Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the month “May, 2013”

Obama To Spend $700 Million In US Tax Dollars For Russian Helicopters For Afghan Air Force


WTH!

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from freedomoutpost.com

175ccbef9a0deac2f12709d3365bf2d7_XL

Remember when Barack Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedyev to let incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin know that after his re-election he would have more “flexibility”? If you don’t remember, check it out here. If you do, well now we are seeing a bit of that flexibility in motion. The Obama Department of Defense is going to spend nearly $700 million to buy Russian Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan Air Force.

That’s right, $700 million of U.S. taxpayer money is going to fund our enemy’s air force. However, not only could this be considered treasonous, but even by the federal government’s 2013 National Defense Authorization Act they are in violation of their own legislation.

According to Riz Novosti:

WASHINGTON, April 4 (By Maria Young for RIA Novosti) – The US Department of Defense said Thursday it plans to sidestep a Congressional ban to purchase 30 helicopters from Russian state-owned defense firm Rosoboronexport, despite objections from US lawmakers who allege that the firm has equipped the Syrian government to commit brutal crimes against civilians.

“The Department of Defense (DOD) has notified Congress of its intent to contract with Rosoboronexport for 30 additional Mi-17 rotary-wing aircraft to support the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) Special Mission Wing,” Pentagon spokesman James Gregory told RIA Novosti in emailed comments.

The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by Congress last year, includes an amendment that prohibits financial contracts between the United States and Rosoboronexport, except when the Secretary of Defense determines that such arrangements are in the interest of national security.

“Given current timelines, the department has determined that Rosoboronexport is the only viable means of meeting ANSF requirements” for the helicopters, Gregory said.

The contract totals $690 million, most of which would go to the Russian arms maker, he added.

Obviously the question should be, why are we not spending money on American made helicopters? Second, why are we spending any money on helicopters for enemies? Third, why are we giving money to Russia for these helicopters?

Well the Obama administration doesn’t want the U.S. economy to actually improve, that’s why they aren’t spending here. It seems this is also a bit of the flexibility he spoke of in 2012 and maybe a bit of payback to President Putin. Also, the Afghans have been trained to operate Russian aircraft, so switching to a new platform would delay the transition by three years, according to Gregory.

The reason for helicopters in Afghanistan is due to the fact that Obama made plans back in February to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 66,000 to 34,000 over the next year. This would set back the Afghan nation’s security force, according to the administration

The reason for purchasing from the Russians? Simon Saradzhyan, a security expert at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said “The objections are understandable, the US defense industry needs contracts. … But from a cost-benefit analysis, Russian helicopters are a better deal.”

Apparently, it’s also against the law.

“This is the Russian competitive edge,” Saradzhyan said. “They cost less and they are easy to maintain. This is how Russian arms supporters make their sales speech.”

Analyst Daniel Greenfield, in a piece for FrontPage magazine, noted:

 

“Aside from throwing almost $700 million to a company owned by the Russian government at a time when Obama has taken a chainsaw to the United States military, subsidizing the Russian defense industry helps it develop more weapons that will be sold to America’s enemies. That money will help fund R&D for the next generation of weapons that an American military dismantled by Obama will be facing on the battlefield.”

 

In a letter sent by a bipartisan Congressional group led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on March 25 they wrote, “We write to oppose any continuation of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) business relationship with Rosoboronexport, Russia’s primary arms exporter and an enabler of the ongoing mass atrocities in Syria.  In January, Section 1277 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which expressly prohibits the use of funds to enter into any contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport, was enacted into law. Further, during consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an amendment prohibiting further contracts with Rosoboronexport by a vote of 407-5. We urge you to uphold this law and clear expression of Congressional intent by ensuring that any further DoD procurement of helicopters for the Afghan National Security Forces is not conducted through Rosoboronexport.”

The letter asked “What is the national security justification of continuing business with Rosoboronexport?”

“Russia continues to transfer weapons through Rosoboronexport to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria,” the letter continued. “Since the Syrian uprising began, Russia has continued to serve as the Assad regime’s chief supplier of weapons, enabling the mass murder of Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government.”

The Department of Defense contract with Rosoboronexport, awarded by the Department of the Army on June 1, 2011, on a sole-source basis, procures at minimum 21 Mi-17 helicopters and spares for the Afghan military. The contract has a total value of nearly $1.0 billion and includes options for additional aircraft, spares, and support. The Department has indicated that the procurement of additional Mi-17 for the Afghan military may be required. The actual number of helicopters could be as high as 30.

Forbes points out that this is not the first time the U.S. provided this “flying whale” abroad. “It gave four Mi-17 helicopters to Pakistan to assist its anti-terrorism activity in June 2009. The U.S. Navy delivered four Mi-17s to the Afghan National Army Air Corps in September of that same year. Ten Mi-17-V5 helicopters were delivered to the Afghan Air Force (AAF) by December 2010.”

The Pentagon has already spent $411 million with Rosoboronexport since May of 2011, so this will bring the total in excess of $1 billion of taxpayer funds that have been spent with the Russian supplier.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/barack-obama-to-spend-700-million-in-us-tax-dollars-for-russian-helicopters-for-afghan-air-force/#ixzz2Uq3jaUe2

 

Advertisements

LOOK WHO’S RUBBER STAMPING FOREIGN VOTE-COUNTING


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.wnd.com

Posted by AARON KLEIN

Certifies firm as ‘efficient, secure, transparent, reliable’

author-image  electronic-voting

The foreign-headquartered company that recently purchased the leading U.S. electronic voting firm is boasting that it was highlighted in a report on how technology is making the election process more efficient, secure, transparent, accessible and reliable.

The report, WND has learned, was authored by a firm with links to billionaire activist George Soros.

The information comes after WND reported two weeks ago that SCYTL recently acquired the software division of a non-profit election organization tied to Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Yesterday, WND reported SCYTL announced its technology will be deployed at more U.S. jurisdictions ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.

Now SCYTL has issued a news release boasting that a firm called Ovum spotlighted SCYTL in the publication of a reported titled “On the Radar: SCYTL – An End-to-End Election Modernization Platform.”

SCYTL says the report “highlights the reality of elections heading towards an inevitable reliance on technology to make current election process far more efficient, secure, transparent, accessible, and reliable.”

“Ovum reflects Scytl’s perfect fit into this trend with the provision of an end-to-end election modernization platform that caters to all election management cycles: Pre-election, Election Day, Post-election, and overall Governance.”

Ovum’s views “in the report align with Scytl’s vision and strategy,” the company said.

The press release quoted Nishant Shah, research analyst at Ovum and author of the report.

Shah stated, “We believe Scytl’s wide variety of offerings, investment into certifications, and emphasis on security, auditing, and testing position the company as a dominant provider in election modernization.”

Shah’s biography page at Ovum’s website says he facilitated large-scale public-private partnerships in international health for the Global Business Coalition. He also worked with the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS issues.

Soros is the Global Business Coalition’s founding supporter.

Shah’s bio further notes the analyst provided management services support to technology investees of the Acumen Fund in Pakistan. Soros’ daughter, Andrea Soros Colombel, serves on Acumen’s board. She is also a member of the global board of Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

Another Ovum author is Margaret Goldberg. Her Ovum bio notes that prior to joining the firm, she interned for three years at the Soros Economic Development Fund.

In January 2012, SCYTL, based in Barcelona, acquired 100 percent of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the U.S. The sale garnered national attention after it was spotlighted by the popular Drudge Report.

Foreign vote-count firm expands U.S. reach

Two weeks ago, another SCYTL company news release boasted that its “electronic pollbook solution recently achieved a significant milestone by eclipsing the 100th implementation in the United States.”

“This number continues to grow with many jurisdictions planning to implement electronic pollbook technology ahead of the 2014 election cycle,” continued the release.

The electronic pollbook allows U.S. election officials and poll workers to manage the electoral roll on Election Day efficiently and conveniently.

SCYTL’s electronic pollbook solution will be utilized in small and large election jurisdictions throughout the nation, including in Washington, D.C.; Galveston County, Texas, along with 50 other Texas counties; Kane County, Ill.; and Peoria, Ill.

“We are very excited that our superior platform and unique solution have earned the trust of more than 100 election jurisdictions who have successfully utilized our electronic pollbook in major elections,” said Marc Fratello, CEO of SOE Software.

“We also look forward to expanding our offering to other election jurisdictions across the United States,” added Fratello.

More Soros ties

WND recently reported SCYTL acquired the software division of a non-profit election organization tied to George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

SCYTL said it is purchasing the software division of Gov2U, described as a non-profit organization dedicated to developing and promoting the use of technology in the fields of governance and democracy.

A SCYTL press release says: “Gov2U created its software division in 2004 and, since then, it has developed a wide array of innovative award-winning eDemocracy solutions that have been implemented in multiple countries across Europe, Africa and America at the local, regional and federal government levels.”

The Spain-based company says the “main purpose of these tools is to engage citizens in participatory processes through the use of online and offline platforms, bringing more transparency and legitimacy to decision-making processes.”

Gov4U is currently partnered with Soros’ Open Society to support and develop a group called the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness.

The group runs a website, OpeningParliament.org, which says it is a forum “intended to help connect the world’s civic organizations engaged in monitoring, supporting and opening up their countries’ parliaments and legislative institutions.”

Gov4U, meanwhile, has eight partners of its own listed on its website, including the Soros-funded and partnered National Democratic Institute, or NDI.

Aside from receiving financial support for Soros, NDI has co-hosted scores of events along with Soros’ Open Society. The two groups work closely together.

NDI and the Open Society, for example, worked together to push for electoral and legislative reform in Romania.

NDI boasts that with Open Society Institute funds it conducted a political leadership training series for Romanian activists to “bring tangible improvements to their communities.”

NDI describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization working to establish and strengthen political and civic organizations, safeguard elections and promote citizen participation, openness and accountability in government.

NDI previously stated it was founded to draw on the traditions of the U.S. Democratic Party.

WND found that NDI is also listed as the only U.S.-associated organization of Socialists International, the world’s largest socialist umbrella group.

NDI was originally created by the federally funded National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, which itself founded joint NDI projects with the Open Society. Another NDI financial backer is the United States Agency for International Development, USAID.

U.S. elections, national security concerns

With the purchase of SOE Software, SCYTL increased its involvement in the U.S. elections process. SOE Software boasts a strong U.S. presence, providing results in more than 900 jurisdictions.

In 2009, SCYTL formally registered with the U.S. Election Assistance Commission as the first Internet voting manufacturer in the U.S. under the EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program.

Also that year, SCYTL entered into an agreement with another firm, Hart InterCivic, to jointly market its pollbook.

SCYTL’s ePollBook already has replaced the paper precinct roster in Washington, D.C.

In the 2012 presidential election, SCYTL was contracted by the states of New York, Arkansas, Alabama, West Virginia, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Mississippi to provide the overseas ballots.

During the midterm elections in November 2010, SCYTL successfully carried out electoral modernization projects in 14 states. The company boasted that a “great variety” of SCYTL’s technologies were involved in the projects, including an online platform for the delivery of blank ballots to overseas voters, an Internet voting platform and epollbook software to manage the electoral roll at the polling stations.

The states that used SCYTL’s technologies during the midterms were New York, Texas, Washington, California, Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Just prior to the midterm’s however, the new electronic voting system in Washington, D.C., was hacked.

As a program security trial, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics reportedly encouraged outside parties to find flaws in its new online balloting system. A group of University of Michigan students then hacked into the site and commanded it to play the school’s fight song upon casting a vote.

It’s not the first time SCYTL’s systems have been called into question.

Voter Action, an advocacy group that seeks elections integrity in the U.S., sent a lengthy complaint to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in April 2010 charging the integration of SCYTL systems “raises national security concerns.”

“Foreign governments may also seek to undermine the national security interests of the United States, either directly or through other organizations,” Voter Action charged.

The document notes that SCYTL was founded in 2001 as a spinoff of a research group at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, which was partially funded by the Spanish government’s Ministry of Science and Technology.

Along with Barcelona, SCYTL has offices in Washington, D.C.; Singapore; Bratislava; and Athens.

  • Project Vote noted that in 2008, the Florida Department of State commissioned a review of SCYTL’s remote voting software and concluded in part that:
  • The system is vulnerable to attack from insiders.In a worst case scenario, the software could lead to 1) voters being unable to cast votes; 2) an election that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters; and 3) possible disclosure of confidential information, such as the votes cast by individual voters.
  • The system may be subject to attacks that could compromise the integrity of the votes cast.

Voting through Google, Apple?

As WND reported in May 2012 the company announced the successful implementation of technology that allows ballots to be cast using Google and Apple smart phones and tablet computers.

SCYTL unveiled a platform that it says encrypts each individual ballot on a voter’s Google or Apple mobile device before the ballot is then transmitted to an electronic voting system.

Using this technology, “Scytl is now able to guarantee end-to-end security – from the voter to the final tally – not only for computer-based online voting but also for mobile voting,” stated a press release by the company.

“By leveraging its pioneering security technology with Google and Apple’s mobile device platforms, Scytl has become the premier election technology provider to offer an online voting system that guarantees the highest standards in terms of both voter privacy and ballot integrity both on personal computers and mobile devices,” said Gabriel Dos Santos, Scytl’s vice president of software engineering.

The U.S. currently does not use voting platforms with mobile devices. SCYTL sees such methods as the future of electronic voting.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/look-whos-rubber-stamping-foreign-vote-counting/#mQsOyokD1LJV7czQ.99

 

Democrat raises prospect of special prosecutor for IRS


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from The Washington Times

Posted by Tom Howell Jr

A Democrat on the House’s investigative committee raised the specter of a special prosecutor on Wednesday to investigate political targeting of conservative groups at the IRS from 2010 to 2012.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, warned IRS and Treasury Department witnesses before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform not to stonewall congressional efforts to get to the bottom of the scandal.

SEE RELATED: Treasury official washes hands of IRS’ political targeting

“We know where that will lead, it will lead to a special prosecutor. … There will be hell to pay if that’s the route that we choose to go down,” he said.

The Democrat’s reference to a special prosecutor was noteworthy, since the most vocal criticism for the IRS has come from GOP ranks in recent weeks.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, California Republican, said Wednesday that the IRS intentionally misled Congress by failing to sound the alarm over political targeting in its tax-exempt division from 2010 to 2012.

He said his committee recently interviewed Holly Paz, a senior IRS official, who said the agency completed an internal review in early 2012 that concluded the same thing that an inspector general’s report publicly revealed only this month.

Everyone with knowledge of inappropriate criteria used to single out tea party and conservative groups for extra scrutiny “could have and should been a whistle-blower,” Mr. Issa said.

He also accused the Obama administration of placing a “higher priority on deniability than addressing blatant wrongdoing.”

SEE RELATED: Key IRS official speaks at House hearing — but not for long

Congress was misled,” he said. “The American people were misled.”

Attendees sat shoulder to shoulder in the packed hearing room on Wednesday to see what high-ranking IRS officials have to say — if anything at all — about the scandal, which unfolded with a fumbled apology earlier this month at an event before the American Bar Association.

Lois Lerner, director of tax-exempt organizations for the IRS, made the apology but has indicated she will invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the oversight hearing.

Ms. Lerner is considered a key witness because in July 2011 she directed specialists in the Cincinnati field office to broaden their criteria beyond partisan terms such as “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12,” according to an audit by the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration.

Higher-ranking officials such as former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee, and acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, who was forced to resigned, have distanced themselves from the scandal in testimony before other House and Senate committees.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, ranking Democrat on the panel, also on Wednesday condemned the IRS‘ political targeting as unacceptable but said it likely was the result of “gross incompetence and mismanagement” in determining which organizations should qualify for tax-exempt status.

He also questioned changes in the rules that guide political groups with tax-exempt status under 501(c)(4).

He and other lawmakers want to know how the law shifted from banning political activity among these “social welfare” groups to an IRS rule that simply limits its political involvement.

Mr. Cummings said it is time to return to the original standard.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/22/rep-issa-accuses-irs-misleading-congress-and-ameri/?page=2#ixzz2U44gG65b
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

S&P Warns Congress of Risks of Political Brinkmanship on Debt


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from National Journal Daily

Posted by Stacy Kaper

Standard and Poor’s headquarters.

The debt-ceiling deal expired this weekend, but the credit-rating agency that sent shock waves through financial markets when it downgraded the U.S. credit rating in 2011 is again warning Congress that a credible five-year plan to stabilize the federal deficit is as necessary—and elusive—as ever.

In an exclusive interview with National Journal, Nikola Swann, Standard & Poor’s top analyst for the U.S. government‘s rating, said that making big fiscal decisions in a crisis setting hurts the U.S. rating outlook and that continued “political brinksmanship” remains a major threat.

“So far we don’t see any good evidence that there is more cooperation between the two parties than there was in 2011, nor that the American policymaking system as a whole is any more effective, stable, and predictable than it was in 2011 based on the latest debate,” Swann said.

S&P’s current AA-plus rating with a negative outlook means there is at least a one-in-three chance that the agency will lower America’s rating by 2014.

Of the five criteria S&P uses to set the U.S. rating, “the political analysis and the fiscal analysis were really the two categories where we saw weakening in recent years and the main reasons why we put the rating down to AA-plus in 2011,” Swann said, explaining the basis for the continued negative outlook on the United States. “Those are still the areas where we see potential for further weakening.”

And while S&P would not provide policy advice, there are a few things it thinks lawmakers should know.

First, the sooner Congress can deal with the issue the better.

“It is certainly true that the further the U.S. can get away from making important decisions—especially about public finances—at the last minute in a crisis, the more that would help the credit rating,” Swann said.

Next, anyone who thinks that it would be no big deal if the United States defaulted on one or two Treasury payments is dead wrong. It would not only knock the U.S. rating down another notch—it would push the rating all the way down to a D.

And should any default appear likely—and Swann warns “this could happen imminently”—the rating would drop to a CCC with a negative outlook.

If Washington wants to avoid another downgrade, Swann said S&P needs to see a “credible,” roughly five-year plan that would “keep the debt-to-GDP ratios from continuing to rise as they have been for most of the past 10 years.” That deal would need to have substantial enough bipartisan support from lawmakers in both chambers to ensure that even if an election flipped the parties in power, lawmakers would still support the plan in place.

“We would have to see a reasonable basis for believing that this plan would actually be implemented,” Swann said.

The other event that could trigger a downgrade by S&P would be sudden jolt in real interest rates. But this seems less likely in the short-term given the Federal Reserve’s current path.

Although the debt ceiling is clearly an important metric to judge the likelihood of default, it is not S&P’s most important factor in determining whether to downgrade. “In general we do not see the debt-ceiling debate per se as the main point,” he said. “Our primary focus is on the longer-term dynamic.”

As for recent legislation passed by the House to prioritize debt payments, Swann argues it would not provide enough stability to prevent further downgrades if the U.S. had to rely on such an emergency plan to pay its debts, in lieu of raising or removing the debt ceiling.

“If we are talking about the scenario in which such legislation is actually getting used, we are already in more or less a political crisis,” he said.

“You could very well be having significant turbulence in the economy and in financial markets. This does not sound like a very comfortable scenario. So the point is, in a mechanical sense, yes, such legislation could potentially help avoid default, but that doesn’t mean that this overall scenario would not get so rocky that we wouldn’t downgrade from AA-plus anyway.”

This article appears in the May 20, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily.

 

Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste: Abolish the IRS


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from politicaloutcast.com

 

We have been presented with the opportunity of a lifetime and that’s not hyperbole.

To paraphrase David Axelrod: the government is so “vast” it’s impossible to know what’s going on.

That’s probably the only intelligent thing he has ever uttered.

Well, he’s absolutely right. It’s gotten so large and out-of-control that it requires storm trooper-like tactics to control the flow of the vast amount of money collected to run it.

Now we’ve learned that the collection department, the IRS, has been targeting groups that oppose the administration.

As an aside — if this scandal is what has surfaced, it’s a cinch there is much more that hasn’t. Just an observation.

Anyone who has been audited knows it may be the most stressful and painful experience this side of childbirth (or so I’ve heard). I thought the government was supposed to work for and be accountable to us, not the other way around.

So for this and a myriad of other reasons, the IRS should be abolished.

We on the right have been putting forth this tired refrain for decades, but there will never be a better chance than now to start advancing this notion.

We could learn a little from the left. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Well, this is a crisis we must not squander.

But the government needs money to operate, you say. You might add that without the threat of IRS persecution (and I do mean persecution), no one would ever pay their taxes.

Nonsense. Other than the most rabid anti-government lunatics, virtually all citizens are willing to pay.

Most citizens just want the collection to be fair and transparent. The current system is neither (and that is deliberate). As Marco Rubio might say: “Let’s bring those who do not pay taxes ‘out of the shadows.’”

The only truly fair and transparent tax is the consumption tax, not the flat tax. Yes, a national sales tax, but let’s not call it that. People already dislike sales taxes.

We need a tax system where everybody has some skin in the game.

One can still cheat the flat tax system by hiding income. The consumption tax is fair and less apt to be corrupted. Black markets will only spring up if the rate is too high.

Of course the consumption tax would have to be an amendment, not just simply a law and takes the place of the 16th amendment, which would have to be repealed first.

The consumption tax is also the epitome of a free-market system. It is also, with few exceptions, the only purely an absolutely voluntary tax. If you don’t wish to pay the tax, don’t purchase the item or service.

It would also take care of those pesky nonprofit tax-free organizations. No one would be tax-free because everyone and every organization must purchase things.

And how much money could corporations and organizations save by simply closing up K Street and not having to beg and bribe Congress for tax breaks?

Simply put, the lefty wizards of smart have admitted that the government has become too large to manage. They have also admitted that they are a bunch of bungling incompetents. Of course they did so, figuring no one will demand change. I’m sure they think that in a couple of weeks the scandals will be forgotten. Let’s not let them forget.

The current tax system is tyranny and the IRS tyrannical. However impossible the task may sound, the time is now to end the tyranny. “Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph” — Thomas Paine, The Crisis (1776).

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste-abolish-the-irs/#ixzz2TrDDNFh3

 

10 IRREFUTABLE POINTS AGAINST MORE GUN CONTROL


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.examiner.com

Posted by DON MASHAK

The Experest Agree,; Gun Control works!

The Experts Agree,; Gun Control works!

Though he has lost the first round, President Obama has pledged to press the fight for more gun control. The definitive persuasive arguments contained herein are written in anticipation of the governments continued efforts to dismantle the 2nd Amendment. This article contains 10 irrefutable points against more gun control which are based in Common Sense, Natural Law, Baser Instincts and Constitutional Rights.

Before anything else is said, let us acknowledge the loss of innocent lives as the infuriating tragedy that it is. Further, let us vigorously express our empathy and sympathy for the survivors and the loved ones of the victims and pledge to hold the perpetrators accountable.

JFK: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

JFK: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

© 2013 Nokia© 2013 Microsoft Corporation

Location: Capital Hill Washington DC

38.885089874268 ; -76.988632202148

That having been said, this writer finds it first necessary to take the time to summarize 7 historically accurate points to lay a foundation for common ground, mutual understanding and feelings of unity among rank and file Americans aka WE THE PEOPLE. Too often, WE THE PEOPLE are divided on any particular issue on the basis of political party affiliation. This writer asserts that WE THE PEOPLE can establish a foundation of common ground, mutual understanding and unity by making ourselves aware of the history of Tyranny and Natural Law on this planet.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
James Madison

Every American should use the information and concepts contained within these 7 historical points to assess not only the gun control issue, but every political issue that comes before them. Within the parameters of these 7 points, every single rank and file American will find they are less vulnerable to being manipulated against their own best interests by the “Powers that Be”. By adhering to the perspective of the world outlined herein, WE THE PEOPLE will find the greatest common ground, mutual understanding and unity. In so doing, WE THE PEOPLE can stop being divided and conquered by those who seek to manage and manipulate us like livestock for their own personal gain.

Historical Point 1 – Before The Enlightenment aka the Age of Reason(1650AD – 1800AD), most governments operated under the government philosophy of the “Divine Right of Kings” The king/Queen or other designated head of government was deemed to be a God or the representative of God here on earth. As such, no earthly being could challenge the decisions of the King. Further, under this philosophy of Government, all land belonged to the King/Queen/Government. Individuals were only permitted on a particular piece of land by the permission of the King/Queen or his designated representatives. Furthermore, rather than any rights, the general public had to rely upon these “permissions”

Historical Point 2 – Also, before the Enlightenment, the masses were told how they should perceive the world. Tradition, Superstition, Religion and the threat of physical punishment dictated how the individual should perceive the world, regardless of what their own physical senses told them. For example, “The earth is the center of the universe”. Copernicus and Galileo (and others before them) through their senses and reasoning knew the earth was neither the center of the Universe nor even our solar system. But religious dogma and the threat of punishment caused them to delay making their perceptions known to the world. This in turn led the masses to persist in believing the earth was flat & the center of the Universe long after learned men knew otherwise and could prove it.

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for “following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripturehttp://goo.gl/ppPxK

Historical Point 3 – When the invention called the Printing press became widely distributed, information and ideas spread so rapidly that tradition, the church and kings/queens were unable to stop the ideas that were contrary to Royal Decree, religious dogma and/or tradition. This ability for the rapid dissemination of information was the dawn of The Enlightenment, again aka the Age of Reason. Individuals were no longer constrained to view the world in the manner they were “told to” by superstition, tradition, religion, society and/or the king/queen. Instead individuals could apply their own reasoning in interpreting the information their senses were providing them. They were free to reach their own conclusions and form their own perception of reality. And this freedom to Reason inevitability led to the understanding that the authority of the church and the King/Queen were not absolute, but rather could be challenged.

Natural Law is not the law of the jungle as some people mistakenly believe. The following quote on natural law was made by John Locke. John Locke’s political theories had a strong effect on colonial America.

“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule.”

John Locke

Historical Point 4 – Rivaling the importance of the Scientific Revolution during the Enlightenment, was the reduction of Natural Law to writing. The Men of Letters delineated certain unalienable rights that were inherent in every person. The Men of Letters were quick to point out that they were not “inventing” Natural Law but merely putting into writing that which already existed in Nature. Awareness of Natural Law fundamentally changed the nature of the existence of the common person. Instead of living a life of seeking permissions to do things, suddenly the individual was empowered with Unalienable Rights. Life, Liberty, Property ownership etc were observed to be Unalienable Natural Law Rights every person was born inherently possessing.The Philosophy of Government known as the “Divine Right of Kings” was replaced with the philosophy known as “Consent of the Governed” John Locke, in his work known as “Two Treatises of Government”, asserted that Government was a Social Contract subject to the Consent of the Governed. He stated that individuals gave up some of their liberty and rights that people might live together more harmoniously. And further that the people could revoke this contract if the government did not act in accordance with the best interests of the masses. (Right to Revolution) Further, every individual had the right to own property and that property could not be taken away from them without due process, fair compensation and then only for legitimate government purposes like building roads, bridges, forts, government buildings, post offices and schools. At the same time, the Ruling Class did not willingly surrender their absolute power and adopt these newly exhorted philosophies of Natural Law. In the end, Governments accommodated the demand by the masses that their Natural Rights be recognized and worked them into it into their laws and manner of governance or, governments were overthrown by violent revolution (see French Revolution). The freedom to think for themselves, having rights rather than having to seek permissions and the ability own private property are known collectively as Self-Determination, an integral part of Natural Law.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton – Principal Author of the Federalist Papers, 1st US Secretary of Treasury

Paragraph 5 – The ideas of the Enlightenment were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America. One will note that our Declaration of Independence was drafted and ratified in 1776; The Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1787 and 1789 respectively and our Bill of Rights in 1789 and 1791respectively. One should note that all of these documents were created within the last 25 years of the period of time defined as the Enlightenment. References to the concept of Natural Law can be found in the Declaration of Independence as “Laws of Nature” and “all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, amongst these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” Further:

The fundamental understanding our US Founding Fathers had in drafting our constitution, is People under Natural Law have free will, and are not virtuous by nature. Therefore, governments must be constructed in anticipation of the nature of man. Acting on this knowledge, our Founding Fathers built into our Government and Constitution, various checks and balances.

Amongst these checks and balances were transparency and accountability.

First Principles – All people are equal under Natural Law http://t.co/YkDGq8opit

Paragraph 6 – Ever since the Enlightenment, the Ruling Class has sought to reassert their supreme authority, aka the Divine Right of Kings. They have accomplished this primarily through 3 different methods. 1) Controlling the information the masses receive 2) managing and manipulating the masses via their Baser Instincts and Emotions and 3) using the false left/right political paradigm to divide and conquer us. In the first case, they control the information that WE THE PEOPLE receive through propaganda, censorship and indoctrination. In this first case, since the Government can’t take away our Freedom to Reason, they can control the conclusions of the masses by controlling the information WE THE PEOPLE get to use to make those decisions. If the Government and Major Media only give WE THE PEOPLE the information that will logically lead us to the conclusion and decisions the government wants us to make, those are the conclusions and decisions we will make. At the same time, unaware of the Government’s ruse, WE THE PEOPLE will still think we have made the decision of our own free will. In the second instance, our Government uses Edward Bernays style propaganda to exploit our baser instincts and emotions to manage and manipulate us. (The Engineering of Consent http://goo.gl/MolA6 – Edward Bernays and the Art of Public Manipulation http://youtu.be/qiKMmrG1ZKU ) Our Government manipulates WE THE PEOPLE by exploiting our base instincts and emotions such as fear, empathy and terror. Think of it kind of like the American Indians hunting buffalo. The Natives jump up and surprise and scare the buffalo. The individual Buffalo instinctively start running away from the Indians based on instinct. They know that to survive they should run away from whatever frightened them. At some point all the individuals are all running away, following the herd… And before the individual realizes it, it is too late to do anything about being mid air off a cliff rapidly approaching the ground. This is the essence of Edward Bernays Style Propaganda… Panic the herd into doing something it thinks is in its best interest, but in reality is not. Our Government manages and manipulates WE THE PEOPLE to do what the Government wants us to do without most of WE THE PEOPLE usually realizing we have been managed and manipulated to do exactly what the government wanted us to do in the first place. In the third instance, our Leaders of the 2 alleged Political Parties orchestrate the rank and file members of their political party to hold the rank and file members of the other major party responsible for the actions of their elected officials. It just makes no sense for one set of rank and file political party members to yell and protest against the rank and file members of the other political party. All this behavior does is waste the time and energy of the rank and file members and distract the rank and file members of each major party. In the process, the rank and file members of each party forget about forcing their elected officials to be transparent and holding their elected officials accountable.

“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”

Edmund Burke

Paragraph 7 – This writer asserts that our elected officials and Government are no longer true to the principles and guiding documents that founded this nation. This writer asserts that our Branches of Government no longer act as checks and balances on each other’s power. This writer asserts that our elected officials and Government are no longer in compliance with Natural Law, nor the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Instead our Government has transitioned to a Consensus (they don’t like the term conspiracy) of collusion to manage and manipulate WE THE PEOPLE for their own personal gain, as though WE THE PEOPLE were their livestock. Yet, our Government officials manage to pass themselves off as honorable persons acting in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE. The American ruling class has destroyed the natural mutual understanding and unity of WE THE PEOPLE. They have done this by dividing and conquering WE THE PEOPLE via the false left/right paradigm of 2 major political parties. Still Further:

All of our problems today emanate from the slow, persistent rolling back of the checks and balances, transparency and accountability our Founding Fathers built into our Government and Constitution.

First Principles – All people are equal under Natural Law http://t.co/YkDGq8opit

This writer submits to each reader that Natural Law and Natural Rights provides a universal commonality which is less subject to the manipulations of those who would betray the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE. This universal commonality is what our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights are predicated and built upon. This writer further admonishes that it is up to each of WE THE PEOPLE to educate and immerse ourselves in Natural Law and Natural Rights as a defense to the tyranny, manipulations and exploitations of WE THE PEOPLE by our own government. WE THE PEOPLE, the 66% of us in the middle of the economic and political spectrum must not allow ourselves to be divided and conquer by false political divisions. WE THE PEOPLE are invincible if we refuse to allow our Government to deviate from the principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights

Being thus duly informed of the tactics of America’s Government and Ruling Class, it is up to WE THE PEOPLE, to resist being tricked into beliefs and actions that in the long run are not in our best interests. To do this, WE THE PEOPLE must force ourselves to form our perspectives of each current event and issue by grounding ourselves within the fair, equitable, straight forward system of Natural Law and Natural Rights. This as opposed to allowing our emotions and base instincts to overwhelm our logical thought process.

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

With that introduction, these are the plain facts about Gun Control:

1) When guns are outlawed only outlaws, psychos and our systemically corrupt government will have guns,

2) Is there any Common Sense in making more gun control rules to prevent criminals and psychos from getting guns, when by definition, criminals and psychos won’t, don’t or can’t follow the rules?

From this one incontrovertible truth that more rules won’t keep criminals and psychos from procuring guns or other means of large scale violence, it is clear what our government’s true ulterior motives are. In further controlling access to guns, they further suppress WE THE PEOPLE’s ability to challenge their authority by holding them accountable by force when mere words fail. This as opposed to the Governments false representation that their motivation is to prevent future gun related tragedies. The primary effect of more laws to control gun ownership will be to decrease the ability of WE THE PEOPLE to resist a tyrannical government, not to reduce gun violence committed by criminals and psychos.

When Pressure Cookers are outlawed, only outlaws, psychos and terrorist will have Pressure Cookers.

Clearly our duplicitous, amoral government is using and abusing the anguish from these latest gun tragedies to promote their own self-serving agenda. WE THE PEOPLE are being persuaded (manipulated) in accordance with Edward Bernays instinct/emotion based propaganda to surrender more of our liberty for allegedly more personal security. Again the reality being that our government actually wants to decrease our personal security and our Natural Law Right to be secure in our persons by making it more difficult to have a gun. Our Government really seeks to side step the Natural Law concept of “Consent of the Governed” by making much more difficult or impossible for WE THE PEOPLE to exercise our Natural Law Right to Revolution against an unjust Government.

“Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.”

Alexander Hamilton – Principal Author of the Federalist Papers, 1st US Secretary of Treasury

3) Those who trade liberty for Security soon have neither and deserve none… variations of this quote can be found for both Jefferson and Franklin.

Pressure Cookers don’t kill people; People kill people.

Do you really want to take guns away from everyone leaving good people no defense to criminals, psychos and the tyranny of a runaway government?

4) Gun Control is not about Guns, it is about Control… Government Control of WE THE PEOPLE.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
Patrick Henry

5) Gun Control works! (sarcasm) Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Assad, Kim Jong-Un, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, etc

Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

John Basil Barnhill

6) Our Systemically Corrupt American Judiciary has abandoned the Rule of Law and Natural Law and reinstated the Divine Right of Kings.

Our Courts will just as deliberately and erroneously misinterpret the 2nd Amendment as they have the 11th, 7th and 5th Amendments to further advance the Government’s Repression of WE THE PEOPLE. (This is intended to only be a short list of the most obvious intentional misinterpretations of Law by the US Courts. It is not intended to be exhaustive list of misinterpretations of Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other laws by the US Courts)

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.”

James Madison, Federalist Paper no. 62, February 27, 1788

11th Amendment

The 11th Amendment says persons WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS of a state can’t sue that state. 100 and 200 years later, respectively, the US Supreme Court denied the plain wording of the 11th Amendment and ruled no-one can sue a state. (Legal Evil – In their own words – Section: The Great Betrayal of 1890 http://t.co/zRWSENHzmB )

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State

11th Amendment

If the drafters of the 11th Amendment had meant NO ONE can sue a state they would have said “by anyone” rather than “by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State”

“The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” http://goo.gl/uKgA7

7th Amendment – Right to Trial by Jury (http://t.co/em01qMIvSC)

Judges are supposed to be like sports referees or Court Traffic Cops. WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Instead by gradual increment and machination, Judges far too often decide cases. They do this with faulty jury instructions, preventing certain evidence from being admitted to the official court record and/or by out right Summary Judgment.

“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

5th Amendment

Private Property ownership is an unalienable Natural Law Right addressed by the 5th Amendment (http://t.co/em01qMIvSC Item 7C). The US Supreme Court alienated WE THE PEOPLE from this unalienable Natural Law Right by allowing local government to assert eminent domain over private property merely because the new owner could or would pay higher taxes than the current owner. The 5th Amendment restricted eminent domain to seizure for primarily infrastructure like roads, bridges, forts, post offices, government buildings and schools.

Divine Right of Kings Masquerading as Judicial Case Law http://t.co/em01qMIvSC

Under the Divine Right of Kings, all property was owned by the King or Government and any person was allowed on any land by the whim/permission of the king or the King’s representatives. How is kicking a private property owner in America off his land because someone else will be able pay higher taxes, any different from the King sending the Sheriff of Nottingham out to kick someone off a piece of land because someone else is willing to pay the King more money for permission to be on that piece of land? The Answer: It isn’t.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

— George Washington, 1796

And as Private Property ownership is an UNALIENABLE Natural Law Right; has not this unconstitutional interpretation by the US Courts fulfilled the requirements for WE THE PEOPLE to exercise our Natural Law Right to Revolution as stated in our Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

US Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

And in John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (http://goo.gl/93VlJ):

Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments.

The willingness of the American Judiciary to negate and/or undermine fundamental Natural Law and Constitutional Rights speaks to the necessity of WE THE PEOPLE being armed.

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

7) Our Government has subverted our unalienable Natural Law 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (without fear of punishment or reprisal).

For now coming on 8 years hundreds of Minnesota Citizens have tried to exercise their Natural Law 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of grievances. They have sought a hearing before the Minnesota State Senate and House Judiciary Committees to give evidence and testimony of corruption within the Minnesota Judiciary. In 2009, after 4 years of being denied a hearing, we were forced to have an Ad hoc hearing just to document some of the evidence and testimony before the people died, gave up or moved away. Again, this Adhoc hearing carried no weight. It was not before any Government committee nor Legislative Body. But that was all we were left to after 4 years.

“This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

Judge Sir William Blackwell 1723 – 1780

Citizens who have participated in these attempts to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances have been illegally and unconstitutionally punished in a variety of ways;

  1. Adverse Court decisions arrived at in manners not in accordance with Natural Law Due Process nor the Rule of Law,
  2. Denial of Child Custody, huge fines for publishing the injustices of the Courts, etc.
  3. Disbarment of a Lawyer for refusing to disclose the protected communications between himself and his client.
  4. Destruction of Profession, Business, Finances, health and Reputation.

As examples, this writer encourages readers to read the matters of

Marlena Fearing (http://goo.gl/gmXn3)

Ms Fearing was illegally punished for developing low income housing which catered to minorities.

Lea Banken Dannewitz (http://goo.gl/LjdPt)

Ms Dannewitz was denied custody and access to her children (for what appears to be no legitimate reason to this writer and person’s familiar to the case)

Ms Dannewitz was further punished with massive fines for posting her criticism of the Court on the internet. (What free speech/Press?)

Dale Nathan – his book Minnesota Injustice (http://goo.gl/YHfO6 )

A lawyer disbarred and refused re-admittance because he refused to disclose protected attorney client communications and refused to say he was wrong for disobeying the judge as requirement for reinstatement.

Paul Volkommer (http://goo.gl/zaFbz)

A Founder of the Baldwin Township Fire Department and Township Board member who discovered unauthorized spending of taxpayer money. State Statute required he report the matter to the State but other Township Board members told him to ignore it. Mr. Volkommer was wrongfully terminated from the Fire Department for Whistle-blowing and then denied relief by the Court through his own attorney and the Court efforts to prevent Discovery and to keep evidence out o the official Court Record. He spent over 100 thousand dollars seeking justice and got none. This is the infamous case where Minnesota Courts ruled Lawyers have no duty to treat their clie.nts ethically

Don Mashak

As regular readers of this writer know, this writer has suffered illegal and unconstitutional reprisal and punishments for his involvement in Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) This writer has also suffered illegal and unconstitutional reprisal for his Fiscal TAR efforts.

“You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power – he’s free again.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

What recourse is left to WE THE PEOPLE, when fundamental Natural Law, First Amendment Rights are denied? If WE THE PEOPLE cannot Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances and are punished for attempting to do so, what is the next logical course of action for WE THE PEOPLE?

This writer mentions these specific persons so that you may enlighten yourself as to the true nature of your government. The current prevailing method of American tyranny is indeed ingenious. Its demonstrations of power are more subtle, less impatient and plausibly deniable that the overt, ever present displays of power by communist and other dictatorial forms of government.

Instead of using brute force as other communist and/or dictatorial governments do, our American government prefers to rely upon the “Frog in the Pot” strategy. In implementing change, they prefer to make changes slowly and incrementally so WE THE PEOPLE do not notice the increase in the temperature of the water in the pot. If a change meets with too much opposition, they will stop pushing the change and/or accept defeat with the full intention of trying the change again in the future, hopefully with the voting public worn out, tired of hearing about the issue in question or public opinion changed through Edward Bernays style emotion based propaganda.

Voices of political dissent are not immediately met by brute force, but instead they are just ignored because so many just lose interest or are easily worn out from polite “getting the run around” At the next level, is the simply refusal of elected officials to return phone calls and/or hold hearings. Finally, if the political dissent continues to persist, punishments and reprisals of increasing severity are inflicted on the individuals or leaders of the voices of political dissent. And with the Major Media Complicit in the tyranny, usually no one other than the folks actually involved in the political dissent are aware that this is the true nature of our American Government. This, as opposed to the Benevolent, Respectful Public Servant Persona it portrays itself to be.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”

John Edgar Hoover (January 1, 1895May 2, 1972) was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until 1972.
The Elks Magazine (August 1956)

You, the reader, are encouraged to read the writings by and/or about these the efforts of your patriotic neighbors so you realize the true nature and extent of tyranny of American Government (Though you may not have noticed the change, the water in the pot is very hot) And further, so that you come to appreciate the sacrifices your patriotic neighbors are forced to endure in retaliation for their attempts to hold our government accountable.

Your Government is forcing your friends and neighbors to choose between holding your government accountable or having their quality of life and that of their loved ones and children material reduced by the illegal punishment and reprisal your Government inflicts upon them for daring to confront corruption and injustice.

SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS
ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE
RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

COINTELPRO & MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr
UNITED STATES SENATE

From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI’s “war” against Dr. King:

No holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business…

…. The FBI’s program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him…”

The point of all of this being that your government is not and will not voluntarily allow WE THE PEOPLE to exercise our unalienable Natural Law 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. Our Government refuses to be Transparent and Accountable. As such our government has lost its “Consent of the Governed”

If our government refuses to be Transparent and Accountable to WE THE PEOPLE, What is our recourse?

If our government refuses to hear WE THE PEOPLE’s Petitions for redress of grievances; what then is our recourse?

And then, if our government deprives us of right to have guns; what then, is our recourse?

It would difficult, if not impossible to exercise our Right to Revolution without guns… And it has been clearly demonstrated that our government refuses to be transparent and accountable to WE THE PEOPLE, and refuses to hear or Petitions for Redress.

Only the point of a gun or the threat of the point of a gun is left to WE THE PEOPLE as a means to force our government to not only hear but act upon our Petitions for Redress of Grievances.

“Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun”

Mao Tse Tung

8) Our Government has become a Plutocracy (Government by, and Justice to, the highest Bidder)

It was established as a constitutionally limited Representative Republic.

“For a country to have a great writer is like having a second government. That is why no regime has ever loved great writers, only minor ones.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Our elected officials will not voluntarily return our Government to the status of Republic that it originated as.

Ergo, to restore or Government to the Republic it was intended to be, will require force, force made less resistible by the presence of an armed populace.

9) Private Gun ownership is necessary for WE THE PEOPLE to exercise our Natural Law Right to Revolution.

Public Dissent is near all time highs http://goo.gl/5Pbon

Gun Control is not about protecting children and the General Public from crazed gun men, it is about protecting our systemically corrupt government from WE THE PEOPLE.

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”

Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson, 7th President of the USA, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

This writer implores each of you who were victims or friends and loved ones, of the victims of the recent shootings to not allow yourselves to be manipulated into trading WE THE PEOPLE’s liberty to own guns for the Government’s insincere and duplicitous promises that it will result in your greater personal security.

As if you needed further reason to distrust your government, consider this further duplicity of your government. It seems reasonable enough to enact laws to make it more difficult for terrorists, criminals and psychos from obtaining guns. But what the government doesn’t tell you is that with its other hand it is seeking to have certain groups of persons classified as terrorists or mentally ill… People like returning war veterans, persons belonging to groups such as the tea party and occupy movements, and various kinds of other political dissenters. Your Government did not tell you about that angle they are using to try to disarm America, did they?

“Literature transmits incontrovertible condensed experience… from generation to generation. In this way literature becomes the living memory of a nation.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

10) Its the Second Amendment; Stupid.

Our Government is no less evil that the governments of communist countries and dictatorships. The US Government isn’t less overt in crushing the voices of political dissent because it finds that assassination, abduction, imprisonment of political dissidents as practiced in other countries amoral. They don’t engage in those overt activities against American Dissidents very often because there are other more effective, and more plausibly deniable ways to oppress political dissent. And these more subtle ways of repressing political dissent have the added benefit of not enraging the populace as much as overt methods of repression. Have no doubt that if our government were not constrained by public opinion, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they would not hesitate to literally snuff out the voices of political dissent in America.

“…God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of libertymust be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure….

Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

And that is why the Founder’s made the Right to Bear Arms the 2nd Amendment after the 1st Amendment to ensure transparency and Accountability through Free Speech, A Free Press and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. The Founding Fathers knew that WE THE PEOPLE would need guns to defend ourselves from our own government.

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated…”

Thomas Paine

The Crisis, December 23, 1776

Finally, to the Powers that Be please take note; do not call upon this writer to moderate the anger of WE THE PEOPLE if violent revolution breaks out because you refused to assent to peaceful reform. You have infuriated a lot of people with your egregious tyrannical behavior and refusal to hear our Petitions of Redress. Your level of mercy and compassion (or lack thereof) in illegally engaging in reprisal and punishment of those of us attempting to exercise our Natural Law and Constitution Rights is well known.

Many of those you have oppressed in violation Natural Law, the intent of our Founder’s and the tenants of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence have suffered greatly. Though Natural Law and the 1st Amendment require this Government to hear WE THE PEOPLE’s petitions for redress of grievances without fear of punishment and reprisal, you have both punished and reprised against those patriots who would dare exercise such right. By directive and/or by gossip, you have destroyed the businesses, professions and careers of those who would voice the basis of their political dissent. It is not difficult to recognize the anguish of those punished in this manner. Imagine the words of a spouse to their partner, mournfully or bitterly recounting to the patriotic political dissenter, the folly of making their political dissent known… Repeatedly reminding them of the sufferings and the decreased standard of living that the reprisal of the Government and “powers that be” has wrought upon the family. Imagine the heart wrenching aguish of a spouse whose family’s love grows cold because they can no longer provide for their family because they failed to keep their mouth shut and should have known better. Nor forget the anguish of each night looking into the eyes of their children and knowing that their children suffer and go without because they did not know trappings of Democratic Process and Rights of Natural Law are now but tools to delude the masses into an illusion of freedom and liberty.

And, even more devastating, is the use of the judiciary as an instrument of punishment and reprisal upon the voices of political dissent. The Rule of Law ignored, the Courts inflict retaliation upon the voices of political dissent in ways that can only be called deliberate inhumane, malicious and evil. Ney, call it “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

8th Amendment

despite the Common Law (Rule of Law) Convention “Presumption of Innocence” aka “Innocent until proven guilty”.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies”

Roman 2nd or 3rd Century jurist Paul.

Watson, Alan, ed. (1998) [1985]. The Digest of Justinian. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN0-8122-1636-9

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit—”The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.”

F. Nan Wagoner (1917-06-01). “Wagoner’s Legal Quotes web page”. Wagonerlaw.com

Political Dissenters, both Mothers and fathers, have had their children taken away and been denied visitation as punishment, with the further insult that Powers that be label it justice rendered in accordance with the Rule of Law. All manner of civil suits become just another manner of unconstitutional punishment inflicted upon the political dissenter yet is called justice in accordance with Natural Law, Common Law and the overall Rule of Law… And the anger reaches new heights in the hearts of true patriots who are punished by having criminal matters trumped up and triangulated against them

This writer himself recognized the anguish any wife or children of his would suffer f or voicing his political dissent, and chose to spare any other the agony of suffering by our Government wrath by not marrying nor having children. As such, without the constant feedback of anguished loved ones, this writer can maintain a calmer disposition than other voices of political dissent with Domestic Partners and Children. At the same time, this writer can empathize with the misery and anger of those saddled with providing material sustenance and happiness for a spouse and children.

Many of these victims of Government reprisal will take the event of a violent revolution as an opportunity to visit upon you, yours and your aiders and abettors the same level of mercy and compassion you have visited upon them for merely trying to peacefully force the government to be transparent and accountable. And, in one more act of patriotic rebellion, this writer will not intervene on behalf government tyrants as a voice of moderation, himself being keenly aware of the equation for the calculation of RISK and Reward each act of tyranny is predicated upon. Consider that a further motivation for you, the powers that be, to assent to transparency and accountability WE THE PEOPLE demand. And, further, as motivation to promptly hear and act upon our Petitions for Redress of Grievances.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

US President John F Kennedy JFK http://youtu.be/_AesVsRvOEo

Our government has ignored our polite and respectful overtures.

BREAKING NEWS! Poll: 29% of Americans Believe Armed Revolt May Be Necessaryhttp://t.co/kGRWPGPnQT

That only leaves one course of action available.

The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath’d to us from the former, for the sake of the latter….

Samuel Adams

Essay, written under the pseudonym “Candidus,” in The Boston Gazette (14 October 1771), later published in The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (1865) by William Vincent Wells, p. 425

Gun Control? Hewey!

Instead of:

“a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage”;

in these days of constant attack upon Natural Law, Liberty, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, perhaps the slogan of WE THE PEOPLE who intend to remain free should be:

A gun for every citizen and within each citizen the restraint, knowledge and fortitude to know when, when not and how to use it.

Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

TellMyPolitician http://goo.gl/1FWfz

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
http://Facebook/Don.Mashak
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE

Tags: gun control, Legislation, violence, School, Congress, 2nd Amendment

WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://facebook.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National
http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Justice in Minnesota #JIM
http://JusticeinMN.com

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com

Get out of our House #GOOOH
http://GOOOH.com

Critical Thinking Notice – This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author… unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.

 

The Nine Lies of Lois Lerner


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by Kevin D. Williamson

Lois Lerner (Vimeo)

Kevin D. Williamson

 

Lie No. 1: Lois Lerner’s apology last Friday was a spontaneous reaction to an unexpected question from an unknown audience member. In fact, the question came from tax lawyer and lobbyist Celia Roady. Ms. Roady has some interesting career highlights: She was part of the 1997 ethics investigation of Newt Gingrich, but, more to the point, she was appointed to the IRS’s Advisory Council on Tax-Exempt and Government Entities by IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman. She is a longtime colleague of Lerner, who is director of tax-exempt organizations. Ms. Roady has declined to comment on whether her question was planted, but it obviously was. The IRS had contacted reporters and encouraged them beforehand to attend the otherwise un-newsworthy event, and it had an entire team of press handlers on hand. So what we have is the staged rollout of what turns out to be — given the rest of this list — a disinformation campaign.

Lie No. 2: Lerner said about 280 organizations were given extra scrutiny, about 75 of them tea-party groups or similar organizations. The actual number of organizations that were targeted is closer to 500.

Lie No. 3: This was the work of low-level grunts in Cincinnati. In truth, very senior people within the IRS, including its top lawyer, were aware of the situation, and had been since at least 2011. The home office in Washington was very much involved in the process.

Lie No. 4: Lerner says that the situation came to her attention through allegations from tea-party groups carried in media reports. In fact, the matter has been under both internal and external investigation for some time.

Lie No. 5: Lerner says she put an end to the practice as soon as she found out about it. In fact, the IRS continued to do precisely the same thing, only monkeying a little bit with the language: Instead of targeting “tea party” groups explicitly, it targeted those groups with an interest in such esoterica as limited government, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.

Lie No. 6: She says that the commissioner of the IRS didn’t know about the targeting project. While the targeting was going on, Ms. Lerner’s boss was being asked some very pointed questions by Congress on the subject of targeting tea-party groups. He enthusiastically denied that any such thing was going on, in direct contravention of the facts. Ms. Lerner says he didn’t know about the situation, because it was confined to those aforementioned plebs in Cincinnati. But given that this was not the case, her explaining away the commissioner’s untrue statements to Congress is a lie based on another lie — a compound lie, if you will. And acting commissioner Steven Miller was briefed on the situation in May of 2012 — and then declined to share his knowledge of it with Congress when asked about it during a hearing in July.

Lie No. 7: Lerner says she came forward with her apology unprompted by any special consideration. In fact, an inspector general’s report was about to be released, making the matter public.

Lie No. 8: When Congress was investigating complaints from conservative groups, Lerner told them that she could not release information about organizations with pending applications. But her group was in fact releasing such information — to the left-leaning news organization ProPublica, rather than to congressional investigators.

Lie No. 9: Lerner says that there was no political pressure to investigate tea-party groups. In fact, Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) repeatedly pressed the agency to investigate conservative groups falling under Lerner’s jurisdiction. What we have, then, is this: Under a Democratic administration, the IRS was under pressure from Democratic elected officials to investigate political enemies of the Democratic party. The agency did so. Its commissioner lied to Congress about its doing so. When the inspector general’s report was about to make these abuses public, the agency staged a classic Washington Friday news rollout at a sleepy American Bar Association tax-law conference, hoping to minimize the bad publicity. Lerner lied to the public about the nature, scope, and extent of the IRS intimidation campaign.

That she has a job today is a scandal in itself. She’ll be receiving an award — for public service! — from the Western New England University School of Law on May 18. An orange jumpsuit would suit her better than academic robes.

Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for National Review. His new book, The End Is Near and It’s Going To Be Awesome, was recently published

 

Immigrant Janitors Accuse Bosses Of Putting Them In Danger For Failing To Provide Instructions In Spanish


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from latino.foxnews.com

Spanish-speaking custodial workers at the Auraria Higher Education Center in Colorado, a campus that serves students from three colleges, are suing based on what they say is a failure of their bosses to communicate with them in their native language, according to published reports.

The workers said the language gap created unsafe working conditions, according to The Denver Post.

The roughly dozen custodial workers filed a complaint against AHEC with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Denver Post reported that Tim Markham, the attorney representing the workers, said that the center only communicated with its workers in English – which had resulted in men suffering injuries on the job as well as changes in their schedule that were detrimental to them.

Officials with the AHEC, which caters to students from the Metropolitan State University of Denver, the University of Colorado-Denver and the Community College of Denver, told several media outlets they had not had a chance to review the complaint.

But The Denver Post said that Blaine Nickeson, an AHEC vice president, said the AHEC knew that some custodians had complained about their working conditions.

Nickeson said that the AHEC does offer some translations, and that serving all of the diverse groups of janitors in their native language is not feasible.

“We have a staff of over 100 custodians, and a small group of them were dissatisfied with changes that were made about a year and a half ago,” Nickeson said, according to the Post. “There were recourses available to them, and they took the opportunity to use them; however, the issues weren’t resolved to their satisfaction.”

The custodians’ attorney said his clients are not seeking anything that other employers do not provide.

“Other higher education facilities including CU and UNC provide information to their custodial employees in a number of different languages,” Markham is quoted by The Daily Caller as saying.  “We’ve been discussing this with Auraria for a year with no movement on their part, and this is the final step.”

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/14/spanish-speaking-janitors-sue-over-lack-job-instructions-in-spanish/#ixzz2TJG5hARb

 

Obama’s SEAL Team 6 Coverup


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from usjf.net

Posted by NewsEditor

Seal Team Six

 

On August 6, 2011, a military helicopter— Extortion 17— carrying thirty-eight men (including twenty-five of the elite SEAL Team 6, five National Guard and Army Reserve, and eight Afghan commandos) was shot down over Taliban-controlled territory in eastern Afghanistan. They had been on a top secret mission to take out a high-value target.

It was the worst loss of life in a single day since the war in Afghanistan began. Per a 1250-page military report, it was simply the result of a “lucky shot” by Taliban soldiers perched on top of a building. Per families of those killed and military experts at a press conference held on May 9, 2013, this is a lie among a host of other lies.

After the families attended a several hour military briefing about this “lucky shot,” describing what happened and why their sons died, they smelled a rat and started digging around.

Billy and Karen Vaughn, parents of Navy SEAL Aaron C. Vaughn, started poking around at the “official” story and found not a rat, but a stinking swamp, a coverup that went all the way to the top.

When the Vaughns began trying to drain the swamp, they received what the Obama administration is famous for: the shakedown. None other than one of the highest ranking officers in the nation—Admiral William McRaven, commander at U.S. Special Operations Command—paid the Vaughns a little visit, in essence telling them to keep their mouths shut.

What exactly happened on August 6, 2011? What went wrong—or in this case went right that has the Obama administration dispatching high-ranking officers as thugs?

There are two possibilities, according to information revealed at the press conference:

1. The Obama administration sent American soldiers on a suicide mission, or

2. Someone set up our American heroes—that is, had them murdered—that may include the Afghan government—or shockingly may include Barack Hussein Obama himself.

We learned seven major facts at the press conference:

1.  Thirty SEAL Team 6, National Guard, and Army Reserve were packed into a decrepit 1960s era CH-47 helicopter (something, according to military experts, that was unheard of.) Per military experts, special operations were always conducted with the state-of-the-art MH-47 helicopter—the helicopter SEAL Team 6 exclusively trained in. Further, never—ever—were that many special operations personnel packed into a single helicopter. They were always split up into small groups with multiple MH-47s.

2. Although the military could have easily taken out the Taliban positions with a drone strike prior to the operation, as the families were later told, this was not done because there were possible “friendlies” among the Taliban; the United States wanted to “win the minds and hearts of the enemy.”

Billy Vaughn, father of Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn, speaking at the press conference with rage in his voice,blasted this ludicrousness:

Aaron did not become a Navy SEAL Team 6 Gold Squad to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic jihadists. He became a Navy SEAL to fight for this republic and defeat the enemy!

3. Although the military had intel that the Taliban were planning on firing on a helicopter, although an intense battle had been raging for several hours, and although normal protocol mandated that the CH-47 required at least one gunship escort, all normal rules of war were suspended.

But now for the real coverup by the Obama administration:

4. There were eight nameless Afghan commandos onboard the CH-47. Eight Afghan commandos were loaded onto the CH-47 along with their American counterparts; but at the last minute, they were replaced without changing the manifest. It was as if someone knew they were going on a suicide mission and pulled them out. The official in charge of the investigation (General Jeffrey Colt), in his 1250-page report, did not address this fact and did not even mention it. In fact, it is likely these original Afghan commandos contacted the Taliban, telling them the CH-47 was on its way. It appears the Taliban knew the exact time and route the CH-47 would be using; that the only way the “lucky shot” would have been possible with the helicopter thousands of feet in the air in cover of darkness would have been if the Taliban had been tipped off.

5. Everyone on Extortion 17 was immediately cremated without permission from the families, supposedly because the bodies were so badly burned in the crash. According to Charles Strange, father of Navy SEAL Michael Strange, this need to immediately cremate everyone aboard is a complete lie. Taliban on the ground in fact found the bodies of the crew. The Obama administration cremated everyone in order to cover up something.

6. The CH-47 black box was “lost” according to the military investigation—“washed away by an Afghan flood.” As most know, aircraft black boxes don’t get “lost”; they are virtually indestructible and carry a tracking device that makes them easy to locate. It was “lost” in order to cover up something the Obama administration wants to keep hidden.

7. Probably one of the most shocking revelations in the SEAL Team 6 coverup, something that was first brought out during the press conference that shows Obama is no Christian but is in fact a closet Muslim, is that Barack Hussein Obama disallowed the name of Jesus to be spoken during the initial military memorial service in Kabul and permitted a radical Islamic iman to curse our dead heroes.

Let every American demand that whatever Barack Obama is hiding, whatever the military brass is hiding, that it be revealed. America must demand that a Congressional investigation drain the swamp of the Obama administration in order to reveal exactly what sickening secret Barack Hussein Obama is covering up. Not next month. Not next week. Not tomorrow. But today.

Demand an investigation, America.

 

IMPEACH THE S.O.B.!


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.wnd.com

Posted by BURT PRELUTSKY

author-image

For a long time, as much as I wanted to see Obama gone, I opposed the notion of Congress attempting to impeach him. I figured that with the Senate in the hands of Harry Reid, nothing would come of it. What’s more, when it was attempted with Clinton, he came out at the other end more popular than ever, a martyr in the eyes of the left.

But I no longer care about the end result. I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions.

If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, “I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.” No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.

It was all too reminiscent of his speech after the execution of bin Laden, when his use of the personal pronoun would have led you to believe he had personally repelled into the Pakistani courtyard and stormed the villa, guns blazing, and that he’d had the Navy SEALs along just for company.

His defense of spying on reporters was that he was checking out leaks into national security matters. Eric Holder, his right-hand stooge, even boasted that this administration had set a record for prosecuting leakers. The point neither of them mentioned was that the only leaks they pursued were those that made them look bad. Apparently, the leaks to the New York Times in 2012 intended to enhance Obama’s pre-election image as a master of foreign diplomacy went no further than Dianne Feinstein’s fatuous vow to ferret out the guilty parties.

Some of the things this administration does are so dumb that you might imagine they’re auditioning for a sitcom on ABC. For instance, in the midst of the IRS scandal, a scandal so pernicious that even some Democrats are calling it scandalous, we discover that the woman, Sarah Hall Ingram, who was heading up the division that targeted conservative groups and individuals for the sort of hell that only the IRS can dole out is – a drum roll, please – the very person Obama has selected to make sure that Obamacare is enforced, with drawing-and-quartering optional.

To be fair, we have been assured that Ms. Ingram is a “superb civil servant.” Unfortunately, the person who gave her that ringing endorsement is the former acting head of Internal Revenue, Steven Miller, who, when last seen, was lying through his teeth to a congressional committee.

Miller is the fellow Obama fired with much fanfare, about two weeks before he was already scheduled to resign. The question I would like answered is whether Miller will continue to receive his federal pension even when he winds up in a federal prison for perjury and obstruction of justice.

I know I am coming across as something of a scold, and I should probably temper my remarks because I have been provided with so many laughs by these assorted goofballs, I am clearly in their debt. For instance, I actually heard a spokesperson for the IRS say that the targeting of conservative groups prior to the 2012 election had nothing to do with politics. I haven’t heard anything that funny since “The Princess Bride.” Mainly, it reminds me of the scene when the comic villain Vizzini (Wallace Shawn) kept responding to one unpleasant fact after another by sputtering “Inconceivable!” Eventually, his reluctant henchman, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin), has had enough and says, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

In a sane world, wouldn’t someone who denied the targeting by the IRS had anything to do with politics be compelled, by force if necessary, to suggest an alternative explanation? Coincidence, perhaps? Sun spots? Or maybe just one of those crazy things.

Only in the world of fiction would I expect to encounter a president, an attorney general and a former secretary of state so eager to claim that on all of these major issues, one involving the massacre of four Americans, including an ambassador, they were simply out of the loop.

I would suggest that Obama, Holder and Mrs. Clinton, could easily fill in for the three monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, except that I would no doubt be tarred as a racist and a misogynist.

Oh, what the heck! I think I’ll go ahead and do it anyway.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/impeach-the-s-o-b/#JPocUckFjHUMHqAW.99

 

DEMOCRATS TURN ON IRS: ‘THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY’


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.wnd.com

Posted by GARTH KANT

Vow to appoint special prosecutor if agency keeps stonewalling

author-image

WASHINGTON — The threat was addressed to all the witnesses, but it was obvious the congressman had just one in mind, the woman at the center of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., loudly threatened in his opening statement that if witnesses refused to testify, it would leave Congress no option but to appoint a special prosecutor to look into abuse by the IRS.

“There will be hell to pay if that’s the route we choose to go down,” he warned.

But that’s just what Lerner did, refusing to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by invoking her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Lerner said she would not answer questions because the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into the IRS scandal.

Lerner has blamed abusive IRS practices on low-level employees in the Cincinnati office. But IRS sources told National Review, “From the outset, Internal Revenue Service lawyers based in Washington, D.C., provided important guidance on the handling of tea-party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status.”

Lerner heads the IRS unit that oversees applications for groups seeking tax-exempt status. She triggered an uproar nearly two weeks ago when she announced the IRS began targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in 2010.

Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., subpoenaed Lerner to testify Wednesday.  He has accused her of lying to Congress four times last year when lawmakers began looking into complaints of IRS agents asking intrusive questions of tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Lerner presented her side of the argument in an opening statement. She claimed she is innocent of wrongdoing and said that because members had accused her of lying to the committee, she was taking the advice of her attorney to not answer questions.

“I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws or provided false information to this or any other congressional committee,” she said.

Lerner also claimed she had not violated any IRS rules or regulations.

By refusing to testify, Lerner said, “People may assume I have done something wrong.”

“I have not,” she insisted.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., then contended she had waived her Fifth Amendment right by telling her side of the story during an opening statement that Issa said made “assertions.”

“That’s not the way it works,” Gowdy said, prompting applause in the hearing room.

Issa then tried to ask Lerner two questions but she refused to answer both times.

Issa then excused Lerner and her counsel.

Lerner has admitted the IRS harassed hundreds of conservatives over the last two years but there is also evidence she harassed a religious group during her tenure as head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC.)

The Weekly Standard reported the FEC investigated the Christian Coalition in the late 1990′s for allegedly coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office.

The FEC deposed 48 people, forced the Christian Coalition to produce tens of thousands of documents and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating but never found any evidence supporting the accusation.

It was reported last week that IRS agents under Lerner quizzed tea party groups about such information as the content of their prayers. The attorney for the Christian Coalition says the FEC asked equally intrusive questions to his client.

In fact, James Bopp Jr.,testified before the congressional Committee on House Administration in 2003 that FEC attorneys had asked, “[W]hat occurs at Coalition staff prayer meetings” and what churches specific people belonged to. Additionally, pastors were asked about their federal, state and local political activities.

After the Christian Coalition was cleared of any wrongdoing Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC before going to the IRS.

Lerner’s dismissal at Wednesday’s hearing left former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, Treasury Department Inspector General J. Russell George and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin to testify.

Issa would soon become furious over a major development revealed at Wednesday’s hearing that opens new questions about whether the IRS harassment was politically motivated.

He said the committee was just informed the IRS had completed its own investigation confirming abuse of conservative groups six months before the 2012 election but kept the results hidden.

Issa accused the IRS of intentionally misleading Congress by failing to alert lawmakers about the abuse a year ago.

“Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,” Issa said.

“While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General’s report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 – May 3 of 2012 – and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later.”

“Think about it,” Issa continued, “For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.”

Everyone who knew about the extra scrutiny “could have and should been a whistle-blower,” Issa said.

He also accused the Obama administration of placing a “higher priority on deniability than addressing blatant wrongdoing.”

Issa also told George, who’s IRS audit was not completed until a week ago, that he had a legal obligation to inform Congress of his findings as he was completing his audit.

Both Democrat and Republican lawmakers were frustrated with Shulman during Wednesday’s hearing, saying either that he should have known of the targeting of conservatives earlier than he did or he was not being truthful about when he learned about it.

Lawmakers suggested Shulman would have easily known about the problem if he had just asked his staff.

“You made not one inquiry before testifying before Congress about what the truth of that is,” said Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga.

“I’m not saying you were lying; I’m saying you were derelict in inquiring about what the truth was,” he added.

Democrat Lynch essentially did accuse Shulman of lying.

“You misled Congress. Make no question about it,” Lynch told Shulman.

Lynch told Shulman he “did nothing” and “abdicated” his responsibility by not reporting concerns of abuse when he first learned in the spring of 2012 that IRS agents were targeting conservatives.

Shulman tried to explain it was his understanding conservative groups were not the only ones getting such invasive scrutiny.

Lynch appeared frustrated with the answer.

In another development Wednesday, the IRS failed to comply with a Senate request for crucial evidence.

The House Ways and Means Committee demanded records of IRS communications with the White House and Treasury Department that could reveal what the Obama administration knew about the targeting of conservatives and when it knew it.

The IRS missed the May 21 deadline to respond to a letter in which top committee members asked, “Did the IRS at any time notify the White House of the targeting of conservative or any other groups?”

The White House said Monday that Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior officials learned last month about the Treasury Department inspector general’s inquiry into IRS abuse. The White House said the officials did not inform President Obama about the review  because it was not complete and he did not learn of the abuse until news reports May 10.

It’s unlikely anyone at the IRS will lose their job over the scandal.

“Why weren’t more people fired?” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., demanded at Tuesday’s hearing.

Politco discovered it’s not so easy.

Most employees involved in the targeting of conservatives are covered by protections for federal workers that include a long series of steps including two rounds before boards of appeal that would take more than a year.

No one yet has apparently been formally reprimanded, no less fired.

Latest developments in IRS scandal:

  • A group of leading conservatives today released a letter to the House and Senate Republican leadership, and their Republican Conferences, demanding legislation be passed to compensate those groups and individuals who were targeted for political discrimination by the Obama administration’s IRS.
  • An investigation by Cincinnati Fox 19 reporter Ben Swann reveals how claims of “rogue” low-level IRS employees in Cincinnati targeting conservative groups are “falling apart.”
  • Bonnie Esrig, former IRS Cincinnati manager, rejects the idea low-level employees were responsible for targeting conservative and tea-party groups. Esrig tells NBC News that even if an employee went “rogue,” management is required to supervise and sign off on everything they do.
  • Former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis said the growing IRS scandal has robbed Democrats of the so-called “trust edge” they held over Republicans and is now jeopardizing hopes that Hillary Clinton will replace President Obama in 2016, the Washington Examiner reports.

The IRS controversy is just one of a list of scandals plaguing the Obama White House. Others include the still-unanswered questions about the Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans and the the Department of Justice’s secret seizure of the telephone records of reporters covering Washington.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/democrats-turn-on-irs-there-will-be-hell-to-pay/#Ox44ZQ6oQWtv5Hc7.99

 

THIS MAN HAS PROOF THAT OBAMA IS GAY


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.vice.com

Posted by Aleks Eror

This American Presidential election race hasn’t been a pleasant thing to watch. In fact, it’s been a well-manicured, expensively-buffed torrent of slander, seeking to debase candidates on both sides. All the usual smear campaign tactics have been employed, as you’d expect, but a man named Jerome R. Corsi (above) has a new one to unleash: that Obama is a closeted homosexual.

Yep, I know, big news right? Big, crazy, made-up news that somehow typifies American political discourse. Anyway, the weird thing is that Jerome isn’t just some hillbilly crackpot making outrageous, homophobic claims at an NRA barbecue, but a Harvard-educated journalist who writes for World Net Daily, an ultra-conservative news organization that boasts headlines like “Kids Drink ‘Gay’ Kool-Aid“. He also likes to appear on white supremacist radio shows, like The Political Cesspool, which might give you an idea of the kind of guy he is.

Between being a right wing media sensation, he’s found the time to write a couple of books on Obama – books that allege he was molested as a child, is a Communist and, of course, that he’s gay. I called him up to find out where these accusations came from.


Is this real life?

VICE: So how did you stumble across these allegations that Obama is gay?
Jerome R. Corsi: I started researching Obama in 2006 and wrote two books on him. In 2008, I wrote The Obama Nation, then, in 2011, I wrote a book about the birth certificate debate. The issue of Obama’s sexuality has had rumours surrounding it since I first started studying him. There were rumours even when he was the US senate, in fact. I just needed some sources to validate it.

Why are those rumours only coming out around election time?
Well, Obama has been weakened significantly since he was first elected, when it was difficult to criticise him at all. More and more people are starting to resent or oppose Obama, so, as this happens, more people are ready to talk about these issues.

And one of the first people to talk was Larry Sinclair, right? Could you tell me more about him?
Larry wrote a book about having two homosexual encounters with Obama in 1999, when Obama was state senator. 

Larry’s not the most reliable of sources, though. He’s a self-confessed fraudster, wanted in Arizona.
Yeah, I didn’t believe everything he said, but his story was always consistent. Also, a guy called Daniel Parisi brought a defamation case against Larry for writing the book, but a federal district judge threw it out of court, which isn’t to say Larry was telling the truth, but this judge clearly didn’t think he was lying either. That was the turning point for me. Also, the fact that in his story he was the initiator, always made me think there must be something to it, because he didn’t try to make himself look like the good guy. He said he got in a limousine and told the driver to drive around, cruising for guys.

Who was the driver?
I don’t know. That’s always been one of the problems with Larry’s story. He supposedly said to the driver,
“I want a guy” and the driver said, “I got the exact guy for ya,” then took him to meet Obama.  

Right. And what about Donald Young? How does he fit into the story?
Donald Young was a black choirmaster who was killed execution-style in Chicago in 2007. Rumours were that Young had been having a homosexual relationship with Obama and was murdered so the story couldn’t get out.

You’ve also talked a lot about the mysterious wedding ring Obama wore in his youth.
Ah, yes. Obama had been wearing this ring on his wedding finger since he was at Occidental College. When he was president of the law review magazine at Harvard, they did a mock issue and mentioned how he would always deflect questions about the ring. There are also photos of him in Africa in ’85 or ’86 wearing the ring, so he had it on for at least a decade before he got married. A lot of people suggest it was either to keep women away, or to act as some kind of wink-wink gay sign.

Yeah, that, or just a fashion accessory, I suppose. There are suggestions something happened with his roommate too, right?
Yes. A guy called John Drew said he and Obama had lunch together one day, and saw Obama come in with his Pakistani roommate, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo. Drew told me in an interview that he was convinced that they were lovers at the time. Candoo has been married and has children, but he wouldn’t be the first guy in history to have a family and be gay or bisexual.

I guess we’ll have to take his word as gospel then. I thought Obama was supposed to be attracted to older white men, though?
Yep, that’s been the story all along; older white men. I’ve found two or three who claimed to have had relationships with Obama, but they won’t go on the record.

I can imagine. They probably don’t want to be executed, right? What first made you think that Obama is gay?
From the very first time I watched him from the senate gallery, I suspected that he might be. The way he talked to other men was very intimate and over-comfortable, y’know? Then, when I started preparing interviews for The Obama Nation, I was told stories about Obama being gay almost from the first confidential interview I had.
There’s a big culture of homosexuality in politics in Chicago. There’s a place called the Purple Hotel, where male politicians would allegedly rent a room, take crystal meth and special K and invite male and female prostitutes for a sex party.

Do you think that Obama’s kids are his?
I’m not going to answer that. I’ve got some information on it, but I don’t have enough to be really confident. It’s certainly a question that I’ve been thinking about, too.

You’ve also said that Obama is a Communist. Where did you get that from?
In his autobiography, Obama talks about this guy Frank who he spent a lot of time with as a kid. Frank turned out to be Frank Marshall Davis, who was a member of the Communist party in the 1930s. There’s a suggestion that Davis is Obama’s real biological father, but regardless of that, he’s definitely his intellectual father. A lot of themes Obama adopts were first expressed by Davis and Davis was definitely a commie. Obama took out all the references to Davis in the audio version of his book, so he was clearly trying to hide it.

Nowadays, Obama is continuing with themes of redistributing income and has made it abundantly clear to people that he really does follow this socialist model. It has been well established in American politics that Obama is a leftist, a socialist and virtually a Communist.

Do you think he’ll turn America into a Communist society if he’s re-elected?
I believe he will do everything he can to try and achieve that goal, yes.

And you’ve mentioned this guy Jeremiah Wright before, who arranges “down-low” marriages of gay men to women who can’t find a husband. The thing is, Michelle Obama is quite an attractive, outgoing woman – why would she agree to an arrangement like that?
I’ll be happy to give her to you! [Laughs] I think the general perception of Michelle in the United States is that she’s quite difficult, quite bitter and quite angry. She gives off that persona at conventions and appearances where she’s the loving mother and all the rest of it, but I think there’s another side to her.

I also read your article that suggested Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi, was also gay.
I didn’t say he was gay outright, I just said there was a lot of evidence that suggested he was gay.
Also, Obama’s state department is very heavily recruiting LGBT for foreign service. I may have mentioned in the article that there was at least one incident where, in Pakistan, our embassy held a gay pride day and it caused a riot in Pakistan.

Do you think the riots in Benghazi were caused by people finding out about ambassador Stevens’ sexuality?
I don’t have any proof of it, but it’s certainly occurred to me, because it looks like he was targeted. It’s odd, because Stevens helped the rebels, so he should have been a friend, but then they ended up targeting him. There has to be some explanation why Stevens was targeted and why Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to shut down an inquiry, rather than answering questions.

Some people would say that this is all just political slander, in light of the fact that it’s election year and these allegations just happen to be coming out now.
I think the reason people are coming out with this stuff now is because there’s an increasing sense that Obama’s going to lose, so sources are freer to release information than they were six months ago. I think, if he loses, you’re going to see a huge increase in Obama’s male ex-lovers telling their stories.

Why exactly is this of so much interest to you? I’ve read articles where people suggest your obsession with Obama reflects your latent homosexuality.
Yeah, some media has devoted more time to investigating me than it has Obama, but my sexuality is pretty simple; I’ve been married a long time and have always been heterosexual. I’m not antagonistic towards gays – I’ve had many gay friends – but I’m not gay myself.

Oh. So what’s the big deal if Obama’s gay or not? I had you down as some homophobic whackjob who wanted to prove Obama was gay out of hatred for homosexuals.
No, the issue for me is hypocrisy. I might have some attitudes towards sexuality, but God says to not make judgements about other people, so I refuse to get into it; it’s not an issue. But hypocrisy is an issue, especially in politics. The majority of people aren’t going to care if he is gay, but he has to be forthright about it. If he lies about it, it becomes a totally different issue. It’s the same as his birth certificate.
He was happy to be “born in Kenya” while he was trying to sell books, but as soon as he started running for President, he completely changed his story.

He was forthright about his drug use, though. Why wouldn’t he be forthright about this?
They knew they had to be open about that issue, so they tried to turn it into an aspect of his cool, youthful persona, but I think they viewed his homosexuality as a liability, so they lied about it. Politicians who think they have to lie to create this mythical persona are living in a past era, and if they lie about their persona, they also tend to lie about their politics.

Until people like you uncover the truth?
I don’t take any great joy in doing it, it’s just what I do. The people are intelligent; you can’t lie to them forever.

 

Alleged Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan Receives Promotion, Legion Of Merit


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.duffelblog.com

Posted by DICK SCUTTLEBUTT

Nidal Hasan Legion of Merit

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KSArmy officials have confirmed that Nidal Hasan was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel yesterday in a small and solemn ceremony in the gathering room of Fort Leavenworth’s maximum security prison.

The alleged mastermind behind the Fort Hood Shootings was ecstatic about the crossing of a major milestone in his military career and thanked all those in attendance. Meanwhile, protests were held outside the base, with people chanting “justice for the victims” and “don’t promote.” One participant stated that this ceremony was a “slap in the face of all the victims” from the massacre. Base officials refused to comment, declaring that Hassan’s promotion was decided months ago by personnel management officials.

When asked about the promotion, Major General William Hewitt, Commanding General of Human Resources Command (HRC), stated that Hasan’s personnel record was not negatively flagged by the chain of command and that by regulation the “Army had no choice but to award promotion to the service member.” When asked to elaborate about how such an oversight could occur, the general stated that the Army’s electronic human resources systems were undergoing upgrades that may have affected Hasan’s status.

“HRC has been physically migrating its systems to a new building at Fort Knox [Human Resources Command Headquarters] after the discovery of asbestos and mold in the current data storage warehouse. Unfortunately the files have been moved to a computer system that is not yet Y2K compliant. This might have affected the records of hundreds of personnel, including Hasan.”

During an investigation of Hasan’s service record, The Duffel Blog obtained several evaluation reports detailing the officer’s performance history. Of note is one report covering the period during Hasan’s alleged shooting spree. His superior officer, Colonel Nathan Butterworth, stated that Hasan has an excellent record stained with the occasional blemish.

“While not the best team player, Major Hasan has a peerless tactical mind with a demonstrated record of close quarters combat marksmanship.” Butterworth goes on to state “Major Hasan is an unparalleled asset to the Army. His capability to think like the enemy, allows him the ability to provide the military with a perspective not seen by the rest of the organization.”

Hasan also received a Legion of Merit from his superiors at Darnell Army Medical Center at Fort Hood upon Hasan’s transfer to Fort Leavenworth. Standard practice in the Army is to award soldiers a “Permanent Change of Station” award reflecting the sum total of their contributions while at their installation. Since Hasan’s movement to Leavenworth’s maximum security facility was technically a Permanent Change of Station, he was submitted for the award as a formality. The Legion of Merit was awarded during the same ceremony as Hasan’s promotion, although the officer presenting the award was forced to move Hasan’s beard to one side to affix it to his uniform.

The award now hangs inside Hasan’s cell, below a framed letter from Osama Bin Laden, congratulating Hasan on the “successful slaughter of dozens of infidels.”

Luckily, said Hewitt, the error was caught in time to prevent the promotion of SPC Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked over 40,000 top-secret military and diplomatic documents to the WikiLeaks website in the largest confidential document dump in American history. His adverse action flag was restored before he could attain the rank of Sergeant.

Manning was reportedly disappointed in being removed from consideration, as he had already begun studying for the Sergeant Promotion Board, but at least has the consolation of having received a Good Conduct Medal during the interim. It is unknown at this time how many personnel received promotions and awards in error, and the Army Inspector General’s office is continuing to investigate.

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/03/alleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-hasan-receives-promotion-legion-of-merit/#ixzz2TzyvZiU0

 

More Obama aides knew of IRS audit; Obama not told


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from AP

Posted by CHARLES BABINGTON, AP

Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jim Kuhnhenn and researcher Monika Mathur contributed to this report.

news-politics-20130520-US--IRS-Political.Groups

FILE – In this May 15, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in th…

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior advisers knew in late April that an impending report was likely to say the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups, President Barack Obama’s spokesman disclosed Monday, expanding the circle of top officials who knew of the audit beyond those named earlier.

But McDonough and the other advisers did not tell Obama, leaving him to learn about the politically perilous results of the internal investigation from news reports more than two weeks later, officials said.

The Treasury Department also told the White House twice in the weeks leading up to the IRS disclosure that the tax agency planned to make the targeting public, a Treasury official said.

The apparent decision to keep the president in the dark about the matter underscores the White House’s cautious legal approach to controversies and reflects a desire by top advisers to distance Obama from troubles threatening his administration.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney defended keeping the president out of the loop on the Internal Revenue Service audit, saying Obama was comfortable with the fact that “some matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them.”

“It is absolutely a cardinal rule as we see it that we do not intervene in ongoing investigations,” Carney said.

Republicans, however, are accusing the president of being unaware of important happenings in the government he oversees.

“It seems to be the answer of the administration whenever they’re caught doing something they shouldn’t be doing is, ‘I didn’t know about it’,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told CBS News. “And it causes me to wonder whether they believe willful ignorance is a defense when it’s your job to know.”

Obama advisers argue that the outcry from Republicans would be far worse had McDonough or White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told the president about the IRS audit before it became public, thereby raising questions about White House interference.

Still, the White House’s own shifting information about who knew what and when is keeping the focus of the IRS controversy on the West Wing.

When Carney first addressed the matter last week, he said only that Ruemmler had been told around April 22 that an inspector general audit was being concluded at a Cincinnati IRS office that screens applications for organizations’ tax-exempt status. He said the audit was described to the counsel’s office “very broadly.”

But on Monday, Carney said lower-ranking staffers in the White House counsel’s office first learned of the report one week earlier, on April 16. When Ruemmler was later alerted, she was told specifically that the audit was likely to conclude that IRS employees improperly scrutinized organizations by looking for words like “tea party” and “patriot.” Ruemmler then told McDonough, deputy chief of staff Mark Childress, and other senior advisers, but not Obama.

The Treasury official said Monday that the department twice passed on information to the White House about the IRS’ plans to disclose the political targeting. Childress and Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson were in communication on the matter, as were lawyers at both the White House and Treasury.

In the first instance, Treasury officials told the White House that Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, was considering making a public apology in a speech.

Around the same time, Treasury relayed to the White House that Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller expected to be asked about the matter in congressional testimony on April 25, but the issue was not raised.

However, the Treasury official said the department did not tell the White House about the IRS’ final decision for Lerner to apologize for the targeting during a conference on May 10. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and insisted on anonymity.

The IRS is an independent agency within the Treasury Department. Because of that independent status, the official said Treasury deferred to the IRS in its decision about how to make the targeting public.

Despite the notifications from the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, the White House insists it did not know the conclusions of the inspector general report until it was made public.

Members of Congress sent the IRS at least eight letters since 2011 asking about complaints from tea party groups that they were being harassed by the IRS. Many of those lawmakers are livid that the IRS chose to reveal that conservative groups were being targeted at a legal conference instead of telling Congress.

A new Pew Research Center poll shows 42 percent of Americans think the Obama administration was “involved” in the IRS targeting of conservative groups, while 31 percent say it was a decision made solely by employees at the IRS.

The IRS matter is one of three controversies that have consumed the White House over the past week. In each instance, officials have tried to put distance between the president and questionable actions by people within his administration.

As with the IRS investigation, the White House says Obama learned only from news reporters that the Justice Department had subpoenaed phone records from journalists at The Associated Press as part of a leaks investigation. And faced with new questions about the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, Obama’s advisers have pinned responsibility on the CIA for crafting talking points that downplayed the potential of terrorism, despite the fact that the White House was a part of the process.

Former White House officials say a president has little choice but to distance himself from investigations and then endure accusations of being out of touch, or worse.

“It’s a tough balance,” said Sara Taylor Fagen, who was White House political director for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.

“With a scandal, there’s no way to win,” said Fagen, whom the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed and sharply questioned in a probe of dismissed U.S. attorneys. “There may never have been any wrongdoing by anyone in the White House, on any of these issues,” she said, “but once the allegations are made, you can’t win.”

A White House peeking into an ongoing investigations can trigger a political uproar. A well-known case involved President Richard Nixon trying to hinder the FBI’s probe of the Watergate break-in.

In a less far-reaching case in 2004, the Bush White House acknowledged that its counsel’s office learned of a Justice Department investigation into whether Sandy Berger – the national security adviser under President Bill Clinton – had removed classified documents from the National Archives. Democrats said the White House hoped to use the information to help Bush’s re-election campaign.

In the current IRS matter, two congressional committees are stepping up their investigations this week with hearings during which IRS and Treasury officials will be questioned closely about what they knew and when.

Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman heads to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, giving lawmakers their first opportunity to question the man who ran the agency when agents were improperly targeting tea party groups. The Senate Finance Committee wants to know why Shulman didn’t tell Congress – even after he was briefed in 2012 – that agents had been singling out conservative political groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

Also testifying will be Miller, who took over as acting commissioner in November, when Shulman’s five-year term expired. Last week, Obama forced Miller to resign.

On Wednesday, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin will testify before the House oversight committee.

Treasury inspector general J. Russell George says he told Wolin about the subject of the IRS inquiry last summer.

In a related matter, the IRS acknowledged Monday that an official testified to Congress about tax-exempt matters long after her duties supposedly had shifted to the rollout of Obama’s health care law.

Republicans point to Sarah Hall Ingram’s history at IRS as they question the agency’s ability to properly oversee aspects of Obama’s health care overhaul. The IRS will play a major role in determining benefits and penalties under the new law.

The IRS had said last week that Ingram shifted to overseeing the health care law rollout in December 2010, well before alarm bells went off at headquarters that a unit of the tax exempt division was targeting tea party groups for extra scrutiny.

But records show she testified to Congress in her capacity as head of the tax-exempt office as recently as last year.

Monday the IRS said in a statement that Ingram “was in a unique position to testify” about tax-exempt policies in May 2012. It said Ingram “still formally held” the title of IRS commissioner of tax exempt and government entities, even though “she was assigned full-time to (health care law) activities since December 2010.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says Congress needs to find out what Ingram and other officials knew, and when they knew it.

———

 

‘It made him look like a butler’: Retired general blasts President Obama for ordering U.S. Marine to break military rules by holding an umbrella


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from www.dailymail.co.uk

Posted by DAVID MARTOSKO IN WASHINGTON, JAMES NYE and DANIEL BATES

  • The President unwittingly forced two U.S Marines to break protocol and regulations as he ordered them to use umbrellas
  • Former United States Air Force Lieutenant Thomas McInerney criticized the President for making the officers look like butlers
  • Came as he was assailed by questions over three scandals engulfing White House during Rose Garden press conference with Turkish Prime Minister
  • Answered questions on Benghazi where no marines guarded ambassador Chris Stevens despite his repeated requests for better protection

President Obama humiliated the marine who he asked to hold his umbrella by making him ‘look like a butler’, a respected military general claimed today.

Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’ by making the soldier shelter him from a shower.

He also said that the President has plenty of aides so did not understand why one of them could not have held the umbrella.

Scroll Down for Video

Hoping for a break in the storm

Hoping for a break in the storm: Obama faced a barrage of questions over three simultaneous scandals engulfing his administration

Broken Regulations

Broken Regulations: US Marines hold umbrellas during light rain for US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The President caused a stir when he summoned over two marines to keep him dry at a press conference in the Rose Garden.

The marines held an umbrella over the President and the Turkish Prime Minister individually as Obama made jokes about the weather.

However, for some the move was not a laughing matter particularly as it is a breach of protocol for marines to hold umbrellas while in uniform.

Lt Gen McInerney told MailOnline that he found it particularly insulting how the President at one point his his hand under the marine’s arm ‘like he wasn’t doing a good job or something’.

He said: ‘The President has stood in the rain before without an umbrella and a marine would generally stand there without holding an umbrella.’

‘He isn’t some kind of butler or something.

‘It makes the other guy (the other marine) look like a butler too.’

‘I think it’s a lack of respect for the marine, that’s what I think.’

‘I don’t understand why one of his aides could not have held the umbrella. The marine is a warrior but the aides are not.’

Lt Gen McInerney, 76, served in Vietnam and fought with NATO and was commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska before retiring.

He said: ‘If I was his (the marine’s) commander…I’d say good job, you did what he wanted you to do but you can’t, really he has to keep his comments to himself because if you say anything you’re going to get in trouble.’

‘Any time a marine has said something…one general who spoke out, he got fired, he got canned from his job.’

Lt Gen McInerney also lashed out at the President for not doing enough to support soldiers when they return home from combat.’

He said: ‘The President talks a good line but he doesn’t follow a good line. These guys are coming home and they’re not getting what they are supposed to get.’

‘The guy’s (Obama) got to get real and he’s got to start doing stuff the right way and answering questions in the right manner, not changing subject in the middle of the interview.’

According to Marine Corps regulations, not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express permission of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corp Manual, which is the bible for all soldiers serving, specifically states that a soldier’s uniform dress code does not allow the carrying of an umbrella and ‘no officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.’

Indeed, male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.

Regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, rules out any use or carrying of an umbrella while a Marine is in uniform.

However, female Marines ‘may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered.’

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President's actions

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President’s actions

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Many commentators found the use of the marines to be particularly insensitive, given the President was answering questions on Benghazi.

The lack of marines protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Libyan consulate and the failure to deploy marines to protect him amid the outbreak of violence has come under fire ever since last year’s attack on September 11.

Usually a marine guard would be in force at an overseas diplomatic compound but in Benghazi the government opted to use a private Libyan security team.

Stevens had made repeated appeals for improved security at the Libyan base but to no avail.

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a CIA security team stationed a mile away who heard gunshots and intervened to try and help Stevens. They were also killed in an attack on their compound.

When violence broke out there were also delays sending in marines to assist.

A rapid response team were twice told to stand down amid the chaos while reports at the time said the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team was delayed because the state department ordered them to deplane and change into civilian clothing.

Answering questions on Benghazi, President Obama said the government was ‘ continuing to review our security at high-threat diplomatic posts’ in light of the attack.

At the press conference originally intended to be a victory lap for the United States’ relationship with Turkey, Obama stood alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and fielded questions which quickly shifted to the trio of scandals that are engulfing his administration.

Critical: Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ¿lack of respect¿

Critical: Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to 'learn the lessons of Benghazi' but he called it an 'incident' rather than a terror attack

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to ‘learn the lessons of Benghazi’ but he called it an ‘incident’ rather than a terror attack

He also dodged questions about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and said ‘I offer no apologies’ for the Department of Justice’s secret seizure of reporter’s phone records in search of a classified intelligence leak.

He has been under growing pressure over these issues and Benghazi in recent weeks.

It has emerged that his State Department political appointees intervened in the aftermath of the 2012 terror attack, in a process that resulted in a misleading set of talking points which ignored terrorism in favor of a more muted explanation, in the midst of a re-election campaign.

Addressing the Benghazi fallout pre-emptively before Erdogan spoke, Obama said that ‘at my direction, we’ve been taking a series of steps that were recommended by the review board.’

He spoke of various measures he was recommending, to ‘learn the lessons of Benghazi.’ But he referred to the murders of four Americans there as an ‘incident,’ not a terror attack.

He said: ‘That’s why, at my direction, we’ve been taking a series of steps that were recommended by the review board after the incident.  We’re continuing to review our security at high-threat diplomatic posts, including the size and nature of our presence; improving training for those headed to dangerous posts; increasing intelligence and warning capabilities.’

‘And I’ve directed the Defense Department to ensure that our military can respond lightning quick in times of crisis.’

And his remarks focused on ‘properly funding’ the State Department and Pentagon-run security at diplomatic posts, shifting the burden to Congress to ‘provide resources and new authorities so that we can implement all the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board which issued a report last month’.

He said: ‘We’re going to need Congress’s help in terms of increasing the number of our Marine Corps Guard who protect our embassies.

‘We’re not going to be able to do this alone,’ Obama said. ‘We need Congress.’

The review board is under fire for failing to interview high-level Obama administration figures, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Interviewing Clinton, Republicans on Capitol Hill have said, would have provided insights into who was accountable for lapses in security that left the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya vulnerable to attack.

The Tea Party Patriots and other right-wing groups provided a powerful rallying force during the 2010 midterm elections, but were targeted the same year by the IRS

The Tea Party Patriots and other conservative groups provided a powerful rallying force during the 2010 midterm elections. It was around the same time that the Obama administration’s IRS began targeting such groups that applied for tax-exempt nonprofit status

But despite Obama’s plea for more funding, money was not an issue in the months before the Benghazi attack when consular officials in Libya asked the State Department for more security forces.

Those requests were repeatedly denied, and neither Hillary Clinton nor other State Department officials have raised a lack of funding as the reason more special forces were not on the scene.

On the night of the Benghazi attack, the State Department refused to authorize an existing special forces team in the Libyan capital city of Tripoli to board a military C-130 plane headed to Benghazi, despite their readiness to intervene.

The Obama administration said later that the decision was made because the forces would not have arrived at the consulate, which was under attack, in time to make a difference.

The State Department has been silent on the question of how it knew how long the armed, military-style assault from Islamist terror groups would last.

Obama addressed the need to for ”increasing intelligence and warning capabilities’ at ‘diplomatic posts around the world,’ and asked Congress for money to ‘increase the Marine Corps contingents’ at State Department facilities.

On the IRS scandal, Obama said he knew nothing of what was going on.

‘My main concern is fixing a problem,’ Obama said.

‘It is just simply unacceptable for there to be even a hint of partisanship’ in the IRS.

Obama calls in marines to hold umbrellas

Barack Obama (R) and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan hold a joint news conference in the White House Rose Garden, but most of the focus was on three unfolding White House scandals

Barack Obama (R) and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan hold a joint news conference in the White House Rose Garden, but most of the focus was on three unfolding White House scandals

He also  expressed ‘complete confidence’ in Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department deputies saw two months of phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors.

Holder has told Congress he recused himself from the investigation, but admitted Wednesday during a Capitol Hill hearing that he failed to put that recusal in writing.

The investigation centered on a secret CIA operation in Yemen that foiled a terror plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner.

AP were believed to have received a leak of information from a government source.

‘Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,’ Obama said.

‘I offer no apologies’ for putting a high premium on national security, he said, while also allowing that the First Amendment’s press freedoms are important to him philosophically.

Despite the wide range of topics up for discussion it is the umbrella incident which certainly captured chatter online.

A mock Twitter account was set up for the marine involved while numerous videos appeared online poking fun at the issue.

It doesn't rain it...Air Force One Staff Sergeant Brian Barnett is pictured following behind the President with an umbrella as he boards Air Force One in 2011

It doesn’t rain it…Air Force One Staff Sergeant Brian Barnett is pictured following behind the President with an umbrella as he boards Air Force One in 2011

Keeping dry: Many different individuals have held umbrellas for the commander in chief

Keeping dry: Many different individuals have held umbrellas for the commander in chief

Not singing in the rain: President Obama was pictured struggling with an umbrella himself in New Orleans in 2010 but he managed to laugh at himself moments later

Not singing in the rain: President Obama was pictured struggling with an umbrella himself in New Orleans in 2010 but he managed to laugh at himself moments later

Not singing in the rain: President Obama was pictured struggling with an umbrella himself in New Orleans in 2010 but he managed to laugh at himself moments later

It is not the first time Obama has struggled when it comes to keeping dry.

Often assistants are on hand to offer the President cover – be it leaving a car or embarking Air Force One.

On one occasion the President’s own struggles navigating an umbrella showed why.

He managed to smile for cameras in 2010 when he got in a muddle trying to get an umbrella over a fence.

He was trying to do the gentlemanly thing and protect wife, Michelle, from the rain.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325893/President-Obama-makes-U-S-Marine-break-rules-does-look-happy-it.html#ixzz2TbYxIPFB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Retired 4 star Admiral Blows Whistle on Benghazi new Evidence


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.politisite.com

Posted by Doc Vega

A lot has been said and written, but this promises to break the case wide open!

Ambassador Stevens carried through the streets of Benghazi for 5 hours while US media alleged he was being helped to the hospital? More Obama White House lies!

Ambassador Stevens carried through the streets of Benghazi for 5 hours while US media alleged he was being helped to the hospital? More Obama White House lies!

There have been many theories and accusations about the Benghazi fiasco that not only cost Ambassador J. Christian Stevens his life, but the lives of his staff and one Navy Seal body-guard as well. This action which led to a complete conflagration of terrorist attacks against US diplomatic buildings throughout the Middle East and North Africa still remains largely uninvestigated by the government, unprosecuted by AG Eric Holder’s Depart of Justice, and refuses to bring the guilty parties to justice while many know the truth and are not coming forward. Even though President Obama is implicated in this oversees tragedy still the truth has not emerged.

That has all changed. Finally, an authoritative figure with the proper credentials has stepped up to the plate to tell the true story of what did happen without the lies and cover-ups that have so far kept those guilty of murder from standing trial. The admission on the part of this man will likely blow the Benghazi scandal wide open and lead to arrests if we can get our legal system to act as it should. That, however, is a big if.

Related: Read Letter: Special Ops Vets Demand Benghazi Congressional Investigation

The story as it truly unfolded

According to a report from the Washington Times, retired 4 Star Admiral James Lyons reveals the entire plot that led to the deaths of Americans in Libya that could have been prevented, who gave the orders, and why events took place as they tragically did. Admiral James Lyons is probably the highest ranking figure ever to intervene in a federal government criminal case, and testify. Thanks to this man’s dedication to his country and the truth, we will finally know the truth and who was responsible.

In his words Lyons says that the attack on Benghazi was a bungled kidnapping attempt to be perpetrated upon Ambassador Stevens. This was to appear to be a hostage exchange for a terrorist prisoner who was to be released in trade for a supposedly captured US ambassador. The trade would have been for Omar Abdel Rahman an international prisoner, known as the Blind Sheikh.

This apparent abduction by terrorists of our ambassador and then negotiated trade for the Blind Sheikh would have been the “October Surprise” that would have elevated President Obama’s flagging popularity and boosted his approval ratings for a re-election. A dramatic prisoner exchange that saved our ambassador’s life However, something went horribly wrong. A cunning and illegal bit of treachery by the Obama White House turned into something entirely different. Obama’s October surprise turned into a carnage orchestrated by the White House itself as the President, Leon Panetta, and CIA Director, David Petraeus watched via a UAV real-time feed as a 7 hour attack on the Benghazi Embassy raged. Reportedly, stand down orders were given several times to different units within striking distance.

A plot of pure deception

With what should have been only a staged kidnapping of Ambassador J. Christian Stevens, instead, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty refused a stand down order and began doing their job of protecting the ambassador using force. Immediately the well-trained Seals began inflicting heavy casualties upon the terrorists who thought they were merely in a cake walk to abduct Ambassador Stevens without mishap. As a result of the plan going awry, a massive attack arose from the anger of the terrorists who felt they had been betrayed by President Obama. In the aftermath of the battle which saw Navy Seal Glen Doherty was killed after the embassy had been overrun along with the ambassador’s staff. Ambassador Steven’s whose body showed up 5 hours later at a Benghazi hospital supposedly overcome by smoke as the initial press reports indicated was, in fact, raped, tortured, and dragged around Benghazi in retaliation for the botched Obama White House plan.

Obama hands over Libya to Al Qaeda

Was this just a freak occurrence that belies the true nature of dealings in Libya with American diplomatic efforts, just one glitch in normal standard operating procedure? No, according to former Admiral Lyons and many others such as Glen Beck, who have all uncovered evidence that lead to much more sinister deeds being undertaken. Evidence of a working relationship between the US and its alleged terrorist enemies had already delivered Libya to the Al Qaeda terrorist organization through infiltration of the government, media, and general society prior to the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi that toppled the dictator last year. That the US has worked with Al Qaeda awarding them security contracts for all US embassies and consulates as well as border protection has instead allowed Libya to become a haven for numerous terrorist operators who have automatic access to Libya’s territory to carry out their training. All this with the support and blessing of the Obama administration. This is not only unthinkable, but beyond excuse or rationalization. There should already be indictments for many in the state department, in the DOJ, all the way up to the oval office, yet, so far nothing has been done.

Treason plain and simple

It goes even farther than that. Evidence indicates that Ambassador Stevens was being used as an arms dealer to supply Jihadists in the region to support yet another uprising in Syria. Just prior to the murder of our ambassador, he was trying to locate guns that had been walked across Libya’s border to other countries just as the ATF had done in operation Fast and Furious on the border of Mexico. These are not the actions of inexperience or bad intelligence. They are the actions of traitorous intention. President Obama will, no doubt, be linked to these deaths and operations if Congress will only act, and do its duty in prosecuting a treasonous president who is endangering national security.

There is no where else for a Congressional investigation to turn other than naming the conspirators, determining when officials knew, and assembling the evidence that murder was committed on behalf of the White House to silence those who knew and could testify. Through out the Obama presidency over the last four years the administration has master minded operations that have caused numerous controversies and crises.

When will the GOP take action?

The Republicans have missed opportunities to discredit the President, to impeach Obama in the wake of waging war against Libya without Congressional approval, and allowed executive privilege to  quash subpoenaed demands for evidence on Fast and Furious never released by AG Eric Holder. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has refused to exercise initiative whenever the GOP could have used much-needed momentum to stem the tide against the incessant assaults against state’s rights, constitutional rights, and the traditional institutions of America. Will the recent damning evidence now uncovered over the Benghazi fiasco thanks to Admiral James Lyons be implemented to convict the President of potential high treason, or will we see yet another case of criminal acts ignored and hidden at the expense of the American people? If you bother to take interest and act as a responsible citizens contact your congressman and demand action!

 

The most honest athlete in America? Baseball player overpaid by $500 THOUSAND returns cash to his team


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Posted by DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Jeremy Affeldt just may be the most honest athlete in America.

In 2010, the relief pitcher for the San Francisco Giants says he was overpaid by $500,000 thanks to a contract error that wrongly awarded him $4.5 million instead of the $4 million previously agreed upon. Sealing the deal, the mistake was signed off by both him and his team before it was caught.

When Affeldt realized the 12.5 percent pay increase he says he returned the extra money and asked that his contract be rewritten.

No thief: Jeremy Affeldt of the San Francisco Giants claims that in 2010 his team over payed him by $500,000 but catching the mistake he gave it back and asked for a new contract

Honest man: Jeremy Affeldt of the San Francisco Giants claims that in 2010 his team over paid him by $500,000 but catching the mistake he gave it back and asked for a new contract

Affeldt reveals the pricy clerical error in his new book, To Stir a Movement, while describing his agent, the Players Association and the Giant's assistant general manager all telling him he could keep the money

Admission: Affeldt reveals the pricy clerical error in his new book, To Stir a Movement, while describing his agent, the Players Association and the Giant’s assistant general manager all telling him he could keep the money

Affeldt, who describes himself as an avid Christian and father, details the six-digit mistake in his new book, To Stir a Movement.

He claims that the Players Association, his agent Michael Moye as well as Giants assistant general manager Bobby Evans all approved of him keeping the $500,000 after he brought it to their attention.

As he recalls of his agent’s reaction in his book, recently reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle:

‘You know what? As your agent I’ve got to tell you that legally you can keep it. As a man who represents integrity, I’m saying you should give it back.’

And that’s exactly what he did.

‘I talked to Bobby the next day and said, “I can’t take that money,” Affeldt writes. ‘”I won’t sleep well at night knowing I took that money because every time I open my pay check I’ll know it’s not right.”‘

Other life: Affeldt, who has pitched with the Giants during their last two World Series wins over the last three years, publicly shows himself as a Christian and a family man

Other life: Affeldt, who has pitched with the Giants during their last two World Series wins over the last three years, publicly shows himself as a Christian and a family man

Other life: Affeldt, who has pitched with the Giants during their last two World Series wins over the last three years, publicly shows himself as a Christian and a family man

Affeldt sat down and had the contract re-written, subtracting $500,000 from his pay.

Last winter Affeldt signed a new $18 million three-year contract with the Giants.

He believes he was given the more than 4-fold pay raise because of his honesty and ultimate decision.

Others note the Giant’s winning two World Series in the last three years as a likely reason as well.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325853/Jeremy-Affelft-Baseball-player-overpaid-500K-returns-cash-San-Francisco-Giants.html#ixzz2TW4QZmUy

 

The IRS wants YOU ; to share everything


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.politico.com

Posted by DAVID NATHER, TARINI PARTI and BYRON TAU

In this photo illustration, a Facebook logo on a computer screen is seen through a magnifying glass. | Reuters

The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.

It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.

Acting IRS Commissioner dodges questions

Reid on IRS: ‘Not the first time’
And it asked what books people were reading.

WHY?

A POLITICO review of documents from 11 tea party and conservative groups that the IRS scrutinized in 2012 shows the agency wanted to know everything — in some cases, it even seemed curious what members were thinking. The review included interviews with groups or their representatives from Hawaii, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere.

The long-awaited Treasury Department inspector general report released Tuesday says the agency itself decided some of its questions to conservative groups were way over the line — especially the one about donors.

(Also on POLITICO: Watchdog: IRS used ‘inappropriate criteria’)

The report shows that top IRS officials put a stop to some of the questions in early 2012, including the ones that asked tea party groups who their donors were, what issues were important to them and whether their top officers ever planned to run for office. And they told the investigators they planned to destroy the donor lists that had already been sent in.

But interviews with members of the groups paint a more dramatic picture than the bland language of the report, which just says the IRS “requested irrelevant (unnecessary) information because of a lack of managerial review, at all levels, of questions before they were sent to organizations seeking tax-exempt status.”

“They were asking for a U-Haul truck’s worth of information,” said Toby Marie Walker, the president of the Waco Tea Party.

(Also on POLITICO: White House stuck on IRS scandal response)

Some groups even gave up in the face of the IRS questions.

Several of the groups were asked for résumés of top officers and descriptions of interviews with the media. One group was asked to provide “minutes of all board meetings since your creation.”

Some of the letters asked for copies of the groups’ Web pages, blog posts and social media postings — making some tea party members worry they’d be punished for their tweets or Facebook comments by their followers.

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

And each letter had a stern warning about “penalties of perjury” — which became intimidating for groups that were being asked about future activities, like future donations or endorsements.

In one instance, the American Patriots Against Government Excess was asked to provide summaries or copies of all material passed out at meetings. The group had been reading “The 5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen and the U.S. Constitution.

The group’s president, Marion Bower, sent a copy of both to the IRS. “I don’t have time to write a book report for them,” she said.

The Albuquerque Tea Party was asked about connections to other groups — Conspiracy Brews, Marianne Chiffelle’s Breakfasts, Concerned Citizens for Limited Government, Concerned Citizens for Common Sense.

The Hawaii Tea Party was about Dylan Nonaka, the former head of the Hawaii Republican Party.

Some were asked about any connection to Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group backed by the Koch brothers that ironically never underwent the same level of IRS scrutiny.

And then they asked whether one group knew Justin Binik-Thomas.

Never heard of him? He’s a former leader of the Cincinnati Tea Party, and clearly someone in the Cincinnati IRS office knew who he was.

So when the Liberty Township Tea Party applied for tax-exempt status, the IRS threw this question into its March 2011 letter to the group: “Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas.” (They didn’t know him well enough to spell his name right.)

In an interview Tuesday, Binik-Thomas said he has never worked with the Liberty group and isn’t sure why the IRS asked that group about him — although he says it’s “possible that they just Goggled ‘tea party’ and assumed that we’re all the same.”

But Binik-Thomas said it was a chilling experience when the Liberty group told him his name was in their letter — because now he wonders what else the IRS has in store for him.

“Will my personal taxes get audited? Will my small-business taxes get audited? Am I a pawn to try to get at another group?” Binik-Thomas asked.

“There are a lot of people involved in the tea party. Why was I isolated from thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Why was I singled out?”

Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine and an election law expert and blogger, said that it’s the IRS’s job to ensure that these groups are not primarily involved in campaign-related activities. “So it has taken a murky rule and tried to resolve disputes about status in some cases using a very fact-intensive and intrusive inquiry,” he said.

“It would be far better for the IRS — or even better, Congress — to have a bright line rule about who has to disclose what and keep the IRS out of this line of inquiry,” Hasen added. “For example, make every group regardless of tax status disclose major donors funding election ads to the FEC. That’s it. Then there would be no reason for political groups to take the (c)(4) status and the pressure would be off the IRS.”

The IRS investigations took time. Several conservative group leaders spoke of 18 months or more of delays, only to get missives in early 2012 demanding answers to detailed questions within a few weeks.

“The thing that would characterize the attitude of the IRS was silence. We submitted our application, and it would be almost a year before we would get an answer back,” said Laurence Nordvig, the executive director of the Richmond Tea Party. “It’s not like we were talking to someone every day and they were being polite or rude. We weren’t hearing from them at all.”

The Richmond group first applied for 501(c)(4) status in December 2009 and got final approval in July 2012.

The letters came from IRS offices in Ohio, California and Washington, D.C. And one letter — to American Patriots Against Government Excess — came under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations office. Lerner was the IRS official who announced last Friday the agency had singled out certain groups for review based on search terms like “tea party” and “patriot.”

Tea party groups felt that the requests for donors were particularly intrusive.

“They were asking for the names of the donors, which is exactly the opposite of what we were looking for because if people knew their names would be made public or known to the government, they stop giving,” said Nordvig.

“Why do you even need that? There’s no reason your tax status should depend on your donors,” Littleton said.

Toby Marie Walker, the president of the Waco Tea Party, says her group applied for 501(c)(4) status in July 2010 and didn’t get a response from the IRS until February 2012 — when it sent a letter with 20 questions, including requests for printouts of its Web page and social networking sites.

It also wanted copies of all newsletters, bulletins and fliers, as well as any stories written about the group.

“They were killing trees right and left,” Walker said.

The IRS also asked for transcripts of radio shows where her group had mentioned political candidates by name — a job she figured would have cost her group $25,000. And it asked whether her group had “a close relationship” with any candidates or parties, a question she considered especially vague.

Walker said her group eventually got the questions knocked back a bit, with the help of the American Center for Law and Justice — and the IRS agreed to drop items like the Web page and Facebook printouts.

In January, Walker said, the Waco Tea Party submitted its final responses to the IRS — and in March, it won its tax-exempt status. By that point, she didn’t really feel like celebrating.

“It was a win, but I didn’t feel like it was a win, because it took us 18 months,” Walker said.

Chris Littleton, one of the co-founders of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, said the group got a grilling from the IRS when it submitted its application, in letters the group has posted on its website. The IRS also gave him so much grief when he tried to apply for tax-exempt status for another group, American Junto, that “we just gave up on it,” he said.

But when he submitted an application for a third group — Ohioans for Health Care Freedom, now renamed Ohio Rising — “it went through just fine,” Littleton said. “They never asked a single set of questions.”

Julie Hodges of the Mississippi Tea Party said the group has less than $800 in its account and relied on volunteer lawyers to deal with the IRS. It withdrew its application for 501(c)(4) status in early 2012, citing the delays and questions.

“The government is harassing us over a political position,” Hodges said.

The Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots applied in January 2010, and two years later, received an inquiry from the IRS with 35 questions.

“I do recall our co-founder called the IRS and the agent on the phone pretended he had our case file open in front him,” said the group’s president, Chris Rossiter. “Then she asked him a question, and he said, ‘What’s your group’s name again?’”

Several said that because the tea party groups constantly spoke to each other, it was easy to see they were all getting the same questions from IRS.

“It was a mistake for the IRS to take on the tea party because what we do is organize, so we’re going to figure out we were getting the same letters,” Rossiter said.

Lauren French contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378_Page3.html#ixzz2TND46SVl

 

Colorado Democratic lawmakers face recall efforts for votes on gun control


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from FoxNews.com

Colorado Democratic lawmakers who recently helped pass some of the toughest gun-control laws in the country now face the political backlash of recall efforts.

Two groups are targeting state Rep. Mike McLachlan and state Sens. Angela Giron, Evie Hudak and John Morse.

The Democrat-controlled legislature passed bills that ban magazines holding more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all gun transfers. They were signed into law in March by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Morse, the Senate president, pushed a more far-reaching proposal that called for holding owners, sellers and makers of assault-type weapons liable for havoc inflicted by their guns.

He pulled the bill upon realizing he didn’t have enough votes. But his efforts have still drawn the ire of the groups.  

The petition drives are being organized by the organizations Pueblo Freedom and Rights Group. They will need signatures from 25 percent of the vote in each lawmaker’s district to trigger a special election. 

The signature deadline is May 21. Colorado’s Secretary of State office confirmed with FoxNew.com that it has approved the forms for the petition drives.

The legislature also passed a bill before adjourning Friday that prohibits domestic-violence offenders from owning guns.And Hickenlooper is also expected to sign that legislation.

Morse is getting help from a group called “A Whole Lot of People for John Morse,” which is collecting money and petition signatures to fight the recall effort. The group has so far raised $23,050, according to The Daily Caller.

Connecticut, Maryland and New York also have passed tighter gun-control measures following the Dec. 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut school in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed. However, there are no indications of organized recall efforts in those Democratic-leaning states.

Hudak angered gun-rights advocates and others, beyond her support for tighter firearms control, because of a comment to a rape victim testifying against a bill that would have banned concealed weapons on college campuses.

She suggested the attacker might have used the gun on the woman had she been carrying a concealed weapon, saying “statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun.”

The bill was pulled and Hudak apologized.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/colorado-democratic-lawmakers-face-recall-efforts-for-votes-on-gun-control/#ixzz2T7AtonRM

 

Slain diplomat’s mom on Obama’s Benghazi comments: ‘Bullfeathers’


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.washingtontimes.com

Posted by David Eldridge

  President Obama listens to a question about Benghazi during a joint news conference with visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron on May 13, 2013, in the East Room of the White House. (Associated Press)

“Bullfeathers!”

That was the reaction to President Obama’s Benghazi comments Monday from the mother of one of the State Department diplomats killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Libya.

In an interview with Union-Tribune TV on Monday afternoon, Pat Smith said she doesn’t believe the administration is telling the truth about the attack that claimed the lives of four Americans, including her 34-year-old son, information officer Sean Smith.

“They sacrificed him for their own political gains. I don’t like that, I don’t think anybody in this United States could ever possibly like that,” she said.

“I think they were trying … to show how nice we were and that we trust them and we like them all and so they pulled all their security out of there. I think that’s what happened. Because Hillary [Clinton] or whoever was going to go in there and say, ‘see how wonderful we are.’”

Responding to the president’s Monday afternoon remarks on Benghazi, in which Mr. Obama said, “We were not able to prevent their deaths.”

That comment drew the “bullfeathers” reaction from the San Diego mom who has grown increasingly frustrated with the administration’s handling of the investigation into her son’s death.

“I know they could have. I can’t prove a lot of if, but I know they could have,” she said.

A day earlier, in an interview on Fox News that has is getting widespread buzz online, Mrs. Smith wished Mrs. Clinton a happy Mother’s Day because, “She’s got her child. I don’t have mine, because of her.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/13/slain-diplomat-mom-obama-benghazi-bullfeathers/#ixzz2TFROcrq5

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing | Sign up for newsletter to receive notifications | Visit us at http://thegovernmentrag.com

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: