixed a glass of
this red clay in water and told me it was chocolate milk.

After drinking it as he would force me to do thing all the time like
the time he made me cut off the limb I was sitting on and the device
came out of my shoulder being more powerful and in control I broke out
with ring worm all over my body and my mom told me it was writing that
could not be understood so she had priests come in from the church.

I guess my Dad did not know that one of the people at the church was
in line for being my new dad but that was not in the cards because I
guess he felt I was in need of discipline after an accident in the
wood shop. I had been check out on the band saw by my grandfather who
was a millwright in Arkansas and to do some jobs the blade shield had
to be removed. Some kids came in and wanted to use the saw, then got
mad that I wanted to warn them to put the guard on and they told me
they owned it all and I was not to tell them anything, and after this
head strong kid cut his thumb off the other kids said they would tell
their fathers it was all my fault, but it was not.

I had a fever of well over a hundred and I was a bloody mess with the
infection. The priests came in with outer guys and one had a camera.
The priests would throw me across the room well the other snapped a
picture. I would fall on furniture and the floor and they would tell
me get on the bed, don’t get off the bed very loud and when I would
crawl back on the bed they would pick me up and throw me over and over
again well the other priest would snap another picture and this went
on till one guy said we have enough picture and they left me in the
blood, mud, and bedding, then my aunt came in with some save that was
for ring worm.

She spread the save and kidded me about dying when the rings got to my
heart. After getting well I went back to the wood shop and the guys
had made me a special shield and gave me my sword which were both made
of wood and I had to fight one of the guys in my shorts because I did
not want to remove them and the other guy was naked (he know who he
is). I was still not up too speed and lost the battle. They then
called me the bad guy and this group was supposed to be my gate keeper
or something like that appointed by the priests. My Dad did not like
them much also but that did not matter much because someone at the
church was going to be my new dad till he said no, my mom cried allot,
my dad was gone, I healed up, but I still have a case.

Please know that there is nothing any of you can do to make what you
and the rest of the ones involved can do to make this my fault. See at
the time I was about seven years old. Since then the church has made
an effort to kill me, to the extent of trying to pass laws to kill sex
offenders.

Come on, keep it up, keep pushing laws that you as a group of very
said individuals know have no value. Take me too court so I can own a
network. I have met with your staff members in private since along
with military personal and others.

Now lets note when this happened I was only a small child being thrown
around a room like a rag doll by people that started all this clear
back in the late fifty’s and the steering by very bad people that
think abusing kids to make laws to stop abuse, Ha! these laws are
bogus and the fact that they can not kill gays anymore does not
justify the use of laws too kill someone set up by them to create some
worthless set of laws by a fusion of church and state is wrong and
realty designed by them to harm us all.

My case was pragmatic but more than that I know what was done and who
was involved making vendetta laws that really have no bases in truth,
and are based in lies.

Keith Richard Radford Jr
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WR5ABG2ZA65BDGLB2TU2JMPSB4 WhoIsObama

Osama Obama Biden Bin Laden
One coincidence? Two coincidences?
NO COINCIDENCE

NEW WORLD ORDER PLAYBOOK EXPOSED

Scam artists (Al-Qaeda) have cornered the market on affiliate marketing education. Their sites use aliases, bogus whois info, and registrations in different states and countries. What are they hiding?

Many get rich quick scams serve as product placement for new cutting edge internet technologies, and logos, some sold through Clickbank. The people appearing in testimonials are part of the expansion of this organization and are often pitching other high priced products and services. They all link to one another through their marketing strategies and ability to optimize in search rankings.

Between the aliases the use, and the way in which they speak about things, everything they do has double meaning. Their faces in Google image search is similar to the picture book of symbols mentioned in The Da Vinci Code movie. Here is a code of look a likes pitching all sorts of stuff who are interconnected;

Selling a program on making millions online is Professor James Bradley who looks like the Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers.

Jay Conrad Levinson is behind a number of “guerilla” marketing and advertising books. He looks like George Soros, who’s last name is a (palin)drome. Soros has been credited for collapsing a number of nation’s currencies. George Soros has been quoted several times regarding his views on a New World Order.

The Super Affiliate Handbook is sold by someone who looks like Jill Biden, her name is Rosalind Gardner. Some appear to represent people, more in how they pose, rather then a direct look alike. Stephen Pierce appears to represent radical Van Jones, Brett McFall-Austan Goolsbee, John Childers-Andy Stern, and Jay Abraham as Ayman al-Zawahri, just to name a few.

Problem with your Google Adwords PPC ads and can’t get a straight answer? You could try Yanik Silver who looks a lot like Sergei Brin, but he probably won’t know. He sells 33 Days to Online Profits (prophets.) Why not try Perry Marshall, who looks like Obama’s priest Reverend Pfleger? He sells The Definitive Guide To Google Adwords, infringing upon Google’s trademark.

Many more can be found at Lorrie Morgan Ferrero’s Red-Hot-Copy blog such as; 72 Virgin Records Richard Branson, & White House Party Crashers the Salahi’s with Valerie Jarrett’s daughter.

The Rich Jerk sent out emails promoting Stompernet in Atlanta Georgia. The staff included Brad Fallon, an airline pilot, and Eben Pagan selling a seminar “Get Altitude”. 3 days after reporting this code to the FBI, Delta in Atlanta canceled a large number of flights due to “safety reasons.” In the Youtube videos related to the Rich Jerk, it appears that Mark Cuban is the Rich Jerk. He’s the billionaire who owns the Dallas Maverick’s basketball team. Think O’bomber or Barrac-uda Palin would play for him? Another guy seen on Youtube claiming to be Robert Johnson Rich Jerk, is Tony Rezko.

Obama announced his run for office on Oprah Winfrey’s show. Have you ever noticed that Oprah’s friend Gayle King looks like Whitney Houston? Think that her name could be a code, Whit_ney White-Hous_ton House?

It appears the internet marketing experts controlled the comments, the headlines, and the finance of the last election online with the highest ranking site in Google search, Youtube.

In my strongest opinion this is the last piece of the puzzle, Osama Bin Laden is also a spokesperson, and a look-a-like. Osama represents Obama/Biden (Bi)n La(den.)

Here are wanted terrorists and their online aliases. Some are wanted for U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya & Indonesia. Do these two places ring any bells?
http://illuminaticonspiracy.blogspot.com

Kucinich Wants to Impeach Obama For Libyan Strike

more disinformation

more disinformation