UN and French helicopters attack Ivorian presidential residence as rights watchdog accuses Ouattara forces of abuses.

United Nations and French helicopters have fired rockets on the residence of Laurent Gbagbo, Cote d’Ivoire’s incumbent president, in Abidjan.

Haru Mutasa, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Abidjan, said five helicopters were used in the attack on Sunday and that they flew from a French airbase.

After flying to the Cocody area, where the presidential residence is located, they fired their rockets and returned to the airbase to reload. The process was then repeated.

Two residents from nearby neighborhoods saw two UN Mi-24 attack helicopters and a French helicopter open fire on the residence, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Read more here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141014275630213.html

 

Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama

Bruce Fein

THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:

Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.

3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.

4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”

5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”

6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”

7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.

II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE

9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “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.”

11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.

12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.

13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.

14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:

[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority

…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Read more here:

http://www.infowars.com/bruce-fein-articles-of-impeachment/

Usually this is a sign of a last ditch effort. Anyone ever notice into all the countries we invade illegaly, the leaders at the time will destroy the natural resources? Are Americans so stupid, that they don’t realize the country we are invading is destroying these natural resources as so our Mega Conglomerate Multi National Corporation friends can’t get to them and profit off of them?! Do Americans know our military guards poppy fields in Afghanistan? Poppy fields which are a multi billion dollar industry and a natural resource to it’s country. And in Iraq we deply airborne and air assault soldiers not first to enemy lines and battle but to oil lines?

Gaddafi Starts Bombarding His Own Oil Fields

Submitted by Tyler Durden

Back in February we were wondering how long before Gadaffi starts a scorched earth policy on his own country, and primarily his oil infrastructure, in a repeat of Hussein’s non-triumphal departure from Kuwait. Turns out the answer is about a month and a half. With it now becoming painfully clear that the whole purpose of the humanitarian intervention is to procure preferential terms of oil imports from Libya’s rebel alliance, the “humanitarian” force has forgotten that despite no airplanes, Gaddafi will likely not take too kindly to not collecting revenues from what he perceives as his natural resources. From the FT: “Oil production in rebel-controlled eastern Libya has stopped after troops loyal to Muammer Gaddafi bombarded several oilfields, the opposition said on Wednesday. The assault came hours after the rebels exported their first cargo of oil into the international market, potentially opening the door to millions of dollars of funding to sustain their uprising against Colonel Gaddafi’s 41-year rule. The attack against oilfields in the east was the first against production facilities. Previously, only port facilities and crude oil storage tanks in the Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, also in the east, were damaged during the conflict.” We are confident that this escalation will give NATO the caed blanche to commence a land-based campaign and prevent further infrastructure destruction before Gaddafi causes irreparable damage to even more facilities (although Halliburton naturally couldn’t care less).

More here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gaddafi-starts-bombarding-his-own-oil-fields

IMPEACH  BERNANKE!

An open letter to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas

Antal E. Fekete

April 6, 2011

Dear Dr. Paul:

There are serious questions about the legality of Quantitative Easing. You are among the few who are well-qualified and well-placed to get to the bottom of it.

Most people believe, and the media confirm them in that belief, that the Fed can legally create dollars ‘out of the thin air’ in any quantity, and can do with them as it pleases. This may well be the pipe dream of Dr. Bernanke who is quoted as saying that the U.S. government has given the Fed a tool, the printing press, to stop deflation — but it hardly corresponds to the truth. The Fed can create new dollars only if some stringent legal conditions are satisfied, and then, it can only dispose of them in certain ways prescribed by law.

Contrary to a statement of Dr. Bernanke, made before he became the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, he could not drop freshly printed dollars from a helicopter, no matter how many reasons for such an action he may be able to cite. Another thing the Fed is not allowed to do legally is to purchase Treasury paper from the U.S. Treasury directly. It must be purchased indirectly through open market operations. If you don’t put the Treasury paper through the test of the open market before the Fed is allowed to buy it, the presumption is that the market would reject it as worthless, or would take it only at a deep discount. The law does not allow the F.R. banks to purchase Treasury paper directly from the Treasury because that would make money creation through the F.R. banks a charade, reserve requirements a farce, and the dollar a sham.

If that were the only problem with Quantitative Easing, it would be bad enough. But there is something else that is even more ominous. The fact is that the Federal Reserve banks can purchase Treasury paper only if they pay with F.R. credit that has been legally created.

F.R. credit (F.R. notes and F.R. deposits) is legally created if it has been issued in accordance with the law. The law says that F.R. credit must be backed by collateral security at the time of issuance, usually in the form of an equivalent amount of U.S. Treasury paper. The procedure is as follows.

The F.R. bank seeking to expand credit takes its Treasury paper, owned outright and free from encumbrances, and posts it as collateral with the Federal Reserve agent who will then authorize the issuing of credit. In other words, if the F.R. banks do not have the unencumbered Treasury paper in their possession, then they cannot create additional credit legally.

There is some evidence that the F.R. banks do not have F.R. credit available to make the kind of purchases Dr. Bernanke is talking about as part of his Quantitative Easing. Nor do they have unencumbered Treasury paper in sufficient quantity that they could post with the F.R. agent for authorizing the issue of additional F.R. credit.
 
The point is that the process of posting collateral first, and augmenting F.R. credit afterwards must under no circumstances be reversed. What the F.R. banks cannot legally do is to buy the Treasury paper first with unauthorized F.R. credit, post the paper as collateral, and justify the illegal issuance of credit retroactively. Nor can they borrow the bond from the Treasury, post it as collateral, and pay for the bond retroactively.

This is an important limitation separating the regime of market-based irredeemable currency from the regime of fiat money involving outright monetization of government debt — the graveyard where the Continental dollar, the assignat, the mandat, the Reichsmark, and the Zimbabwe dollar (among countless others) rest.

At any rate, retroactive authorization of F.R. credit, if that’s what the Fed is up to, would be a violation of both the letter and spirit of the F.R. Act. It would mean converting the dollar into outright fiat money through the back door, bypassing Congress. It would show absolute bad faith on the part of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Dr. Ben Bernanke, who certainly knows what the law is. Such a blatant violation of the law would make him totally unfit for the powerful office he occupies. It would call for his immediate and dishonorable discharge by the President, pending Congressional investigation of the matter.

The various violations of the law of which the Fed is accused point to a concerted effort to remove the shackles the law has put on the money spigots lest crooks help themselves to the public purse. These violations are not isolated incidents. They are aiming at the corruption of the monetary order of the nation and the world. Moreover, they would ultimately figure prominently among the causes of the financial instability the world has been suffering from since 1971 and, more recently, since 2008.

Without understanding this fundamental truth, all talk about stabilizing the monetary system and reining in the runaway budget deficit is an exercise in futility.

Yours very sincerely,

Antal E. Fekete
Professor (retired)
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Tel./Fax: +36-1-325-7996

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/antal-feketes-open-letter-ron-paul-impeach-bernanke

I love it when politicians get into a pissing match. While we Americans sit and suffer, they decide how much money of ours they will steal and spend misappropriately.

Dems: $4 trillion dollars

Reps: No no $2 trillion dollars

Paul Ryan: All of you are insane, here is a budget from 2 years ago, when it was only in billions.

Both Parties: Are you insane?!

I am glad Obama will veto it. These budget extensions are Bullsh-t! Let’s come to an agreement and get it done. The democrats failed to do this which was thier job during election time. And republicans don’t want to do it after all the lies they made (I mean campaign promises) and look like the spenders they now are. I say let the US government shutdown. The country will probably be able to function properly without Big Brother, DAD, Big Sister, MOM, and Uncle Sam constantly making decisions for us and breathing down our necks.

Y’know when we were teenagers, we were all dying to get the hell out of the house. Now, it seems when it comes the government to take place of our parents and WORSE! We beg for it!

Obama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan

AP

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Andrew Taylor, Associated Press 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Republicans advanced a bill Thursday that would avoid a government shutdown for one more week, cut spending and fully fund the Pentagon, but the White House labeled the measure a distraction and said President Barack Obama would veto it.

Obama said in a statement he believes “we need to put politics aside and work out our differences” on a spending plan that covers the government through September, when the current budget year ends.

The president has signed two short-term extensions, but negotiations have proceeded fitfully.

The veto threat marked a sour turn in talks that Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday night were showing promise.

With a partial shutdown looming for Friday at midnight, it was not clear whether it represented a breakdown in the negotiation or a final round of maneuvering before a deal was struck.

Obama called Reid, D-Nev., and Boehner, R-Ohio, back to the White House for more talks Thursday afternoon.

Before departing the Capitol, Boehner urged the House to pass legislation to cut $12 billion, fund the Pentagon through the end of the year and keep the government running for a week.

“There is absolutely no policy reason for the Senate to not follow the House in taking these responsible steps to support our troops and to keep our government open,” he said.

Boehner accused the White House of backsliding, adding that there hadn’t been as much progress as it appeared after the late-night meeting Wednesday.

“It’s really just more of the same. We’re going to have real spending cuts. I don’t know what some people don’t understand about this,” he said.

Reid said otherwise, although he, too, made it clear he wants to avoid a shutdown that the White House says would cause problems for combat troops overseas and delay Internal Revenue Service refunds for taxpayers at home.

“The issue is ideology, not numbers,” he said.

More here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown

Another strong quake rattles tsunami-ravaged Japan

AP 

By CARA RUBINSKY, Associated Press Cara Rubinsky, Associated Press 4 mins ago

TOKYO – A magnitude-7.4 aftershock rattled Japan on Thursday night, knocking out power across a large swath of the northern part of the country nearly a month after the devastating earthquake and tsunami that flattened the northeastern coast.

Japan’s meteorological agency issued a tsunami warning but canceled it about 90 minutes later. Officials said power was out in all of three northern prefectures (states) and in parts of two others.

There were no immediate reports of serious injuries or damage. The aftershock was the strongest since the March 11 megaquake and tsunami that killed some 25,000 people, tore apart hundreds of thousands of homes and caused an ongoing crisis at a nuclear power plant.

The operator of the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant said there was no immediate sign of new problems caused by the aftershock, and Japan’s nuclear safety agency says workers there retreated to a quake-resistant shelter in the complex. None were injured. The crisis there started when the tsunami knocked out cooling systems. Workers have not been able to restore them.

Thursday’s quake knocked out several power lines at the Onagawa nuclear power plant north of Sendai, which has been shut down since the tsunami. One remaining line was supplying power to the plant and radiation monitoring devices detected no abnormalities. The plant’s spent fuel pools briefly lost cooling capacity but an emergency diesel generator quickly kicked in.

Officials said the aftershock hit 30 miles (50 kilometers) under the water and off the coast of Miyagi prefecture. The U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colo., later downgraded it to 7.1.

Buildings as far away as Tokyo shook for about a minute.

The quake struck at 11:32 p.m. local time. Moments beforehand, residents in the western Tokyo suburb of Fuchu were warned on a neighborhood public address system of an imminent quake.

In Ichinoseki, inland from Japan’s eastern coast, buildings shook violently, knocking items from shelves and toppling furniture, but there was no heavy damage to the buildings themselves. Immediately after the quake, all power was cut. The city went dark, but cars drove around normally and people assembled in the streets despite the late hour.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan huddled with staff members in his office shortly afterward, according to deputy Cabinet spokesman Noriyuki Shikata.

Read more here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_earthquake

How long do you give him before he disappears never to be heard from again?!

 

Treasury may borrow federal retirement funds in debt emergency

By SEAN REILLY

The government could temporarily tap tens of billions of dollars from two federal employee retirement programs if Congress fails to raise the federal debt ceiling next month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers.

The government expects to hit a $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on May 16 or before, Geithner said in a Monday letter.

Geither implored Congress to extend the debt ceiling by that deadline and said that if Congress does not, Treasury will be forced to borrow money from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, and the Thrift Savings Plan’s Government Securities Investment Fund, or G Fund, both of which are invested in U.S. Treasury securities. Those two moves could free up $142 billion through early July

Read more here:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110405/BENEFITS02/104050306/1001

Reality check with Joe Rogan

Posted: April 6, 2011 in Politics

N.H. House Asserts State’s Right to Nullify Federal Laws

Written by Jack Kenny   

If the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., wants to shake up the political establishment, lawmakers there might look for inspiration to the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in Concord, New Hampshire. The rebels in New Hampshire did not fire the “shot heard ’round the world” — not yet anyway — despite Michelle Bachmann’s Midwestern confusion on that subject. But they have fired a few salvos that may be worth Washington’s attention.

The New Hampshire House recently passed resolutions calling for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations and from the North American Free Trade Agreement, more commonly known by its acronym, NAFTA. And on Wednesday the New Hampshire House approved a resolution asserting the right of the state to nullify within its borders any act of the federal government it finds unconstitutional. If John C. Calhoun had lived to see this day, he would be rejoicing. He would be 229 years old, but he would be rejoicing.

The nullification resolution, passed by a vote of 242-109, holds that the state is not obliged to follow any federal law that exceeds the constitutional authority of Congress to enact, and declares such laws “altogether void and of no force” in New Hampshire. Opponents of the measure derided it as a foolish effort to re-fight the Civil War. Christopher Serlin (D-Portsmouth) noted that 40,000 New Hampshire men served and 4,500 of them died fighting on the side of the Union. “I don’t think it is appropriate for this Legislature to mock the memory of those who died,” he said.

But the sponsor of the resolution, Rep. Daniel Itse (R-Fremont), offered a spirited defense of the state’s right to stand in defiance of what he described as federal usurpation. “It is our power and duty to stand between the people of New Hampshire and the government of the United States,” he declared. The purpose of the measure, he continued, is to tell “the world in general and Washington, D.C. in particular” that when it comes to “usurpation of rights” and of the power of the people, the answer in New Hampshire is, “Not here, not now, not ever.”

The House Concurrent Resolution, which requires passage by the Senate as well, calls for the House clerk to notify President Barack Obama, all members of Congress, and all state legislators of the bill upon passage. State Democratic Party chairman Raymond Buckley called the resolution a waste of taxpayers’ money and evidence of extremism on the part of House Republicans. 

“This new, out-of-control and extremist Republican majority voted to waste taxpayer money sending letters all across the country,” Buckley told the New Hampshire Union Leader. The party chairman claimed the money could be better spent to “keep teachers in the classrooms, police officers on the streets, create jobs or reduce taxes.” 

Read More:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/6935-nh-house-claims-states-right-to-nullify-federal-laws