Monday, April 17, 2006

Full Circle

Our case has been moved from Oakland to San Francisco with Judge Alsup taking the case. It is only fitting for the loud mouth that started the government’s assault to be where it all comes to an end. We are more than happy with this development. There have been many court appointments for early staging issues and we have been moved to various facilities until we’ve settled in the Federal Detention Center in Dublin California. This is where we will finish out the exercise until we get it in the end. (That was for you tcob247) likewise I see you’ve not taken advantage of my Dad’s proffer after all your posting about how and why you were bowing out, like usual all talk no action! If this were to go to trial you could expect a case like this to last 9 months on pre-trial issues and one year in trial. Hope you all won’t mind if I don’t take this to trial, and get it over much sooner. I said the 21st was an important day, and it was for a number of reasons. All the events on that day and since were in our favor. Although you would think we are to be scared of the big bad invincible government threatens us with 2000 years of time with its best resources. HA! HA! It still remains impossible to fear this paper tiger.

36 comments:

just-the-facts said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tcob247 said...

Kurt,

You Dad's proffer?

That wasn't a "proffer"
It was a joke.

You seem to like that line "getting it in the end"
Prison life must be good to you

Later

neModemes said...

neModemes said...
Should I point out your error of suppose vs. supposed?

I should help to financially bail out your clients while your boys hold their millions in a bank somewhere?

You really are a freak of nature moogie.

But, hold onto that pipe dream of success...you must be smokin' something strong.
___________________________________

Great rebuttal to points made by "moogie" that shows your own agenda, ugly duckling.

WillToFight said...

Hey Kurt

I really don't have to say (but I will), handle things the way you see fit. I believed in your ability to get this thing through from the beginning. Although frustrating at times, my faith has not changed.

Yes I will accept settlement!

WillToFight said...

U.S. Plan For Flu Pandemic Revealed
Multi-Agency Proposal Awaits Bush's Approval

Washington Post/Ceci Connolly | April 17 2006

President Bush is expected to approve soon a national pandemic influenza response plan that identifies more than 300 specific tasks for federal agencies, including determining which frontline workers should be the first vaccinated and expanding Internet capacity to handle what would probably be a flood of people working from their home computers.

The Treasury Department is poised to sign agreements with other nations to produce currency if U.S. mints cannot operate. The Pentagon, anticipating difficulties acquiring supplies from the Far East, is considering stockpiling millions of latex gloves. And the Department of Veterans Affairs has developed a drive-through medical exam to quickly assess patients who suspect they have been infected.

The document is the first attempt to spell out in some detail how the government would detect and respond to an outbreak, and continue functioning through what could be an 18-month crisis, which in a worst-case scenario could kill 1.9 million Americans. Bush was briefed on a draft of the implementation plan on March 17. He is expected to approve the plan within the week, but it continues to evolve, said several administration officials who have been working on it.

Still reeling from the ineffectual response to Hurricane Katrina, the White House is eager to show it could manage the medical, security and economic fallout of a major outbreak. In response to questions posed to several federal agencies, White House officials offered a briefing on the near-final version of its 240-page plan. When it is issued, officials intend to announce several vaccine manufacturing contracts to jump-start an industry that has declined in the past few decades.

______________________________

Uraguay, Venezuela, Belize or anywhere is looking better than this place.

Forget the 2008 vote. We have a King/Dictator.

just-the-facts said...

Oh yeah! I remember the last "Flu" panick. About 10 million doses were thrown away. Not needed. Must have been another gov thang. Go figure...

just-the-facts said...

You go Kurt. The writing is on the wall. Your in the home stretch now. Sure wish we could all see the looks on their faces when you guys are out free and clear...Definately will be a Kodac moment!

mogel said...

Nemo said: "I should help to financially bail out your clients while your boys hold their millions in a bank somewhere?"

Yes, I think you should help out at least one client to prove your great "supposed" financial concern since you seem to spout off that this is your main & only agenda, the financial loss of certain clients. Pleaseeeeeeee...... I'm not buying your great concern as if it's your major & only concern. Clients will be reimbursed and I don't care of you don't like the timing when this will happen. You're personality is such that you demand immediate satisfaction, being the impatient person that you are.

Speaking of an "agenda". Remember when you committed libel & slander against me when you said: "I had brought family members into the process and suggesting or stating they were upset at me due to the lack of their success of the process?" For the record, no family members support & understand my views & none are in the process.

Talk about purposely starting contention, attacking me & promoting a lie. Do you deny this bald face lie? Talk about promoting & praying a lie at all costs regardless of the truth or fairly investigating the truth. I can prove for a FACT that I have brought NO relatives or family members into the process. Can you prove your lie? We both know you can't. Course after reading this, I expect you to post something more slanderous totally unrelated to this accusation posted against you & ignore the issue here. That's your style. At least you are predictable. Go ahead, show me I'm right & when you do that, this will be further proof of your great concern for clients as your major concern. Oh by the way, I'm a Dorean client too, despite your other lie to suggest for a long time, I had no financial risk & had no property in the process. YOu show great concern to me, a client. LOL

Remember when you did a stalking search on me & mentioned names of my own family on the internet & what they did for a living as if you are suggesting you are some sort of investigational genius & suggesting somehow you verified your lie that you promoted? How is this lie & promotion showing a financial concern for clients, supposed clients that don't even exist? How strange of you to do that when I've never met you in person. I find you to be a freak of nature. By the way, I've never smoked anything in my entire life, something I would guess that you probably can't say in all truth. Weren't you the original poster child for the "beatnick", the predecessor to the hippie? Wasn't Maynard Krebbs, your nickname in high school?

You should thank God, I don't sue you for slander & libel.

mogel said...

Nemo (Bruce) said: "Maybe his honor had best make sure to round up all the players and make sure they all get tucked away so he can sleep at night, eh Byron?"

You freak of nature, since when does the judiciary have the legal powers of the executive branch of government to do what you are suggesting? No wonders why you love Mr. Alsup. YOu think his powers are unlimited & that they should be unlimited without any disgression of the checks & balance of powers set up in the Constitution. Your own suggestings show your contempt for the Constitution, you fascist freak. What kind of grade did you get in Civics class in high school? I suggest a low one since you don't understand this point.

against_the_odds said...

So willtofight, from what you've posted, there seems to be a consistant message from what indeed posted last week (Yes I will accept settlement!):


indeed said...

Kurt and Scott are out of jail! The charges will be completely dropped by June 1st. You heard it here first! The agreement that was made between the Feds and Kurt and Scott probabaly won't be discussed until after June 1st. However, I don't believe the masses will be told everything they agreed to.


indeed said...

Neodemes you wanted to know my source of knowledge for charges to be dropped by June 1st against Kurt and Scott. Sorry. I can't tell you that. This person has helped me before and such exposure would get this person fired and also prevent an inside source for future information.

Someone had stated earlier that there could not be a "deal" between the Feds and Kurt and Scott because they would never negotiate with the Feds. OK. If the deal is "take your money and run", they would take the deal. This would get them out of the government's hair and still get a successful resolution/reward to Kurt and Scott's fight.

If you don't beleive me, fine. Wait and see...


That would certainly explain why Mogel is posting again (btw, not a slam Mogel).

neModemes said...

mogel said about neMo...
Talk about purposely starting contention, attacking me & promoting a lie. Do you deny this bald face lie? Talk about promoting & praying a lie

"bald". That was a good one "mogel".

wantobefree said...

MOGEL I DONT GIVE A SHIT WHO YOU THINK I AM AND YOU KNOW WHAT IF I WANT TO HAVE A FOUL MOUTH ON HERE I WILL IVE SEEN ALOT WORSE. AS FAR AS THE BANKS I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US IS FRAUD THATS WHY I SENT THE MONEY ORDERS TO YOU IN YOUR NAME BECAUSE THE FAMILY AND I TRUSTED YOU.YEA YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHO I AM WELL HELL YOU SHOULD YOU HAVE EVERY THING ON ME RIGHT DOWN TO WHAT TIME OF DAY I SHIT.I TRUSTED YOU AND THEN AFTER THAT CRAZY ASS 12 DAILY PRO YOU TRIED TO GET ME HOOKED INTO AND THEN A WEEK LATER EVERYTHING SHUTS DOWN [OOO WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING EVERYBODYS MONEY BACK TO THEM]YOU KNOW WERE I LIVE IM ALWAYS HOME AFTER 9:00PM SWING BY SOMETIME AND I CAN SHOW YOU HOW BIG OF A CRY BABY I REALLY AM.I POST BECAUSE I STILL KICK MY ASS FOR GIVING MONEY AWAY LIKE THAT.HOWEVER WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING IS WRONG WRONG WRONG BUT I COME TO CONCLUSION I SIGNED THE NOTE STATING TO PAY THEM BACK IN TOTAL AND THATS WHAT IM GOING TO DO BESIDES MOGEL I MAKE MORE MONEY THEN MOST PEOPLE ON HERE ISNT THAT RIGHT,BUT I GURANTEE I DONT MAKE HALF WHAT YOU DO.

Justice7777777 said...

Kurt said to someone else, "like usual all talk no action!"

Wow! Which game is he watching?

WillToFight said...

Against_all_odds

Just premonition and erudition! Anyone that has knowledge could see!

There is a new Bill out in congress (Rep. (R) Frank Lucas OKLA) that would again ligitmize pre-1933 coinage. Meaning anything after that might be confiscated in the furture. I give it 3 years the banks will close and the wealth of America will sucked up by the elite (international bankers) again like what happen between 1929-1933!

I wonder what new deal Bush will offer the slaves. Your money won't be any good.

Better run with the gold! Even the banks don't rally want to be apart of the flood that is about to occur.

Bay does Uraguay sound good!

A beach house with peace and quite needed confort from the greed and madness that has engulfed us.

EXXON CEO retires with a 400 Mill dollar pension. The slaves are working hard for the massah!

WillToFight said...

Don'twanttobefree

I think you will bw wanting to be free when you are in fact free.

quit bitchin'

If you couldn't stand the 3000-45 then you should not have got in!

You don't want to be free. You just want to bitch

mogel said...

Want To be Free: Maybe I will swing by during a time when events in the future warrant a welcomed meeting. You certainly deserve to be blessed for your trust, a virtue I hope is not scarred in any way by your association, however, I believe wounds can be healed by better events in the future. I suddenly find myself no longer angry at your words from the past. I believe you come to the blog because you really don't want to kick yourself anymore & really do seek good news.
Best wishes to you.

tcob247 said...

willtofight said......

"quit bitchin'

If you couldn't stand the 3000-45 then you should not have got in!"

Sounds just like Dorean customer service.

Promise something
Dont deliver
Blame the customer for being stupid

you are an asshole willie

Ace said...

willtofight, I don't know about that. Back in 33 people were very gullible about their government. Today almost everyone knows the government is run by thieves and liars. When that time comes we will probably have a thriving black market and gold will be the top dog.

Ace said...

When Kurt wins his case lets all get together for beer and pizza so we can see who we have been bashing for the past year. Judge Roy Bean can be master of ceremonies.

neodemes said...

gosh, mogel, try and watch your blood pressure. You might pop something.

"Remember when you committed libel & slander against me when you said: "I had brought family members into the process and suggesting or stating they were upset at me due to the lack of their success of the process?" "

Actually, I don't recall that. Post a link to it, would you?

You collected the clients money, you give it back, oh compassionate one.

wantobefree said...

MOGEL AS LONG AS I GET WHAT WAS PROMISED TO ME I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU AT MY HOME ON GOOD TERMS.HOWEVER ITS VERY HARD FOR ME TO STAY UP ON THIS BLOG.IF I MISS A FEW DAYS IT SEEMS TO TAKE HOURS TO GET CAUGHT UP AND HALF THE TIME YOU CANT BELIEVE ANYTHING.I HOPE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WAS PROMISED COMES THRU BUT GETTING HARDER EVERY DAY TO BELIEVE IT EVER WILL.HEY WILLTOFIGHT IM SORRY I DONT REMEMBER YANKING YOUR CHAIN AND YES I LOVE TO BITCH WHEN SOMETHING IS PROMISED AND NOT DELEIVERD LET ME GUESS YOU JUMP UP AND DOWN FOR JOY AND NOT SAY A WORD

habakkuk said...

ace said....

When Kurt wins his case lets all get together for beer and pizza so we can see who we have been bashing for the past year. Judge Roy Bean can be master of ceremonies.

LOL!!!! What a great idea.

WillToFight said...

She almost got it right! Still think the banks arent a fraud TACO?

Banks Have No Exposure to Mortgages? Think Again: Caroline Baum

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- Every time the subject of banks making risky home loans to bad credit risks -- no money down, no questions asked -- the usual retort is that banks sell the mortgages. They aren't at risk. It doesn't matter if the loan stops performing because they don't own it.

That's not exactly true. According to the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report for the fourth quarter of 2005, mortgages accounted for 32 percent of commercial banks' financial assets. Throw in agency- and mortgage-backed securities, and the exposure to outright and securitized mortgage loans is 44 percent.

What happens to housing matters to the economy -- and not just because of the effect that reduced equity extraction would have on consumer spending if home prices were to stabilize or decline. It matters because mortgages are the big kahuna on banks' balance sheets. If enough of these loans go bad, as they did in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it could impair the banking system's ability to extend credit, with all that implies for the economy.

If history is any guide -- if this time isn't different -- when the banking system is broken, the economy doesn't work. The Great Depression, the savings-and-loan crisis in the U.S. in the early 1990s, and the lost decade-plus (1990s and early 2000s) in Japan all saw an extended period of bank balance-sheet contraction, which hampered economic growth.

____________________

It is true they are not at risk. But they risk the stability of this debt society that will soon come crashing down. Fiat currency can not work? See they put the loan on the books as an asset TACO, but that is the fraud, get it!

WillToFight said...

I'm in Habakuk

WillToFight said...

TACO

Walstreet and the rest are certainly ASSHOLES RIGHT!

You can't invest there, lose your money and come back whinin' complainin' they didn't play fair.

Walstreet is the biggist fraud in town right?

People in this process (Dorean) just need to have faith, be strong, have courage and you TACO lack all that!

WillToFight said...

Charlie Sheen Says Media Complicit In 9/11 Cover-Up
Response to Kimmel appearance betrays unparalleled willful ignorance

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 17 2006

Charlie Sheen has hit back against the predictable establishment response to his Jimmy Kimmel Live appearance by asking why they failed to address the two core issues he mentioned, the five frames of the Pentagon footage and Building 7. Sheen accuses the media of being complicit in the 9/11 cover-up.

The response to Charlie Sheen's Friday night appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live (VIDEO) again underscores the blind ignorance of the establishment media in their treatment of the 9/11 subject as well as their blatant deception in claiming Sheen has little public support.

Sheen limited his focus to just two issues, the Pentagon and Building 7.

"There are two areas," said Sheen, "Building 7 and the five frames from the Pentagon. Don't listen to me, do your own research," Sheen stated on the ABC show.

But every single hit piece has failed to adequately discuss either.

According to recent developments in the Moussaoui trial, family members were shown video of the impact of Flight 77. Why is that footage so sensitive that it has not been released publicly? Or was the footage just a repeat of the five amorphous frames that have provoked so many questions?

WillToFight said...

Don't believe me. Do your own damn research!


On The Record: The Controlled Demolition Of The WTC

Prison Planet.tv | July 6 2005

This is a clip from the new documentary Loose Change, which features firefighters and other eyewitnesses discussing explosions at the World Trade Center and examines the physical evidence.

habakkuk said...

Article by Chris Thompson:

"Johnson and Heineman's legal rationale may be difficult to comprehend, but....."

No kidding Chris.....Why don't you go back and do just a little homework before you write about something you don't understand. HELLO!!!!

complainers suck said...

habakkuk said...
Article by Chris Thompson:

"Johnson and Heineman's legal rationale may be difficult to comprehend, but....."

No kidding Chris.....Why don't you go back and do just a little homework before you write about something you don't understand.

This guy can not even distinguish who's who between Scott and Kurt, so what makes us believe he can understand the process?

son of a prophet said...

*****EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT*****
*****EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT*****
*****EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT*****
*****EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT*****
***********************************

April 18, 2006 update ... emergency announcement ... this is not about weather (although i expect 2006 to be a year of controlled severe weather including large tornadoes hitting major american cities ... something certain talk show hosts have been told to avoid as a topic) ... the emergency is that silver and gold are skyrocketing in alleged value ... word is the USA already has troops in IRAN (with an N) ... and "war" is impending ... another bush ploy possibly to say "we had to do it" and "now that we are there you have to support our troops" ... the US is about to come unglued ...the mexicans are streaming in from the south directly across the border at the customs crossings and word is they are even coming by boat through new orleans ... they are moving north in vast numbers ... the plan to take down the USA and drive it to 3rd world country status is in its final throws ... this is an operation that has been under way for decades and is in its final stages ... someone big in washington needs to take out the new world order gov officials so we can have a real election and return to a real democracy based on the constitution ... as in a military operation ... oooops ... but remember our entire military has been moved to far away lands "to defend our nation against the contrived terrorist threat !!!" this was certainly part of "the plan" ... the problem is that most americans bought it hook line and sinker and many still do ... jim mccanney

habakkuk said...

complainers suck,

yeah, i noticed he was describing the wrong guy..lol!

son of a prophet said...

Democratic Congressmen ask Bush about reports of US military operations in Iran

RAW STORY
Published: Monday April 17, 2006


Print This | Email This


Two Democratic Congressmen have written letters to President Bush on the heels of a growing number of news reports that American forces may have already begun military operations in Iran, RAW STORY has found.

Both House members express concern that if the stories are true, then the president may have acted unilaterally without first obtaining proper authorization from Congress.

"Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran," wrote Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) last Friday. Kucinich is the Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

"If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress," Kucinich continued.

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) intends to introduce a resolution "expressing the sense of the Congress that the President cannot initiate military action against Iran without congressional authorization" soon, and is forwarding his letter to other House members to collect additional signatures.

"We are writing to remind you that you are constitutionally bound to seek congressional authorization before launching any preventive military strikes against Iran," DeFazio writes.

Citing Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution ("The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States..."), DeFazio attacks the administration's frequent interpretation of the clause to historically justify unilateral military actions by presidents without authorization of Congress.

"Contrary to your Administration's broad reading, nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress," writes DeFazio.

"The founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, large-scale preventive military actions against foreign threats that are likely years away from materializing," DeFazio adds.

Text to both letters follow:

Kucinich's letter to President Bush:

#
Dear President Bush:

Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.

The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.

Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration.

It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran.

Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response.

Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich Member of Congress

#
DeFazio's letter to President Bush:

#
Dear President Bush:

We are concerned by the growing number of stories that your Administration is planning for military action against Iran. We are writing to remind you that you are constitutionally bound to seek congressional authorization before launching any preventive military strikes against Iran.

As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution...all...powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section 2, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States..."

Your Administration has argued that this "Commander-in-Chief" clause grants the President wide latitude to engage U.S. military forces abroad without prior authorization from Congress. You further argue that previous unilateral actions by presidents of both political parties add credence to your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Contrary to your Administration's broad reading, nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress. The founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, large-scale preventive military actions against foreign threats that are likely years away from materializing. With respect to Iran, according to the most definitive U.S. intelligence report, Iran is likely a decade away from developing a nuclear weapon. Even the most pessimistic analysis by outside experts puts the timeline at least three years away, but that's only if everything in Iran's development program proceeds flawlessly, which would defy the history of nuclear programs around the world, including Iran's.

The architects of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of government models, like the monarchy in Great Britain, which vested the power to go to war with the head of state. Instead, the Founding Fathers made a conscious decision to grant the solemn war-making powers to the Legislative Branch. The intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution is clear.

In the Federalist Paper Number 69, while comparing the lesser war-making power of the U.S. president versus the King of Great Britain, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "...the President is to be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. In this respect his 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 raising and regulating of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

James Madison declared that it is necessary to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."

In 1793, President George Washington, when considering how to protect inhabitants of the American frontier, instructed his Administration that "no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after [Congress] have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

In 1801, Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect against possible attacks by the Barbary powers. He told Congress that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." He further noted that it was up to Congress to authorize "measures of offense also."

While presidents in the latter half of the 20th Century have initiated military action without prior authorization by Congress, "everybody does it" is not a legitimate defense to ignore the plain words of the U.S. Constitution, the clear intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, and more than 150 years of legal precedent.

We also want to go on record that the Authorization of Force Resolution (Public Law 107-40) approved by Congress to go after those responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on our country does not, explicitly or implicitly, extend to authorizing military action against Iran over its nuclear program. The legislation specifically says, "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." There is no evidence that Iran was involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Nor is there any evidence that Iran harbored those who were responsible for the attacks.

Further, the Authorization of Force Resolution (Public Law 107-243) approved by Congress to go to war with Iraq does not extend to military action against Iran over its nuclear program. This resolution only authorized you to "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Like P.L. 107-40, there is no explicit or implicit authorization on the part of Congress in P.L. 107-243 that would allow you to attack Iran without first coming to Congress to seek a new authorization.

When asked about reports of your administration planning for war with Iran, you said on April 10, 2006, "It [prevention] doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy." We agree with the focus on diplomacy. But, we want to be clear, should you decide that force is necessary, seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary. It is legally and constitutionally necessary.

Sincerely, PETER DeFAZIO Member of Congress

#

Peanut Gallery said...

SOP

So you think an atomic Iran is a good thing. A state that is constantly threatining Israel with inihalation. A radical Muslim doctrine that is bent on not only the destruction of Israel, but the West as well.
Pure partisan politics on the part of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd.

You should welcome such a war. Afterall won't that fall into your replacement theology, rapture beliefs?

son of a prophet said...

peenut g,

i dont think one way or the other, i just report what the 'net is saying.


what does a nuclear iran have anyting to do with me??

but, according to the NWO, whom runs this govt. we should bomb the hell out of them.

you choose which side to be on. either side loses.....now pick...

son of a prophet said...

oh, and yes....you may call it what you want, but i wont be here when the ac comes....thank god for the rapture.....but we covered this already.....next topic....oops, i almost forgot....i did say that i wuld not respond to your comments any more.....sorry!

Peanut Gallery said...

SOP said,
thank god for the rapture.....but we covered this already.....next topic....oops, i almost forgot....i did say that i wuld not respond to your comments any more.....sorry!



No we did not cover it. I asked for scripture to back up you rapture claims, and you ignored it as always, b/c you cant find scriptural evidence for it