Quantifiable Example of Obama’s Risky Gitmo Policy

The Associated Press is reporting this afternoon that a federal judge has ordered the release of a Guantanamo Bay detainee without explaining why. From the article:

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle issued a one-page judgment Tuesday ordering the release of Yasin Muhammed Basardh, a 33-year-old from Yemen.

The judge didn’t explain in the ruling why Basardh should be let go, but said it was explained during a closed hearing in her courtroom earlier in the day.

Basardh has been fighting in court for four years to be released. The United States had argued that he was an enemy combatant and therefore being legally held at Guantanamo, but the specifics of his case were kept classified and sealed in court filings.

As much as this is a problem, it is certainly not an unforeseeable one. Also equally unforeseeable was the executive order signed by Barack Obama which ordered the closure of the detainee facility within a year, though the lack of direction as to what would be done with the detainees themselves was a little startling.

If these terrorists are released from Guantanamo and placed in prisons here in the United States, they will be allowed the same rights that American citizens enjoy, and will see trial in American courts. This will undoubtedly open the door for ACLU types to hone in on evidentiary and other problems — it won’t take long for some hippie to argue that a particular detainee’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated because he wasn’t properly Mirandized upon being picked up in a cave along the Afghani-Pakistani border.

And, depending upon a particular judge’s interpretation of our Constitution and preconceived notion of whether constitutional rights apply to people who’d like nothing more than to see the United States burn, we might see an instance where an enemy combatant is set free with little or no reason given. Now, I’m not saying that this was the case, but the Hon. Ellen Segal Huvelle isn’t exactly a raging conservative.

Judge Huvelle’s only campaign donation on the record was $775 given to Michael Dukakis’ presidential committee in May of 1988. Her husband, however, a labor lawyer working for Washington, D.C. firm Covington & Burling LLP, has a 15-year history of donations made to Democrats.

  • $500 to Friends of Sen. Joe Lieberman in October 1993
  • $500 to the Committee for a Democratic Majority in October 1996
  • $500 to Sen. Ted Kennedy in October 1996
  • $400 to Sen. Joe Lieberman in December 1999
  • $500 to Hillary Clinton’s senatorial campaign committee in February 2000
  • $250 to Friends of Hillary Clinton in December 2001
  • $2000 to John Kerry for President in March 2004
  • $400 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004
  • $2000 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004
  • $500 to the Democratic National Committee in March 2005
  • $250 to the Democratic National Committee in May 2006
  • $500 to Jim Webb (Virginia) for U.S. Senate in September 2006
  • $500 to Jon Tester’s (Montana) U.S. Senate campaign in September 2006
  • $500 to Harold Ford Jr.’s (Tennessee) congressional campaign in September 2006
  • $500 to Friends of Sherrod Brown (Ohio) in October 2006
  • $1000 to Jon Tester’s U.S. Senate campaign in October 2006
  • $2100 to Claire McCaskill’s (Missouri) U.S. Senate campaign in October 2006
  • $1000 to Harold Ford Jr.’s campaign in October 2006
  • $600 to Harold Ford Jr.’s campaign in October 2006
  • $500 to Friends of Sherrod Brown in October 2006 (again)
  • $8000 to Harold Ford Jr.’s campaign in November 2006
  • $1000 to Hillary Clinton for President in December 2007
  • $2300 to Obama For America (primary) in December 2007
  • $2300 to Obama Victory Fund (primary) in July 2008
  • $2300 to Obama For America (general) in July 2008
  • $5000 to Obama Victory Fund in October 2008

Now, let me be perfectly clear — the political donations above were made by Judge Huvelle’s husband. And, as we can see from couples like Mary Matalin and James Carville, husbands and wives do not always have similar political beliefs. Furthermore, Judge Huvelle is an accomplished District Court judge, and nothing I’ve seen, heard or read would make me assume that she is anything but equitable. In fact, I’ve read a few of her decisions and each came across as being apolitical, well-written, well-thought-out, and fair. Actually, her decision in a 2001 consumer privacy-related case was downright fantastic.

Instead, the point I’m trying to make is that this should be an example of what could happen, how the Obama administration’s short-sightedness with regard to the threat from radical Islam could cost America dearly. I’m not certain of the reasons why Judge Huvelle released this Yemeni man. There very well could have been great reason. What I am sure of, though, is that releasing these people into the United States brings with it a host of unforeseen consequences — and we’re better off not taking that chance at all.



  1. Gail B says:

    Just went to Robert’s site (that I found in another comment section here on America’s Right, and he’s good! It’s not “competitive” with AR; it’s about GOP strategy. It’s called Change the Change: Rebuild the GOP and can be FOUND HERE.

    Thanks, Robert. Good job!

  2. tm says:

    It hasn’t been 100 days and now he is letting them free…. these animals.
    Maybe hoping for another crisis?
    It is going to be a very long 4 years.

  3. Gail B says:

    Maybe Obama will give Basardh a job cooking at the White House or housekeeping.

    I agree with you about the danger of releasing the detainees. I think the should be returned to where they were captured and let our fine Marines “take care of business.”

    Or, return them to their birth country, right along with Obama!

    I found it interesting that, after Obama said he wanted to meet with the Taliban and after he has sucked up to Pakistan, that the Pakistani Taliban threatened to attack the White House and astonish the world. What’s wrong with that picture?! (Reckon the Taliban is conservative?)

  4. goddessdivine says:

    I say they all move in with Obama. If he wants to release them, then their safe enough to live at the WH, right?

    Let’s be honest. Obama doesn’t give a lick about this country. He’s in to impose his radical agenda and do as much harm as possible.

  5. 1600, NOT 1060 PENNSYLVANIA AVE says:

    It sounds as if the Pakistanis might beat us patriots to the punch.

  6. Rix says:

    Hey, does the federal law actually allow to donate more than $2300 to a single candidate?

  7. CAL says:

    I do not know if these people think about the consequences of their actions. If we are attacked again and one of these terrorists is involved, is this administration going to accept responsibility??

  8. Bodenzee says:


    No. They won’t accept responsibility any more than Clinton did. He could have had Bin Laden but chose not to.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I agree with all the above comments, the future is very troubling. I just wanted to give credit for a very informative and balnced article especially at the end where you described a “possible” example of what is to come.


    I miss the kinda leadership where you know “You’re either for us, or you’re against us’.

  11. CAL says:

    You are right and the media lets them get away with it.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Citizen grand jury indicts Obama
    Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims

    Posted: March 31, 2009
    8:35 pm Eastern
    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    Orly Taitz
    President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.
    The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that presidents be “natural born” citizens.
    Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.
    The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency.
    (Story continues below)

    Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his RiseUpForAmerica.org website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama’s eligibility, as well as his performance in office.
    “I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury,” he said.
    Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.
    Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of British common law on which U.S. law is based.
    He said the members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations about Obama, telling WND that remains confidential at this point because of the possibility of a prosecution.
    However, the website explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.
    “If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury,” it says. “The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”
    Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.
    He told WND that since the action in Georgia, he’s been contacted by groups in at least 20 other states who want to pursue a similar action.
    Meanwhile, Taitz told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto “on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president.”
    Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.
    “Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect,” Taitz told Taylor.
    “By each relator’s constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing,” Taitz wrote.
    “In arguendo of Respondent Obama’s burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan,” Taitz said.
    Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!
    She told WND the case was filed in the District of Columbia because the district recognizes the procedure. Taitz, who is working on her cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, cites a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama’s eligibility to be president.
    She previously submitted a similar case to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
    The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
    John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
    “She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’

    President Obama
    “She probably has some very good arguments to make,” Eidsmoe said.
    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
    Several of the civil cases already have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments.
    Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, “he does not want the public to know.”
    What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.
    According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
    According to author Chester Antieau in his “The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies,” Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
    “The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198,” he wrote. “The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the ‘relation’ of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England.”
    Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, “Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. …”
    Its first recognized purpose, he said, is “to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers.”
    Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.
    As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called “evidence” of Obama’s constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.
    Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
    As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, “The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama’s birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn’t the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
    “That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document,” Corsi writes, “leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama.”
    Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations “garbage.”
    WND also has reported that Taitz’ appeals have been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department, where officials confirmed they received the paperwork.
    WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he’s taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.
    Other members of Congress have been reading from what appears to be a prepared script in response to queries about Obama’s eligibility:
    Among the statements from members of Congress:
    • Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”
    • Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”
    • Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”
    • U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.: “The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii.” The response provided no documentation.
    Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
    • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
    • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
    • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
    • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
    • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
    • Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
    • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
    • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
    • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
    • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
    • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
    • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
    In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
    • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
    • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
    • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
    • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
    • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation also has confirmed to WND a civil case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California’s general election ballot last year, challenging Obama’s eligibility will be appealed.
    WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.
    Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no “duty” to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.
    “The judge’s ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution,” Kreep said.
    “If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office,” the case explained.

    Related offers:
    Sign the petition
    Get “The Audacity of Deceit” and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
    Will Obama bring the end of prosperity? How higher taxes will doom the economy – if we let it happen
    Look who’s seething over anti-Nazi warning! Comparisons between Nazi leader, Obama draws strong reaction
    Whistleblower magazine’s “THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA”
    Previous stories:
    Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility
    Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
    Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge
    Suggesting eligibility proof gets congressman scorned
    Eligibility bill hits Congress
    Court: No need for state to check prez’ eligibility
    Did Supreme Court clerk torpedo eligibility cases?
    Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case
    Eligibility issue sparks ‘edit war’
    Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
    Judge: Eligibility issue thoroughly ‘twittered’
    Alan Keyes launches ‘Liberty’ blog
    Republican senator says Snopes settled ‘eligibility’
    Senator: Eligibility is up to the voters
    U.S. soldier gagged on prez’s eligibility
    More military officers demand eligibility proof
    Obama eligibility tops AOL News
    California used to check prez candidates’ eligibility
    Major General says president’s eligibility needs proof
    Eligibility lawyer argues for president’s deportation
    2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility
    Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president’s authority
    Senator questions Obama eligibility Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist
    Keyes: President ‘has something to hide’ about eligibility
    ‘Sanctions’ sought in eligibility case
    State lawmakers: Prove you’re president, Mr. Obama
    Congress sued to remove prez from White House
    More challenges fail in Supreme Court
    Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility
    Status report: The eligibility issue
    Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote
    Join exploding demand for citizenship documentation
    Electors challenged to investigate birth dispute
    Last few hours to FedEx Electoral College voters
    Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote
    Eligibility question? FedEx Electoral College members
    Not even Supreme Court can kill citizenship dispute
    Supreme Court denies citizenship challenge
    More than 60,000 letters sent to U.S. Supreme Court
    Petition to see the birth certificate
    Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?
    Imaging guru: ‘Certification’ of birth time, location is fake
    Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate widens
    WND launches new forum on Obama’s eligibility
    Supremes to review citizenship arguments
    ‘Constitutional crisis’ looming over Obama’s birth location
    Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are ‘garbage’
    Will Supreme Court have say in presidency?

    Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

  13. BlueWater says:

    Release them to Manhattan – I think everyone there will provide them with an appropriate welcome.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Right, wrong or indifferent; actions incomparable to, unequal to or not up to the standard of the terrorist’s actions will be perceived as weakness by the terror groups…and the world.

    However, I am convinced that the Obama Admin. thinks this will reveal our true compassion for “human” life. In a phrase, this is one of the most idiotic,foolish and unwise decisions this group of bufoons could employ. They have single-handedly undone any advancement that had been gained in the “Overseas Contingency Operation” against the “Man-Made Disaster” operatives…if we would scrap the political correctness, quit worrying about the European Union’s perception of this country and its people, we would return to the country we once were.

    Using WWII as a model, can’t we all agree just how brutal and insensitive the Allies were to the opposition? Yes, if you want to “defeat” your enemy and the enemy of your neighbor…you better be brutal and consider being as brutal, if not more so, than your enemy.

    Let’s have a big cheer for the “Overseas Contingency Operation” against “Man-Made Disaster” operatives…wow, what a bunch of wussies. Someone might want to let the Obama Administration in on the statement; actions have reprecussions. I don’t think they “get it”.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Remember when other terrorists have been held here? They only invite radical/violent attempts at their freedom. Just the appearance for trials became a circus for radical worldwide news reports. They endanger the lives of those responsible for “protecting” them – of course who cares about our real citizens anymore. And then there is also the danger of radicalizing/militarizing other dissatisfied inmates. Of course, if held in solitary I doubt if these people won’t have great regret for wishing a change to their prison environments. They will look back at GITMO as a sort of paradise.


    Taliban insurgents rejected on Wednesday a U.S. offer of “honorable reconciliation” as a “lunatic idea” and said the withdrawal of foreign troops was the only way to end the war in Afghanistan.


    Why isn’t the world recognizing our dark skinned MESSIAH ? I just don’t understand.

  18. whats_up says:


    So what is your answer, do we keep this people locked up even though they may not be guilty of anything. Is that really what we want America to stand for. I grant you there is no easy way out of this, perhaps that should have been thought about before this experiment was undertaken and then we would not be in this mess in the first place.

  19. Anonymous says:

    These guys are no longer the terrorists. They’re not worried about them. They’re worried about us,The American People. We are considered the REAL terrorists. The Patriot Act, by the way, is due to expire in Dec. of this year. Remember The Patriot Act was thousands of pages long and Congress was NOT allowed to read it prior to signing on 9/12 – just a day later. Must be some pretty fast typists, huh?

    9/11 was pivitol to ushering in the agenda of the global elite bankers for complete control of the United States and total destruction of our Constitution – The New World Order. The same global elite bankers merely put a black face on The New World Order, and pulled out all the stops to flip the switch.

    It’s all laid out in The Patriot Act, along with other directives such as Pentagon document PDD51, plus Bush’s Executive Orders that gave him dictatorial powers were all meant to enslave us and make us the real terrorists. Police departments across the country are being given directives not on how to protect the citizens of their cities, but on profiling them and charging them with petty crimes. The recent Missouri MIAC report was a good example of this.

    Look for another staged terror attack to occur so people will be fearful and beg them to renew it. Who knows maybe these guys will get the blame again for it.

    Bin Laden and his family are long time friends with the Bush family. Plenty of investigative reports and books out there on this fact.The government never wanted to kill Osama, they just used him as their scapegoat to usher in their One World Government.

    Visit the website http://www.911truth.org and watch some of the videos posted on Youtube about 9/11.

    The new book “Family of Secrets” by Russ Baker is an excellent resource on The Bin Laden’s relationship with The Bush’s. Plenty of info in it on old Poppy Bush, a Nazi himself. The Bush’s fortune in oil was a result of the close ties with The Bin Laden family.

    Recently over 600 top notch architects and engineers from all over the world released their statements disputing the government’s account on what happened to the buildings on 9/11.

    Various other professionals have formed their own organizations for the truth, INCLUDING pilots, firefighters, physicians….Stop trusting what the government tells you. They lie! They are the conspirators.

  20. KICK EM TO THE CURB says:

    I just had a bumper sticker created… Vote them ALL OUT ’10

    You all let me know if you would like one.


  21. Anonymous says:

    Frankly, I do not care who the judge is and how great they are at what they do. These people do not deserve to go to trial under the American judicial system. They are not citizens. This should have remained in the military court tribunals. I believe we are being bombarded with so many things to fight against so we will not be able to do anything.

  22. suek says:

    “they will be allowed the same rights that American citizens enjoy”

    True. But they won’t have arrows on the floor designating the direction of Mecca. They won’t have quiet observed during muslim prayer times. They won’t have korans handled with gloves.

    Maybe other things as well – there are all sorts of religious sensitive protections given them in Gtmo. Wonder how they’re going to feel about it when they are no longer offered those same courtesies.

  23. RAT A TAT A TAT says:


    next time mow them down with a .50 cal on the battlefield.

  24. Gail B says:

    Anonymous at 10:40 a.m.–

    You have them pegged. Remember, too, that there were no planes in the air after 9-11, but Bush had the Bin Ladin family flown out of the country?

    And, it was the Bin Ladin family’s money that financed every business that “W” had, and every business “W” had FAILED!

    As for the buildings brought down by the planes–Conorail was not allowed to make the stop in the WTC because men were busy at work undermining the integrity of the structures in preparation for the attacks. People in America knew months before 9-11 that the attack was going to be made. I saw a video today of an interview that told about it. Aaron Russo is dead now.

    But, you’re right, and it sounds so far-fetched, just as our socialist Congress and administration sound far-fetched to those who do not understand.

Speak Your Mind