Congressional Leaders Call for Investigations of Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the Obama Administration

Center for Security Policy | Jun 15, 2012

Washington, DC, June 14, 2012: Five influential Members of  Congress called yesterday for the inspectors general (IGs) of government  departments with national security responsibilities to investigate  whether their agencies are being subjected to influence operations  mounted as part of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization  jihad.”  This initiative holds out hope that a grave, and largely  unremarked, threat may thus be recognized and thwarted in time.
The authors of letters sent to the IGs for the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are:
  • Rep. Michele Bachman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus
  • Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee
  • Rep. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
  • Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee
  • Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s   Oversight Subcommittee; and
In a joint press statement,  each of these congressional leaders expressed profound concern about  the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the need to understand  that threat here in the United States.  What is more, they cited  in their letters evidence of the penetration of Brotherhood operatives  and allies inside the Obama administration, and examples of policies  that appear to have been influenced as a result.
The legislators explicitly draw upon documentation of that evidence  contained in Parts 8 and 9 the Center for Security Policy’s new,  ten-part online video curriculum: The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within (
Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:
These five key legislators are to  be commended for their exemplary leadership on a matter of utmost peril  to this country – namely, the stealthy effort being made by avowed  enemies of this country, the Muslim Brotherhood, to destroy us ‘from  within.’  Their request for the five inspectors general to conduct  investigations of the Brotherhood’s progress toward that end – and  report back within ninety days – will hopefully be seconded by others in  both parties and be swiftly addressed by the IGs, given their  responsibility for conducting such independent inquiries within  executive branch agencies.  The Center for Security Policy’s extensive  research, and the online course that presents it, shows those inquiries  are fully warranted and urgently needed – as are, for that matter,  corresponding investigations by the Congress, as well.

36 thoughts on “Congressional Leaders Call for Investigations of Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the Obama Administration

  1. Pingback: Investigation into Muslim Brotherhood & Obama Administration? | Grumpy Opinions

  2. I would like to personally thank all these congressmen and senators for this request. I would like to know if they find out that they are close and sharing things that should not be shared and are putting our country at risk, are they going to call for his impeachment?? I would like him to be held for treason. I think that is what he is doing. He is undermining our country with the enemy. Therefore he is the enemy too!!!!!!

    • Cindy, remember the two impeachment processes that went on within 48 hrs of each other? Yet…nothing happened. It IS the responsibility of those in D.C. to keep Order there as far as him going off the reservation (so-to-speak); and yet they did nothing. The below is the legal remedy:

      US Code

      This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS(a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

      Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

      It can be filed through two entities:

      The Provost Marshall, and read below:
      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

  3. I was absolutely thrilled when I saw this ONE man stand up against everyone!
    PLEASE watch this…you will feel better knowing that at least ONE MAN stood up!

    Illinois rep EXPLODES on the House floor!

      • Cindy, we are going to have to be VERY careful about the Next Presidential Election.
        Over 120 delegates to the Republican National Convention have joined a lawsuit against the GOP arguing they have been illegally coerced into choosing Mitt Romney for the party’s presidential nominee and demanding they be “unbound” to vote for another candidate instead.

        The federal lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in California by mostly supporters of Ron Paul, demands the delegates be freed to “vote their conscience” for presidential nominee at the party’s August national convention in Tampa, Fla., rather than being “bound” to vote for a certain candidate, as many state party bylaws require, based on the primary elections and other delegate selection procedures.
        Continue Reading:

      • Many of us have been saying that Romney is as bad as Obama. Newt has been the only one who has stated he wants to ban Sharia Law in the U.S.
        Read just what Romney did over the past few days:

        Romney came out in support of the Muslims in Our Country– with a PLAN for” Islamist Owned Charter Schools”! Again! We should be expecting them to assimilate into OUR Country NOT make Our Country Over for Them!

  4. Pingback: Congressional Leaders Call for Investigations of Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the Obama Administration | Letting Freedom Ring

  5. Then why is the CIA supporting them abroad and why are the recieveing financial aid and arms from the United States?

    • Because our government has been duped by the Muslim Brotherhood as far back as Eisenhower. Read the link provided to “Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood”

      • Yes, I know; however, Obama invites them for dinner, drinks and a crack at our government from within. And, Romney? He won’t be any different.

  6. Utterly ridiculous! If you aren’t white, Christian, and male in this country, according to most conservatives, then you are automatically evil. It is people like this that are returning this country to the dark ages.

    • You have no idea what you are talking about. Where have you been?
      White Christians do NOT behead people because they refuse to be Christians.
      Christians do NOT kill their own children because of their religion.

    • WE ALL have the same color of blood. We are all human. AND, we are all American. We ask that we share in common beliefs of freedom of speech; freedom to worship as we please.
      What is evil?
      Murdering, beheading someone because of their religion.
      Murdering someone, raping someone because of their color.
      Murdering your own children because they are children and want to meet OTHER types of children from other religions;

      You have a very warped sense of values and it is tainted with despair, ignorance and hate.
      Who perpetrates these types of horrors on other people?
      You answer that.

    • No but if you are Muslim and believe in Sharia Law you are evil. There is no room for Sharia law in this country. We don’t belive in oppression, tyranny or murder and any religion that condons it. We believe in freedom and equaility. Islam does not and is against our laws other religions are not.

      • Newt Gingrich was the ONLY one he stepped up to the plate and flat out said it:
        We MUST ban Sharia Law in Our Country:

        While Romney:

        Romney came out in support of the Muslims in Our Country– with a PLAN for” Islamist Owned Charter Schools”! Again! We should be expecting them to assimilate into OUR Country NOT make Our Country Over for Them!

      • Sharia law is already banned by most of our laws and bill of rights. We do not condon murder, oppression, tyranny, or spouse abuse in this country. It’s the law.

    • The Muslims are not happy!
      They’re not happy in Gaza
      They’re not happy in Egypt
      They’re not happy in Libya
      They’re not happy in Morocco
      They’re not happy in Iran
      They’re not happy in Yemen
      They’re not happy in Afghanistan
      They’re not happy in Pakistan
      They’re not happy in Syria
      They’re not happy in Lebanon.

      So, where are they happy?

      They’re happy in Canada
      They’re happy in Australia
      They’re happy in England
      They’re happy in France
      They’re happy in Spain
      They’re happy in Italy
      They’re happy in Germany
      They’re happy in Sweden
      They’re happy in the USA
      They’re happy in Norway
      They’re happy in every country that is not Muslim.

      And who do they blame?
      Not Islam.
      Not their leadership.
      Not themselves.


      Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
      Albert Einstein

  7. You must LOVE Obama and his bunch. Have you turned to Islam yet?
    Do it….then try to leave…they will murder you.

  8. What a brazen man, he needs to be deported as fast as possible!!!!!!! Why are we letting people in here like that. Now suppose we walked into a mosque and said we are going to take over this place and there will be no more mention of allah or mohamed. Evertything will be crosses and songs of Jesus!!!! How do you think that would go over?? Yet we are supposed to listen to that mans vulgar speach telling us that his way is coming and is going to take over the way we live and do things. And we are supposed to say oh yes sir that would be just fine. Well, to heck with that. Ship them to their own country. Get out of this country. Stop being soft and we need to get tuff.

    • Cindy, I don’t even want the Bible pounded AT me. I also don’t want having Muslims telling us we MUST turn to Islam or be slaughtered.
      A person’s religion or spiritual beliefs are a very private matter as far as I am concerned. I would never dream of shoving my beliefs down someone’s throat; and I am the child and grand-daughter of two ministers. I saw too much in church to PRESSURE anyone.
      Our Spiritual beliefs are private…or at least mine are UNLESS someone WANTS to talk about it.

    The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

    These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

    The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

    Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.

    Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of several cases in which the court’s application of Shariah law appears to be in direct conflict with Constitutional liberties and the public policies of the state.

    • Goes to show you how much judges know. Some of them don’t know a thing about law. They dictate law for those that accomadate them in their elections. Again, wrong doing wrong in ignorance for wealth and prestege.


    As 22 state legislatures are considering bills banning court use of shariah and foreign laws it has become evident that more education is needed on why we need these laws. There is a lot of misunderstanding among our legislators about just what Shariah is as well as a knee jerk reaction that assumes our Constituion couldn’t possibly be vulnerable.

    In a previous post, Shariah & American Laws for American Courts, David Yerushalmi explains the issues.

    The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) has provided the following FAQ on answers to common objections raised by opponents to ALAC. Citizens should send it to their representatives.


    FAQ, Issues & Objections

    1. American Laws for American Courts is not needed because it states what is already reality in state courts

    First, this is not true. Most states merely state that foreign laws and judgments that violate the state’ s “ public policy” shall not be recognized. But the courts consistently rule that the state legislature has the responsibility to articulate clearly what the state’ s public policy actually is. For the state to make clear that comity, choice of law, and choice of venue issues must still safeguard fundamental state public policies and constitutional rights is precisely the role of the state legislature.

    Second, there are actually many cases on the books in which foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines were invoked by parties to a dispute. In many cases those foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines are directly opposed to our constitutional ideals and state public policy.

    Details on examples of foreign laws being invoked in US court cases can be found in a study conducted by the Center for Security Policy: “Shariah Law and American State Courts.” That study is available for free at the following web site:

    2 . American Laws for American Courts is not needed because shariah and other foreign laws are not in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy in the US, and no cases are in our court systems.

    The ALAC Act is not simply about shariah and other foreign laws, but also transnationalism—or the documented creep of foreign and anti-public policy laws being recognized by state and federal courts. More, shariah has already entered into the legal systemsof Western Europe, including 85 shariah courts operating openly with the full authority of law in the United Kingdom. There are numerous cases inwhich shariah doctrines have been invoked in the US. The Center for Security Policy’s recent study found 50 legal cases across 23 states, all published appellate cases, where shariah was either relevant or highly relevant to the arguments or outcome of the case.

    3. American Laws for American Courts interferes with foreign treaties.

    By operation of law this cannot be. Treaties, when signed by the President ofthe United States and ratified by the United States Senate, are the law of the United States, and not foreign law. Thus, the Act, or a specific application ofthe Act, could not by operation of the Supremacy Clause affect in any way a treaty.

    Some uninformed critics of American Laws for American Courts assume, without citation, that certain ratified treaties require the enforcement of foreign judgments or the application of foreign law in contradiction with the Act. Although some treaties address the treatment of foreign arbitral awards or child custody judgments, all of these treaties have an exemption when the foreign tribunal enforces a law that violates the fundamental public policy of the domestic state. This is also the common law and state statutory rule for recognizing foreign judgments of any kind not affected by federal treaty or federal preemptive statutes.

    Furthermore, the model American Laws for American Courts language advising courts that they are not to use American Laws for American Courts to create a conflict with any treaty or international agreement to which the USA is a party:

    American Laws for American Courts articulates what the boundaries are for the state’ s important public policy—to protect fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

    Further, state courts consistently hold that it is up to the state legislature to set the state public policy in the first instance.

    4 . American Laws for American Courts restricts the right to contract.

    The right to contract is not unlimited. The state may legitimately restrict the right to contract if the contract is found to have some deleterious effect on the public or to contravene some other matter of public policy. As the Supreme Court has noted, a state’ s police power to protect the health and safety of its citizenry in the area of contract law not touching upon a suspect class is subject to a rational basis scrutiny—does the state law have any rational basis?

    Innumerable regulations exist governing contractual provisions, including choice of law and forum selection clauses. For an impairment of a contract to violate the constitutional right to contract, the state regulation must constitute a substantial impairment, and no significant and legitimate public purpose may justify the regulation. The requirement of a legitimate public purpose is primarily designed to prevent a state from embarking on a policy motivated by a simple desire to escape its financial obligations or to injure others through the repudiation of debts or the destruction of contracts or the denial of the means to enforce them.

    It is patently clear that the ALAC Act—which merely sets fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties as protectable interests—is constitutional.

    Indeed, all of the state courts and the federal courts have allowed such impairments of contract when the provisions violate the public policy announced in statutes.

    Moreover, American Laws for American Courts only restricts the right to contract in terms of 
enforcement. Theoretically, people can contract for whatever they 
want to, on whatever terms. Obviously the only time the state gets 
involved with regard to policy is when there is a dispute and the 
parties go to the courts to resolve and enforce. In this case it is properly the role of the state to protect constitutional liberties, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

    5. This bill impacts “comity” and violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution

    The Full Faith & Credit Clause only applies to sister states. Moreover, even sister states may deny comity if the sister state’ s foreign judgment violates the domestic state’ s public policy. In the context of the American Laws for American Courts Act, however, only foreign country judgments are at issue. All state courts have ruled, as has the U.S. Supreme Court, that foreign judgments from abroad are subject to the public policy of the state granting comity.

    Granting comity to a foreign judgment is thus a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.

    Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.

    Even in the case of granting domestic arbitral awards, comity or recognition in state courts, the Federal Arbitration Act permits states to preclude granting comity or recognition if the arbitral award was based on a decision process or law that was contrary to public policy.

    6. American Laws for American Courts interferes with business activity and commerce and thus would adversely impact economic development in a state.

    Because the overwhelming majority of the cases involving foreign laws that violate constitutional rights infiltrating our state legal systems involve family law, particularly the rights of women and children, appropriate language has been included in the model language to exempt businesses and corporations while still protecting individual constitutional rights, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state:

    “Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.”

    7. The business exemption language used in American Laws for American Courts violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

    American Laws for American Courts would not likely be struck as violative of “ equal protection” simply because it exempts contracts involving corporations. There is no “protected class”, such as race, religion, sex or even age, affected by distinguishing individuals from corporations, that would require “ strict scrutiny” by the judiciary. All the legislature requires is a “ rational basis” for the distinction, the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. As constitutional rights affecting individuals rationally receive greater concern than rights of businesses, and businesses tend to be more sophisticated in entering contracts, the legislature has a rational basis for making the distinction and allowing businesses to contractually waive rights when submitting to foreign law, but to provide greater protections for individuals’ rights, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

    8. Provisions of American Laws for American Courts would violate the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

    The UCCJEA only applies to foreign child custody judgments for those foreign countries not “ contracting parties” to the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The UCCJEA specifically exempts states from granting comity or enforcing a foreign child custody judgment or foreign jurisdiction when doing so violates “ fundamental principles of human rights.” It is hard to imagine how fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties are not fundamental human rights in the context of state law.

    And, even among the contracting parties to the Hague Child Abduction Convention, the treaty exempts cases where the foreign jurisdiction or judgment would violate the public policy of the domestic jurisdiction. Therefore there would no conflict for signatory juridictions.

    9. American Laws for American Courts could violate the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)

    The PKPA does not apply to foreign jurisdictions. It applies within the US between the states.

    10. American Laws for American Courts would violate international treaties dealing with child custody, namely the Hague Convention.

    As noted above, the Hague Convention itself provides a public policy exemption. Beyond this, as a treaty entered into by the federal government, the Hague Convention is federal law and cannot be trumped by state law. There is no way for ALAC to do so. Moreover, it is important to note that the only country that employs shariah in its legal system that is a memberof the Hague Convention is Morocco. Out of 193 sovereign nations worldwide, only 85 are signatories to the Hague Convention, so possible conflicts between foreign laws and state laws on child custody and abduction are widespread. Conflict of law cases in Japan in particular, and China, regarding child custody and state public policy are not uncommon, so foreign laws other than shariah are also relevant. The following countries are not parties to the Hague Convention and also adherent to Shariah law to varying degrees, particularly for family and personal status cases, and may have a conflict of law with state public policies:

    • Egypt• Iran• Pakistan• Saudi Arabia• Syria• Jordan• Libya• Sudan• Somalia• Algeria• Lebanon• Indonesia• Afghanistan• Iraq • India• Bangladesh• Nigeria• Kuwait• Bahrain• Qatar• Tunisia• Yemen• United Arab Emirates• Oman

    11. American Laws for American Courts would interfere with English Common Law.

    To the extent that English Common Law forms the foundation of our legal traditions, it is not a foreign law. Moreover, all states have by statute or by “common law” adopted the common law as adopted by the courts in that state to be part of state law and thus not foreign.

    Moreover, this bill does not ban all foreign or international law, just the use of such law when it would violate the constitutional rights of someone in the state AND specifically applied in the particular case. The fact that a country might have some law that violates our constitutional liberties is wholly irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the particular offensive law is the law at issue in the particular case being litigated in the domestic state court.

    12. American Laws for American Courts would open up states that pass it to expensive law suits.

    This legislation already passed in two states in 2010 (Tennessee and Louisiana) with no legal challenges, and another state so far in 2011 (Arizona), also with no legal challenges. There is no basis on which to challenge a law which seeks to safeguard individual constitutional rights as its express purpose. Indeed, it is absurd to even suggest such a proposition. A state might be sued if it does NOT protect fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties.

    13. American Laws for American Courts would interfere with Native American tribal law.

    Federal law, in the form of treaties with Native Americans, preempts state law. Thus, ALAC does not apply to tribal law because it could not as a matter of law affect those federal laws. Moreover, language has been included in the model ALAC language expressly defining Native American tribal law as outside the scope of the ALAC legislation.

    14. American Laws for American Courts would interfere with Jewish law or Catholic Canon Law.

    American Laws for American Courts would not interfere with Jewish law because Jewish law has a provision inherent which instructs people of the Jewish faith to follow the law of the land in which they live. Moreover, ALAC only applies when the use of a foreign legal doctrine in a court would violate someone’s constitutional rights or state public policy. This is not the case with Jewish law.

    Moreover, the model ALAC language contains specific language in recognition of the fact that it cannot be applied in such a way that would interfere with a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.

    15. American Laws for American Courts unfairly targets Muslims.

    Nothing in the ALAC bill prevents any person from freely exercising his or her right to freedom of religion and worship. ALAC only applies to legal doctrines in our court systems. Furthermore, ALAC is facially neutral. It does not discriminate in any way based on faith of any kind. The bill makes no mention of Islam or Muslims and is not even principally focused on religious law, but any foreign law that violates constitutionally protected liberties, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

    In fact, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, acknowledged the desirability of protecting American constitutional rights and liberties in a recent statement regarding efforts in France to impose a dress code on Muslim women:

    “Our position is that no company doing business in America has the obligation to enforce discriminatory foreign policies on American employees,” he said. “A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens.”

    It is ironic that while Muslims are being smeared for wanting to upend the constitution and institute sharia law, that we at CAIR are defending American law over foreign intrusion,” Hooper said.

    • He highly underestimates American Citizens.
      He confuses cowardice with working hard to do things the legal and right way.

  11. 54 Members of Congress Accepted Money From Hamas Terrorists: Federal Judge Confirms CAIR Are Hamas Terrorists!

    Posted by Volubrjotr ⋅ June 18, 2012⋅ Leave a Comment

    Federal Judge Confirms CAIR ~ Are Hamas Terrorists.

    In Case There are Any Doubts…

    Hamas is a U.S. State Department-designated terrorist organization that professes to be a “Nation of Jihad”.

    CAIR is a front organization of Hamas.

    At least 54 Members of Congress are aiding, working with, taking money from and/or acting as a front for CAIR (i.e., Hamas, i.e., a U.S. State Department-designated terrorist organization).

    The Palestine Authority has long been considered an entity supporting terrorism. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have given nearly $600 Million in taxpayer money to the Palestine Authority.

    Barack Obama and his Administration have close ties with Islamic radicals, CAIR,terrorists and terrorist organizations and they have implemented an agenda that supports terrorism.

    The publicly available evidence is abundant, clear as glass and cannot be ignored by any rational person. 54 Congressmen, Obama and Hillary are aiding terrorists and should be immediately arrested.

    Okay, America, it’s time for us to force our government to drop its charade. We have terrorists, communists, socialists and criminals running our country and driving it into the dirt. Now we have clear and sufficient evidence to demand a historic investigation of these criminal elements.

    If the new House of Representatives does not immediately investigate, prosecute, impeach and/or jail these people for crimes, then America must assume that Republicans are active members of a now openly visible, terrorist Mafia organization that cannot be trusted to run the USA in the interest of law-abiding citizens. In fact, if the GOP House does not take immediate action on this terrorist issue, logic would dictate to any reasonable person that terrorists have captured our government and that citizens must act immediately to protect themselves and their country from further harm or potential death.

    You don’t want to live in a terrorist country, do you? Send this article to your Congressman today and tell that anything short of IMMEDIATE public investigations and/or arrests beginning on January 5, 2011 is not an acceptable response. Spread the word to your family and friends! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    Congressman Issa… Are you Listening?

    Congressman Issa
    Oversight And Government Reform Committee Team: To Investigate Obama After November Elections



    Raul Grijalva

    Lois Capps
    Sam Farr
    Bob Filner
    Barbara Lee
    Loretta Sanchez
    Pete Stark
    Michael Honda
    Lynn Woolsey
    Jackie Speier
    Diane Watson
    George Miller

    Jim Himes

    Andre Carson

    Bruce Braley

    John Yarmuth

    Elijah Cummings
    Donna Edwards

    Michael Capuano
    William Delahunt
    Jim McGovern
    John Tierney
    John Olver
    Stephen Lynch

    John Conyers
    John Dingell
    Carolyn Kilpatrick

    Keith Ellison
    Betty McCollum
    James Oberstar
    New Jersey

    Donald Payne
    Rush Holt
    Bill Pascrell
    New York

    Yvette Clarke
    Maurice Hinchey
    Paul Tonko
    Eric Massa
    North Carolina

    David Price

    Mary Jo Kilroy
    Marcy Kaptur

    Earl Blumenauer
    Peter DeFazio

    Chaka Fattah
    Joe Sestak

    Peter Welch

    Jim Moran

    Jim McDermott
    Adam Smith
    Jay Inslee
    Brian Baird
    West Virginia

    Nick Rahall

    Tammy Baldwin
    Gwen Moore

    Glenn Nye

    • They should all be removed from office immediately and prosecuted. That is why all this DHSand TSA crap has to go to the wayside. The government is supporting terrorisam while providing oppression and tyranny on the American people. We the tax payers are funding this insanity. To Arms I say and break this Cabal of psycopaths.

      • Then Romney comes in (can’t remember if it was “right before or AFTER”) and states this:

        Romney came out in support of the Muslims in Our Country– with a PLAN for” Islamist Owned Charter Schools”! Again! We should be expecting them to assimilate into OUR Country NOT make Our Country Over for Them!

        What is happening in our Country that everyone wants to make an impression on Muslims!????

      • I would like to make an impression on them, my foot up their butt.

      • I am extremely tired tonight so I am going to bed. HOWEVER, when you have the time,
        Google: The Logan Act. This law is there to file against anyone in our government who has a “business transaction” with any foreign governments, associations, etc.
        Yet, it is being overlooked.
        With all of those Muslims infiltrating our government? Those in D.C. who take bribes; and yet, IF you receive $$ for your campaign…you do feel obligated to do as they wish…thus, it is a bribe.
        They should be tried for treason as far as I am concerned.

        I watch for patterns of people…their actions vs. their “stated” beliefs. Are they true to themselves vs. being true to the United States Of America? The common pattern I am seeing is a slow poisonous group of our own people allowing more and more poison into our government… thus poisoning America. Newt Gingrich was the only one who stood up stating that he would ban Sharia Law…as Romney and other politicians you read above entertain, involve and accept them as part of our government and our society. It did cause me to wonder if that was the reason Newt was shoved aside for being so blatantly against Sharia Law having anything to do with our own government.

Comments are closed.