Showing posts with label articles of impeachment. Show all posts

Friday, September 9, 2011

o'keystone kop - "More On Government Gunrunners" by Chuck Baldwin, Th.8Sep11

From: "Chuck Baldwin" at http://ChuckBaldwinLive.com Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 Subject: More On Government Gunrunners by Chuck Baldwin, September 8, 2011
article source: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3925

"More On Government Gunrunners"

By Chuck Baldwin, September 8, 2011

     My column last week focused on the federal government's covert program to directly supply firearms to Mexican drug cartels. The program was discovered by a congressional investigation after a Mexican gang using a firearm -- or firearms -- supplied to it by the ATF, murdered a US Border Patrol agent.
See my column at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3881
     A subsequent article written by Justin Raimondo sheds even more light on this disgusting debacle. Raimondo writes, "While the US military is being sent overseas in search of monsters to destroy, ignoring the good advice of the Founders, closer to home another war is brewing -- right on the US-Mexican border." Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry, killed on Dec. 21 near Rio Rico, Arizona, was murdered by drug cartel gunmen -- using weapons smuggled across the US-Mexican border under the auspices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).
     "While the cartels shoot up half of Mexico, and terrorize the other half, it seems they've been getting a helping hand from those 'geniuses' in Washington, whose 'law enforcement' agencies knowingly allowed sophisticated firearms to be smuggled across the border, into Mexico." As BATF special agent John Dodson told the House Oversight Committee:
     "This is not a matter of some weapons that had gotten away from us or allowing a few to walk so that we could follow them to a much larger significant target. Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals was the plan. This was the mandate."
     "ATF is supposed to be the guardians -- the sheep dogs that protect against the wolves that prey upon us -- especially along our southern border. But rather than meet the wolf head on, we sharpened his teeth, added number to his claws, all the while we sat idly by watching, tracking, and noting as he became a more efficient and effective predator."     "This goes way beyond mere 'blowback' -- the CIA's terminology for actions that produce unintended and unpleasant consequences. Because it's hard to fathom exactly what was intended -- unless it was the desire to sow chaos in Mexico and create a new threat to US citizens in the border states."

     Raimondo goes on to write, "Governments don't allow such large weapons shipments to pass over their borders to foreign customers without having some foreign policy objective in mind -- and, when it comes to the empire-builders in Washington, what other purpose could it be than the expansion of the imperial frontiers?"
     "Brushing aside the official explanation and excuses, when you look at what Operation Fast and Furious actually accomplished -- the arming ad consolidation of a [para]military force currently fighting Mexico's armed forces -- the conclusion that we are actively involved in destabilizing the Mexican government is hard to avoid. It is a simple statement of fact."     Raimondo continues, "The embattled Mexican government has barely been able to keep order, as the cartels rampage through the country, slaughtering thousands and dominating entire provinces: dead bodies keep turning up in droves, and it seems like a day hardly passes without some spectacular display of violence in a major Mexican city. Whole police forces are deserting, not out of disloyalty but out of fear -- fear that the government is losing its grip and the drug cartels are about to take over."
     "In this context, to put thousands of weapons in the hands of highly-organized criminals is inconceivable - unless the plan is to bring the Mexican government down and create chaos."

     Then, Raimondo draws a particularly astute observation by saying, "For years, our elites have been trying to forge links among the three nations that make up North America: 'free trade' zones that aren't free, coordination of military and law enforcement agencies, etc. Some are even proposing a somewhat loopy-sounding 'North American Union,' supposedly with its own currency -- the 'Amero' -- although officials (and the mainstream media) deny it, claiming it's a rumor started by the hated 'conspiracists.'' In the face of this criminal conspiracy carried out with the collaboration of several US government agencies, however, one has to wonder about the real purpose of Operation Fast and Furious."
     "With Mexico at the mercy of US-armed drug gangs, and the central government in Mexico City about to lose control, the introduction of US troops to 'keep order' is entirely within the realm of possibility. In that case, the North American Union will become a reality, in fact if not in the formal sense -- and the latter can be arranged quickly enough."
     "Call me a 'conspiracist,' if it makes you feel better, but when it comes to the crack-brained schemes of our wise rulers, it seems to me there's no limit to their ability to sow tragedy and terror wherever they tread. They did it in Iraq, they're doing it in Afghanistan, and they've been doing it for decades throughout the world -- why should Mexico be immune?"
     See Raimondo's column at: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/08/30/fast-and-furious/
     I ask readers, can the US government's foreign policy get any worse? The answer is probably YES!   It's been getting worse for a long time, and absent a President in Washington, D.C., with the mental acumen and the internal fortitude to put a stop to it, it WILL get a lot worse!
     Globalist elitists have been extremely influential in America's foreign policy since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, and they have thoroughly dominated America's foreign policy since the administration of George Bush I.   Surprisingly, the last President to attempt to defy the globalists might have been John F. Kennedy.   And look what happened to him.
     I had a retired US Air Force Brigadier General -- who had experience in both the Pentagon and the White House -- tell me that Kennedy was murdered for three reasons: 1) He wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve, 2) He wanted to dismantle the CIA, 3) He wanted to bring US forces home from Vietnam. All three of those plans, if enacted, would have struck at the very heart of the globalists' evil machinations for America. A phony, fiat money system, constant foreign entanglements and intervention, and perpetual foreign wars is the holy trifecta of the globalist agenda.
     When will voters, especially conservative and Christian voters, wake up to the reality that electing a "conservative" or "Christian" President is absolutely meaningless unless this President understands the globalist make-up of America's current foreign policy and would be willing to risk his life to undo it!    This is why Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate who would make any difference in Washington, D.C. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Palin, Perry, Romney, and Santorum are either clueless in this regard, or in the case of Gingrich and Perry, are active fellow-travelers in the march toward a globalist New World Order.   Ron Paul is the only candidate who not only "gets it" but also is adamantly opposed to it.
     So, while Americans are focused on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen (and, yes, these wars fit in with the globalists' agenda as well), the US government is busy stirring up war and revolution a whole lot closer to home.   And if you think it doesn't matter whether a constitutionalist President (Christian or not) is elected, you might want to speak to the family of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER: Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6 To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=450 Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included. Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact sec@chuckbaldwinlive.com Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 10, Kila, MT 59920. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list. Please visit Chuck's web site at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com *If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

Forgotten Past+Founding Documents	eBooks+Federalist Papers+American Minute	History+Essential: B.C. to Now	Quotes+American Values
Magna Carta:TimeLine	Arbroath Declaration Scots Wha Hae	History of: The US Bill of Rights	Founders'+Constitution+Amendments

Friday, August 5, 2011

o'keynesian - 1st time since 1917 ratings: US economy downgraded! -- o'humpty dumpty

Time to resign: Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve Director

U.S. Downgraded: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/downgrade.asp

What Does Downgrade Mean?
A negative change in the rating of a security. This situation occurs when analysts feel that the
future prospects for the security have weakened from the orginal recommendation, usually due to a material and fundamental change in the company's operations, future outlook or industry.

Investopedia explains Downgrade
Analysts place recommendations on securities to give their clients or investors a general idea on the expected performance of that security looking forward. These recommendations are adjusted when the basis behind the recommendation changes, such as the price of the stock or newly released data in the company's financial statements.

An analyst may downgrade a stock from a buy to a sell, after the company released information about an Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the company's operations.

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.

We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

TORONTO (Standard & Poor's) Aug. 5, 2011--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.
The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service--remains 'AAA'.
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).
Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.
The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.
The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.
We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.
We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation.
However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.
Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.
When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.
Standard & Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

Forgotten Past+Founding Documents	eBooks+Federalist Papers+American Minute	History+Essential: B.C. to Now	Quotes+American Values
Magna Carta:TimeLine	Arbroath Declaration Scots Wha Hae	History of: The US Bill of Rights	Founders'+Constitution+Amendments

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

o'humor - Obama Prison Blues (Johnny Cash song parody, video 1m56s)

video source: http://youtu.be/8n8K5b3gFvI

o'impeach - Obama/Holder Could Face Felony Charges for Fast and Furious

Considering that 2 attempts to impeach President Andrew Johnson for general issues involving appointments & tenure, that President Nixon was nearly impeached for 'lying or covering up', that President Reagan's 'Iran-Contra Affair' centered on 'coverups', that President Clinton's impeachment was for covering up his "doorknob being polished" (plus lying before a grand jury), then why shouldn't the murder of U.S. law enforcement and untold hundreds of Mexican citizens rise to the same level? -- rfh

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official onconviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "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." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment can also occur at the state level; state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, according to their respective state constitutions.

At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal — impeachment — would be preferable.^[1]^{(source: Wikipedia at}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States⁾

From: Western Journalism Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 Subject: Obama/Holder Could Face Felony Charges for Fast and Furious

Obama/Holder Could Face Felony Charges for Fast and Furious [impeachment proceedings?]

Original source article at: http://floydreports.com/obamaholder-could-face-felony-charges-for-fast-and-furious/

reposted from: http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamaholder-could-face-felony-charges-for-fast-and-furious/ July 25, 2011 by Guest Writer

by Doug Book

Why waste time asking "What did you know and when did you know it?" when the Obama Regime might already face felony charges?

That's the question Attorney David Hardy and others are asking those investigating the role of Regime members in the deadly gun walking fiasco, Fast and Furious.

Since whistleblowers brought this scheme to the attention of Congress early this year, Senator Charles Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa have been frustrated by Department of Justice stonewalling, subterfuge, and misrepresentation.

As Grassley wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder in a July 18th correspondence, "If the attorneys working on the [Justice] Department's response to the Committee spent less time redacting documents and more time producing them, we would be much closer to understanding the failures in leadership surrounding Operation Fast and Furious."

But it is Hardy's contention that the leadership at the Department of Justice, the ATF and perhaps the FBI and DEA are in violation of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976.

Written to make certain that members of the executive branch do not "mistakenly" sell arms to terrorists or tyrants, the Act clearly states that a president selling "defense articles" to another nation must first receive a permit from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, no permit is necessary if those articles are: For official use by a department or agency of the United States government; or for carrying out any foreign assistance or sales program authorized by law…

As Hardy rightly concludes, "the firearms involved [in Fast and Furious] were not being exported for official use by an agency, nor as part of foreign aid."

And although the people who made the straw purchases or transported the weapons across the border are obviously guilty under the Act, administration officials who encouraged or permitted these violations are equally liable, as "principles."

"Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principle."

And U.S. gun store owners were certainly "induced" to sell weapons to known straw purchasers by the ATF, just as the DOJ, FBI, and DEA "commanded," "counseled," and "procured" the commission of illegal Fast and Furious sales and the transport of those weapons.

How does our government treat private companies or individuals found guilty of violating the AECA? In 2009, John Reece Roth, a former University of Tennessee professor was sentenced to 48 months in prison for sharing technical data concerning the work he was doing for the Air Force.

In 2007, ITT was fined $100 million dollars for transferring classified information about lasers and countermeasures to Singapore.

And this year, Swiss Technologies Inc., a New Jersey defense contractor was fined $1.1 million dollars for sending drawings and specifications of gun parts to a Chinese company so that those parts might be produced more cheaply when fulfilling contractual agreements with the U.S. Defense Department.

Will the Regime remain immune to United States law? Or will the Grassley/Issa committees eventually get around to bringing charges which could result in the downfall of Obama and his cronies!

The Gunrunner story is just getting warmed up.

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org

To read more use these links:

This article originally appeared on CoachIsRight.com and is reprinted with permission.

Concealed Carry Would Have Kept Norway Safe

Is Obama Sabotaging the Ft. Hood Murder Case to Avoid Executing a Muslim?

Veteran Black Newsman Says, Impeach Obama

Forgotten Past+Founding Documents	eBooks+Federalist Papers+American Minute	History+Essential: B.C. to Now	Quotes+American Values
Magna Carta:TimeLine	Arbroath Declaration Scots Wha Hae	History of: The US Bill of Rights	Founders'+Constitution+Amendments

bcc'd "red diaper babies" & RINOs

KABEH MESISAN