US Congress: Treason In Time of War Shall Be Punishable By Death #tcot


By Section 110 of Article III. of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason.”

In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

“If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.”

JAMES MADISON in the 43d number of the Federalist says:

“As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.”

The Constitution confines the crime of treason to two species; First, the levying of war against the United States; and Secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. In so doing the very words of the Statute of Treason of EDWARD the THIRD were adopted; and thus the framers of the Constitution recognized the well settled interpretation of these phrases in the administration of criminal law which has prevailed for centuries in England.

Treason, according to Lord COKK, is derived from trahir, signifying to betray; and trahison, by contraction, treason, is the betraying itself.

In England, high treason can only be committed against the KING, for the oath of allegiance is to the KING alone, as the only supreme Governor — he has no partners in the supremacy.

Hitherto, but few cases have occurred in the United States in which it has been necessary for the Federal Courts to act upon this important subject. In 1807 ERICK BALLMAN and SAMUEL SWARTWONT were committed to prison in the District of Columbia, on a charge of high treason against the United States. The prisoners were brought by a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of the United States. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief-Justice MARSHALL said:

“To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the Court have been commuted, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by an assemblage of men for a purpose, treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed.” * * * * * * * “It is not the intention of the Court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men Be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for a treasonable purpose to constitute levying of war. Crimes, so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the Legislature is competent to provide for the case.”

In the case of The United States vs. FRIES, Mr. Justice CHASE said on the trial, and stated the opinion of the Court to be,

“That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens or increases the crime — whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial;”

* * * “and that it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war.”

In the case of the United States vs. AARON BURR, Chief-Justice MARSHALL said:

“There is no difficulty in affirming that there must be a war, or the crime of levying it cannot exist; but there would often be considerable difficulty in affirming that a particular act did or did not involve the person committing it in the guilt and in the fact of levying war. If, for example, an army should be actually raised for the avowed purpose of carrying on open war against the United States and subverting their Government, the point must be weighed very deliberately before a Judge would venture to decide that an overt act of levying war had not been committed by a Commissary of purchases who never saw the army, but who, knowing its object, and leaguing himself with the rebels supplied that army with provisions; or by a Recruiting-officer, holding a commission in the rebel service, who, though never in camp, executed the particular duty assigned to him.”

This able jurist, in the same case, states that the term “levying war,” as used in the Constitution of the United States, was unquestionably employed in the same sense in which it was understood in England and in this country, to have been used in the Statute of EDWARD III., from which it was borrowed, and refers to principles laid down by COKE, HALE, FOSTER, BLACKSTONE and HAWKINS.

FOSTER says:

“Attacking the King’s forces, in opposition to his authority, upon a march or in quarters, is levying war.”

And also that

“Holding a castle or fort against the King or his forces, if actual force be used in order to keep possession, is levying war.” — Sec. 4 Cranch Reps. 75, 137, Appendix 470-507.

FOSTER further states, in his valuable Treatise on Treason, that all insurrection, to effect certain innovations of a public and general concern, by an armed force, to be, in construction of law, high treason within the clause of levying war. He farther says:

“An assembly armed and arrayed in a warlike manner for a treasonable purpose is bellum, levatum, though not bellum percussum; listing and marching are sufficient overt acts, without coming to a battle or action. So cruising on the King’s subjects, under a French Commission, France being then at war with us, was held to be adhering to the King’s enemies, though no other act of hostility be proved.” — See 4 Cranch, pp. 478,479:

Lord COKE says: “If many conspire to levy war, and some of them do levy the same, according to the conspiracy this is high treason in all.” “Why? Because all were legally present when the war was levied? No. “For in treason,” continues Lord COKE, “all be principals and war is levied.” This doctrine of Lord COKE has been adopted by all subsequent writers; and it is generally laid down in the English books that whatever will make a man an accessory in felony will make him a principal in treason:

“It is well known,” says FOSTER, ” that in the language of the law there are no accessories in high treason — all are principals. Every instance of incitement, aid, or protection, which in case of felony will render a man an accessory before or after the fact, in the case of high treason, whether it be treason at common law or by statute, will make him a principal in treason.”

“The propriety of investing the National Government.” says Mr. Justice STORY, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “with authority to punish the crime of treason against the United States, could never become a question with any persons who deem ed the National Government worthy of creation or preservation. If the power had not been expressly granted, it must have been implied, unless all the powers of the National Government might be put at defiance and prostrated with impunity. Two motives probably concurred in introducing it as an express power. One was, not to leave it open to implication whether it was to be exclusively punished with death, according to the known rule of the common law, and with the barbarous accompaniments pointed out by it — but to confide the punishment to the discretion of Congress. The other was, to impose some limitation upon the nature and extent of the punishment, so that it should not work corruption of blood or forfeiture beyond the life of the offender.”

Treason has ever been deemed the highest crime which can be committed in civil society; since its aim is an overthrow of the Government and a public resistance by force of its just powers, its tendency is to create universal danger and alarm, and on this account it has often been visited with the deepest public resentment. Hence, by the common law, the the punishment of high treason was accompanied by all the refinements in cruelty which were oftentimes literally and studiously executed. But under the Constitution of the United States the power of punishing the crime of treason against the United States is exclusive in Congress; and the trial of the offence belongs exclusively to the Federal tribunals. A State cannot take cognizance or punish the offence, whatever it may do in relation to the offence of treason committed exclusively against itself.

Source: Ratification of US Constitution 1790 EXCERPT Article Published January 25, 1861 Public Domain

USA’s PBN Welcomes PM Benjamin “Bibi“ .@Netanyahu “For Such A Time is This…“ #Purim #Fast&Pray #Israel

In the Prime Minister of Israel’s own words…

“I’m going to Washington on a fateful, even historic, mission,” he said as he boarded his plane in Tel Aviv. “I feel that I am an emissary of all Israel’s citizens, even those who do not agree with me, and of the entire Jewish people,” ~Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu  (Reuters)

spoken March 1st, 2015 as Benjamin “Bibi“ Netanyahu was boarding his plane from Israel to the United States in order to give a highly important speech Tuesday morning to our United States Congress.

Bibi’s speech before Congress will air on FoxNews Channel Tuesday morning. Check your local cable network for details

Mr. Netanyahu will be speaking on a topic of historic importance regarding Iran obtaining Nuclear weapons capabilities and Iran’s hostile intent to use those weapons to destroy Israel and even reach The United States of America.  The Obama administration has been aiding and abetting Iran and other Islamic nations and entities such as IS by not even speaking of the existence of radical Islam, Islamic Jihad or Iran and other Islamic nations to establish a one world order global Islamic Caliphate at the behest and approval of all 57 Islamic States who are members of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) not loosely, affiliated with the UN (United Nations).

For the very first time in the history of our two nation’s allegiance, The President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, the 44th,  has refused to meet with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Christian Broadcasting Network wrote of the historic significance of Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu’s arrival and the apocalyptic Toranical and biblical timing of Bibi’s speech on the eve of Purim, a Holy day of Fasting and prayer for Jews and Christians who celebrate Holy Days in both of their faiths united by the Word.

In the days ahead, Jews around the world will celebrate Purim, a festival the Bible directs us to remember, when the Jewish people were delivered more than 2,000 years ago in Persia (modern day Iran) from an evil anti-Semite –Haman — who had manipulated the king into issuing a decree that would annihilate the Jews.

According to the biblical account, Esther, a Jew, and her cousin, Mordecai, who raised her, were the instruments of deliverance.

This Tuesday, just hours before the Purim holiday begins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, to explain why his country cannot tolerate the threat from another group of evil anti-Semites in Iran to annihilate the Jews: the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei and his government…

In the meantime, the gravity of the world situation and the daily reports of the persecution and murder of Christians and Jews has focused the attention of millions of Christians, as well as Jews, on what Netanyahu has to say. Many will pray and intercede, and others will fast, as Esther and her people did in biblical times.

We will pray for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s leaders, for wisdom for our own leaders, and for discernment to navigate the dangerous waters ahead. Who knows whether, as in the days of Esther and Mordecai, the address wasn’t appointed “for such a time as this…

~ John Waage, Senior Editor CBN

Read More:

Choice words and phrases excerpted and proper attribution given to authors/publishers and the rest (article portions not in block quotes) written by M. Katherine Orts & Pastor David A. Orts founders of  USDefenseLeague.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth“ for The Glory of God IJN+ #USA #ProIsrael #ShalomJerusalem

Click for more Stories about Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu - We Love You BiBi -USA!!

TedCruz refuses to tow the RINO line or allow Obama to lie and whine. #MakeDCListen Includes The Federalist #69 RT to @BarackObama [VIDEO]

senator-ted-cruz1

 “I’m the president, not a dictator” -BO

“To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American people.” –Ted Cruz

Many had a dream for our first Black President, predominantly black Americans, as he or she would be our very first black president, that’s why they turned out with over a 90 percentile vote for Obama (King must be doing somersault in his grave) Maybe these voters, many of whom had never voted, and honestly were uninformed about politics, and  particularly about Obama’s, jaded and quite honestly vile past which has caused deleterious effects  to many people’s lives. What they thought perhaps  was he’s someone like Martin Luther King, Jr., who dreamed of a future nation for his four children, void of race “. . . a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Enter Obama , smooth, convincing, educated, and he plead a case for unity, not left or right but an all inclusive nation, he spoke a message of healing and truth. He “preached” about transparency in DC, and some, the uninformed in our nation, had hope beyond hope. Youth and minorities wanted a hip  and “caring for the cause” president.  But most of them now know the truth, and it is something far different. What they got in the first black US president (technically bi-racial) was not a dream, but a nightmare.  His “amnesty” order will be hurting minorities the most and they’re already hurting the most. Painfully and deeply in the lack of job opportunities, murder, substance abuse, broken homes, fatherless children, poverty and otherobama_king areas. The truth is Obama doesn’t care for anyone but Obama and his legacy. We’re here on the front lines with you Patriot Brothers and Sisters, and yes we’re waiting, waiting for our lawbreaking President to once again arrest the attention of legal U.S. tax paying citizens, along with those here illegally, those who are invading our country and burdening every aspect of our Federal and States systems. to again, break US Law. Obama’s own words make the best case against his lawless action. We are certainly praying for, and are hopeful that, Speaker Boehner & Senate Elect Majority Leader Mitch McConnell know that the American people have given them, and every member of the right side of the aisle another opportunity to show We The People that they can lead. Mitch  McConnell and John Boehner  would both do well in listening to intellectually honest, well spoken Patriots and colleague, Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, who agree on what Ted Cruz wrote in the excerpt from Politico.

The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for immigrants here illegally unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law. Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the president threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally. To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American people. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the president’s executive amnesty. President Obama was correct: His policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014. The elections were a referendum on amnesty, and the voters soundly rejected it. There was no ambiguity. [read more]

The following is a must read for the POTUSTedCruzExecAmnesty

In Chapter 69, the president would be elected for a term of four years; he would be eligible for re-election. He would not have the life tenure of an hereditary monarch. The president would be liable to impeachment, trial, and removal from office upon being found guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He would be accountable at all times to the country at large.

The president was also to be the commander-in-chief of all regular United States military forces and of the state militias when called into national service. The president would have only occasional command of the state militias, and only when authorized by the Congress.

In addition, the president would have the power to pardon all offenders except those found guilty in an impeachment trial. He would regulate foreign relations with the advice and consent of the Senate, and have other extensive powers. But since a president was to be elected every four years, he could not possibly become a “perpetual and hereditary prince” like the despised and “tyrannical” King George III of Britain.

In Chapter 70, there were some who argued that a vigorous executive was inconsistent with republican principles. All men of sense agreed, said Hamilton, about the “necessity of an energetic executive.” That necessary energy would come from unity, duration, adequate provision for its support, and competent powers. The first need was “due dependence on the people”; the second, due responsibility.

As to unity, Hamilton argued (largely to himself), that executive powers should be concentrated in a single chief magistrate, and not in a council or anything of that sort. The history of Rome and the ancient Greek republics proved this, as well as the operations under various state governments. As chief magistrate, the president should bear sole responsibility for his acts. There was no need of a “council to the executive.”

In Chapter 71, this is a prolix essay on why the president’s term in office should be limited and why a new election to the presidency should be held periodically: every four years, as proposed. Four years would be long enough, but not too long. That period would keep the president responsive to the changing views and interests of the people if he hoped for re-election.

In Chapter 72, the president should be eligible for re-election. Otherwise, the chief magistrate might become irresponsible. Knowing that he would not be called to account by the people for whatever he did, he might do whatever he pleased, making himself a fortune while he could.

A man having served four years as president would have more knowledge of statecraft and the inner workings of the government than one who had not. To exclude a president from seeking to succeed himself might well result in the “fatal inconveniences of fluctuating councils and a variable policy.”

In Chapter 73, the vigor of the executive branch depended on adequate provision for its support, to be determined by Congress. It was possible that Congress might decide to “starve” an unpopular president by reducing or abolishing his salary, or “tempt him by largesses” to surrender his judgment and discretion.

No provision in the proposed constitution was more “judicious” than this, said Hamilton: The president would receive for his services a compensation “which shall neither be increased nor diminished, during the period for which he shall have been elected, . . . and shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States or any of them.” This would make the president financially independent and free to move as his judgment dictated.

The president should have the power to exercise a qualified negative over the acts of the two legislative bodies. He could return all bills he objected to so that they could not become laws unless subsequently passed again, this time by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. This would protect the president from having his powers whittled away by the legislature, and be a safeguard against hasty and ill-considered legislation. This would tend toward greater stability in government. To avoid a clash with the legislature, the president would be inclined to use his qualified veto cautiously.

In Chapter 74, among other requisite powers, the president was to be commander-in-chief of all regular United States military forces and of the state militias “when called into the actual service of the United States.” The propriety and reasons for this were so obvious, said Hamilton, that there was no need to discuss them.

The president was to have the power to grant pardons and reprieves for offences against the United States, “except in cases of impeachment.” There had been little criticism of this, Hamilton noted, except in relation to treason. Some argued that one or both legislative houses should be brought into proceedings involving the possible pardon of anyone convicted of treason. Hamilton saw some merit in that view, but concluded by saying that the power of granting pardons in treason cases should be left solely in the hands of the president, for “in seasons of insurrection or rebellion” the president could act more decisively and judiciously in granting amnesties. This might prevent the contending groups from coming to a violent and possibly disastrous collision.

[jwplayer mediaid=”194035″]

We are Losing our Freedoms and Lands: The Responsibility of the US Citizen #MakeDCListen

WhoOwnsTheWest

There is enough already “known” that someone could just quote the great minds in life to understand the trouble we are in as a nation.  And that is what we are going to do in this article, we hope you find it refreshing enough to share.  Subscribe Now 

Have we  lost our consciousness and ability to be responsible in the USA?  Yes, some have. Before the 1980s even arrived more people received government checks than were workers in the private sector. Is this the America you want to live in? 

“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attentionIf once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” – Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

“Need I infer, that it is the duty of every citizen to use his best and most unremitting endeavours for preserving it [the Constitution] pure, healthful, and vigorous? For the accomplishment of this great purpose, the exertions of no one citizen are unimportant. Let no one, therefore harbour, for a moment, the mean idea, that he is and can be of no value to his country: let the contrary manly impres­sion animate his soul. Every one can, at many times, perform, to the state, useful services; and he, who steadily pursues the road of patriotism, has the most inviting prospect of being able, at some times, to perform eminent ones.” -James Wilson (Signer of The  Declaration of Independence and the Constitution)

And the insight of those who are paying attention come to light if we are willing to research.  Listen with the scales removed from your ears so that you can hear what Albert Jay Nock clearly states in 1943 from his book “Memoirs of a Superfluous Man”

“… closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing; social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing; the State in consequence read more

Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

God bless Tom Rice, we here at PBN hope this spirit of freedom persists in the American people up through and beyond the upcoming midterm elections. We’ll be doing our part here at PBN to bring you the truth in all news, will you be doing your political part? –PBN

Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body “to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.” In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

“President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents,” Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.

“This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent read more

Emails Leaked by Senate Majority Leader’s office shows evidence of partnership between Reid and Boehner

Reids Office Leaks Boehner Emails

It looks like bipartisanship is as alive as ever on Capitol Hill; just maybe not the kind the pundits are always calling for. Even though it’s clear that Reid’s office did this just to attack Boehner, it still is a fascinating look at the inner workings of the political parties of the United States of America. It’s almost like both parties are nigh indistinguishable from one another. Leave it to politicians to have the appearance of a feud while actually working together.

Americans, if you truly believe that this nation is being destroyed with our current leadership, prove it next November. It will likely be your last chance. –PBN

A series of leaked emails authored by House Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff Mike Sommers show that the Speaker may have coordinated with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Congress from Obamacare.

The emails were leaked Tuesday by read more

Will America Become Америка? NSA, PRISM, KGB Spying on Americans [4 VIDEOS]

Related NSA article U.S. Government Reveals Deadly Classified Israeli Military Information to Israel’s Enemies [VIDEO]

So who is Steven Grimaud? Steven is a Senior Executive Officer at the NSA. He’s one of those faceless individuals who monitors your phone records and email at the NSA, but nobody is supposed to know his name. I’ll be happy to tell you who he is. He’s my ex-husband. We were married when he was a Russian translator for the Navy Security Agency. read more

HOUSE REJECTS OBAMA POLICY ON IMMIGRANT TEENS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The GOP-controlled House voted Thursday to reject President Barack Obama’s policy to end deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the country illegally who were brought to the United States as children.

The 224-201 vote broke along party lines and comes as Congress is working on overhauling the much-criticized U.S. immigration system. The measure came as the House completed action on the Department of Homeland Security spending bill.

Obama announced a program in June 2012 that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can’t have a serious criminal record.

Full article here.


read more

Secret Recording: Feds taped CT House Minority leader Lawrence Cafero who said ‘No’ to a bribe

By CHRIS BOSAK
Posted on TheHour.com Friday, May 17, 2013 8:59 pm
Please share this post of an overtly vile
government high on their own power and hell bent on destroying any valee call by the vast majority of American citizens. Values like marriage, life, freedom, liberty, decency and faith in the USA.

Share this and contact your reps, this not okay. -PBN

NORWALK — House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr. said he is proud of the actions of himself and his staff after a video emerged that showed a union official allegedly attempting to place $5,000 into a refrigerator in Cafero’s legislative office during an FBI sting.

The video was shown Thursday during the federal trial in U.S. District Court in New Haven against a campaign aide to former state House Speaker Chris Donovan. In testimony, Harry Ray Soucy, a former Department of Correction officer and union official, said he left $5,000 in cash in Cafero’s office, but that the money was returned.

Cafero told The Hour on Friday that Soucy asked for a cold drink and went to the refrigerator and placed an envelop inside. Cafero said he told Soucy that is not the way donations are made and demanded that Soucy take the envelop outside of the legislative office and give it to a Republican House staff member. When the staff member returned and Cafero discovered it was $5,000 in cash, Cafero made the staffer drive to a restaurant in Waterbury to return the money. Cafero said the staff member missed a law school class in order to return the money that day. Cafero said he also instructed the staff member to send an e-mail to Soucy explaining the proper way to make a contribution to a Republican committee.

The video, which is now on YouTube and The Hour’s website, was filmed by an FBI informant and Soucy was being used to try to catch legislators in the act of receiving bribes, according to Cafero. The video, both visually and auditorily, is rather unclear, but at one point Cafero is heard saying: “No, no, no.”

“I’m very proud of my staff and proud that we did the right thing,” Cafero said. “I take very seriously the proper procedure. I take solace in the fact that the FBI said I did nothing wrong and my staff is not a target of investigation. They thanked me for my cooperation.”

Soucy later sent Cafero five $1,000 checks. The FBI told Cafero he could keep that money for a Republican committee, but Cafero returned that money as well.

“I’m not sure if that money is tainted,” Cafero said. “I told them (FBI), with all due respect, I can not accept any check of a tainted origin.”

Cafero may have been given the OK by the FBI, but the entire situation left a bad taste in his mouth.

“It’s ugly and seedy what went on,” he said. “It’s a disgusting and upsetting experience.”

The meeting with Soucy took place on March 14, 2012.

Soucy visited Cafero’s office under the guise of discussing a tax potentially levied on roll-your-own cigarette establishments. Cafero knew Soucy previously as a union leader and Department of Correction officer.

Soucy brought two other men with him to the meeting and introduced them as being in the roll-your-own cigarette industry.

Cafero questioned Soucy why a corrections officer would want to discuss the topic and Soucy said he was thinking of opening a roll-your-own business, according to Cafero.

After the meeting, Soucy asked Cafero if he had anything to drink and walked toward the refrigerator.

Cafero said Soucy then told him that “my guys” want to make a contribution to a Republican Political Action Committee, then proceeded to try to put an envelop in the refrigerator.

Cafero stopped him and told him to meet one of his staff members across the street as contributions may not be accepted in the legislative office.

Cafero assumed Soucy meant fellow corrections officers when Soucy said “my guys.”

He did not think the contribution was on behalf of the roll-your-own cigarette lobby.

“I thought it was a very clumsy way to try to make a contribution,” he said.

Cafero said Soucy’s testimony that he left $5,000 in Cafero’s refrigerator is an “absolute lie.

Impeaching Obama Gains Steam

impeach.obama.mko.

Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

120213obama2

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

by DREW ZAHN

Source & Complete Article Here.

A Short History of America’s Gun Law Confiscations

312469_501518569914220_1278991991_nIn this short but cogent post by VotingAmerican you can clearly see, what every whinny liberal and centered conservative knows. And that is that the vast majority of Americans do not trust any form of Government to be able to protect them. We also realize that making thes guns black market just ups the ante for decent law abiding citizens thereby giving the criminal element a peek at our hand. But will it happen?  We say, if and or when the government tries to take the law abiding citizens guns, it will be a blood bath. Molon Labe. -PBN

A poll by Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R) found that 52% of Democrats say they would refuse to comply.

Only 22% of Americans believe gun control will reduce crime

58% of Americans believe violent crime would be reduced if more people had guns

65% of American gun owners say they would defy gun confiscation

52% of gun owning Democrats would defy gun confiscation

70% of gun owning Republicans would defy gun confiscation

73% of gun owning Independents would defy gun confiscation

77% of gun owning Men would defy gun confiscation

52% of gun owning Women would defy gun confiscation

68% of gun owning whites would defy gun confiscation

54% of gun owning non-whites would defy gun confiscation

58% of gun owners with a college degree would defy gun confiscation

69% of gun owners without a college degree would defy gun confiscation

Among every segment of the gun owning population, a majority says they will defy gun confiscation.

549907_460544357334039_1143826317_n

24429_401645629927187_779610016_n

Pelosi’s Aides Digitally Inserted Images of Four Absent Members Into Photograph

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” Luke 16:10
This is so wrong on so many levels. Why would she fake an alibi for a colleague, why would she not be transparent? How could anyone be proud of distorting history? Easy. Just like everyone of her Democratic fiendish friends, they are always ready to revise history. Obama has been famous for inserting his name in the White House historical archive section under past Presidents and their accomplishments. What a sad man. -PBN

WASHINGTON (AP) — For House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the swearing-in of a record number of Democratic women was a historic moment worth a photograph. And, she decided, history needed a little digital help.

After only 57 of the 61 congresswomen showed up in time for the photo scheduled Thursday on the Capitol’s steps, Pelosi’s aides digitally inserted images of the four absent members into the photograph. She then had the altered image posted on her Flickr photo-sharing site.

Journalists and historians frown on such altered views of history. On Friday, Pelosi defended the photo.

“It was an accurate historical record of who the Democratic women of Congress are,” Pelosi said at a news conference. “It also is an accurate record that it was freezing cold and our members had been waiting a long time for everyone to arrive and … had to get back into the building to greet constituents, family members, to get ready to go to the floor. It wasn’t like they had the rest of the day to stand there.”

Pelosi said the photo reflected the nation’s diversity because it included women from every community and religious faith.

“So we were pretty excited about it,” she said. “We got a lot of response back from the country, and one I loved was when they said, ‘Can the women in Congress hear the people cheering across the country?'”