Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “articles of impeachment”

British Intelligence Advisor: CIA Conducted DNA Test on Obama – Found No Match to Alleged Grandparents


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!

 

Reblogged from:freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Tim Brown

British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton presented a report in which he indicated that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya in 1960, not 1961, as he has claimed.

According to Shrimpton, Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Shrimpton says that sits on British Intelligence files, since at the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was considered a part of the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Shrimpton also indicated that Obama’s father was tied to a group known as the Mau Mau, and that he ran guns and money for them and the German Intelligence Network in East Africa.

According to Shrimpton, Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham, was not pregnant in 1961, but instead gave birth to Barack Obama in 1960. He says that Obama’s mother was one of many of Obama’s mistresses.

“My understanding is that if a lady’s giving birth in August, we would like to see her pregnant in July,” said Shrimpton. “It’s been established that his (Obama’s) alleged mother wasn’t pregnant in July; his claimed birth on fourth August does seem to be coming under a certain degree of scrutiny.”

Perhaps this is why Obama can’t seem to remember his birthday.

However, if the photo that Shrimpton refers to is this one, then this photo has been alleged to have actually been of Barbara Bush, not Stanley Ann Dunham. I have no way of checking his claim, since no photo is actually shown in the video.

Then Shrimpton dropped a bombshell.

“It’s also nice to have a DNA relationship with your parents,” Shrimpton added. “The DNA test that was done in respect to Barack Obama’s claimed grandparents, I understand the CIA (Central Intelligence Community) were unable to obtain a match.”

Shrimpton went on to say that the CIA performed a covert DNA testing on Obama during a fundraising dinner using a glass of water. Apparently, the CIA was able to grab a few glasses of water with both saliva and fingerprints to conduct their testing, and according to Shrimpton, the test came back that Barack Obama is not related to his alleged grandparents. Dreams of My Real Father, anyone?

This would explain why Obama doesn’t look anything like his family members.

Mr. Shrimpton also alludes to the fact that Rudy Giuliani’s people bought him lunch because of what he knew and were “fascinated by his discoveries.” Giuliani was hoping to be the Republican candidate at the time. Apparently Hillary Clinton’s people were just as interested in Shrimpton’s findings.

Michael Shrimpton is a very credible source. According to his website:

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. He has also earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organizations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of Intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Master’s Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers.

He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.
His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake.

His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon, and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005.

He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit in Washington, DC in February 2006.

While the video is a couple of years old, many people have never seen it. This is not a mere reporter, but a British Intelligence advisor. Additionally, his claims tend to support evidence that we compiled from Kenyan Parliament records that indicate Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/british-intelligence-adviser-cia-conducted-dna-test-obama-found-match-alleged-grandparents/#C1yX1XFZvUCc8pS1.99

Advertisements

Obama Administration’s Benghazi Bombshell


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!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.weeklystandard.com

 

Posted by:THOMAS JOSCELYN

The Washington Post reports that U.S. officials suspect Sufian Ben Qumu, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, “played a role in the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorism organization.” Ben Qumu is based in Derna, Libya and runs a branch of Ansar al Sharia headquartered in the city.

clip_image004

U.S. officials have found that some of Ben Qumu’s militiamen from Derna “participated in the attack” and “were in Benghazi before the attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012.”

Ben Qumu was fingered early on as a suspect in the Benghazi attack, but his name dropped out of much of the reporting on the assault for more than one year.

In November 2013, however, THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported: “U.S. intelligence officials believe that Sufian Ben Qumu, a Libyan ex-Guantánamo detainee, trained some of the jihadists who carried out the attacks in Benghazi.” Ben Qumu, TWS reported, “has longstanding connections with al Qaeda leadership.”

Ben Qumu’s biography is rich with al Qaeda links:

Ben Qumu is one of the original “Arab Afghans” who traveled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. In the years that followed the end of the anti-Soviet jihad, Ben Qumu followed al Qaeda to the Sudan and then, in the mid-to-late 1990s, back to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was eventually arrested in Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks and transferred to the American detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

A leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment describes Ben Qumu as an “associate” of Osama bin Laden. JTF-GTMO found that Ben Qumu worked as a driver for a company owned by bin Laden in the Sudan, fought alongside al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and maintained ties to several other well-known al Qaeda leaders. Ben Qumu’s alias was found on the laptop of an al Qaeda operative responsible for overseeing the finances for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The information on the laptop indicated that Ben Qumu was an al Qaeda “member receiving family support.”

An August 2012 report published by the Library of Congress in conjunction with the Defense Department, titled “Al Qaeda in Libya: a Profile,” identified Ben Qumu as the possible “new face of al Qaeda in Libya despite” his denial of an ongoing al Qaeda role. The report also noted that Ben Qumu and his Ansar al Sharia fighters are “believed to be close to the al Qaeda clandestine network” in Libya. According to the report’s authors, that same network is headed by al Qaeda operatives who report to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan, including Ayman al Zawahiri.

The reporting on Ben Qumu’s ties to the Benghazi attack directly refutes an account by David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times. Kirkpatrick reported that “neither Mr. Qumu nor anyone else in Derna appears to have played a significant role in the attack on the American Mission, officials briefed on the investigation and the intelligence said.”

The Post reports that, in addition to Ben Qumu and Ansar al Sharia Derna, the branches of Ansar al Sharia in Benghazi and Tunisia are going to be designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department.

Two other individuals, Ahmed Abu Khattala and Seifallah ben Hassine, are going to be added to the list of “specially designated global terrorists.”   

Seifallah Ben Hassine (a.k.a. Abu Iyad al Tunisi) is the head of Ansar al Sharia Tunisia, which assaulted the U.S. Embassy in Tunis just three days after the attack in Benghazi.

In its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, published in May 2013, the State Department noted that Ben Hassine “was implicated as the mastermind behind the September 14 attack on the US Embassy,” which involved “a mob of 2,000 – 3,000” people, “including individuals affiliated with the militant organization Ansar al Sharia.”

The ties between Ben Hassine, Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda are longstanding and well-established.

According to multiple published reports, Ben Hassine relocated to Libya after the Tunisian government labeled Ansar al Sharia a terrorist organization and cracked down on its operatives. The Tunisian government has repeatedly alleged that the Ansar al Sharia groups in Libya and Tunisia are tied to one another, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). 

The Post’s report concludes: “In addition to Qumu and Khattala, American officials are eager to question Faraj al Chalabi, a Libyan extremist who might have fled the country.”

As THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported on multipleoccasions, Chalabi is considered a key suspect by U.S. intelligence officials. Two U.S. intelligence officials say Chalabi once served as a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and is suspected of brining materials from the compound in Benghazi to senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

One in three lawmakers wants to repeal cuts to military pensions


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://thehill.com/blogs

Posted by:Jeremy Herb

Getty Images

More than 150 House members and 35 senators have signed onto efforts to repeal the cuts to military pensions included in the budget deal signed last month.

Roughly a third of lawmakers in both chambers have sponsored or co-sponsored 15 different bills. All the measures seek, one way or another, to repeal the reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for working-age military retirees.

The flurry of bills and number of co-sponsors highlights the sizable bipartisan opposition to the military retirement cuts that were included in the budget deal reached by Budget Chairs Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

But none of the bills introduced has identified a true bipartisan “pay-for” to replace the retirement cuts, raising doubts about the chances of any of them passing.

The only legislation that has attracted significant bipartisan support does not replace the $6 billion that was saved in the budget deal through the military retirement cut.

“People are allowed to go out there and say what they want, but it is not going away,” said a leading conservative strategist who is a deficit hawk. “How are they going to pay for it going away?”

The budget agreement signed into law last month provided $63 billion in sequester relief over two years and achieved $85 billion in deficit reduction, including $6 billion from reducing COLAs by 1 percentage point below inflation for working-age military retirees under age 62.

The military pension cuts attracted swift condemnation from service and veterans’ organizations, who have launched a full-court lobbying press to get Congress to reverse the provision.

The effort has spawned more than a dozen bills. In aggregate, those measures have been backed by 94 House Republicans and 64 House Democrats, 12 Republican senators and 23 Democratic senators.

Many of the lawmakers voted for the overall budget bill that quickly cleared both chambers last month.

Even so, the bills that offset the $6 billion savings do not appear likely to attract bipartisan support, making them long-shots to pass both the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House.

Democrats in both chambers have signed onto measures that would replace the retirement cuts by closing offshore tax loopholes for corporations, a non-starter for Republicans.

The GOP bills target a number of cost-cutting issues. They would prevent illegal immigrants from claiming a child tax credit, make cuts to the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, replace the COLA cuts with the Pentagon’s unobligated balances and stop aid to Egypt and Pakistan.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) introduced a bill to restore the savings through limiting Saturday mail delivery.

No Democrats have co-sponsored any of those measures, with the exception of Rep. John Barrow (Ga.) backing the child tax credit pay-for in Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick’s (R-Pa.) bill.

The bill with the most support was introduced by House Veterans Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), which has 95 co-sponsors, including 32 Democrats.

That measure simply repeals the $6 billion cut to military pensions. But defense observers are skeptical Congress would pass legislation to undo deficit reduction already in place.

One senior defense lobbyist said the budget deal included all of the “low-hanging fruit” when it came to deficit reduction, making it unlikely that the COLA cuts would easily be replaced.

The military retirement cuts were one part of a carefully crafted deal, which also included reductions for civilian federal worker benefits.

“It’s all political in an election year,” the lobbyist said of the repeal bills.

“The ones the Democrats are offering to close corporate tax loopholes — Republicans are never going to go for that… The same thing on Republican side with credits for illegal immigrants. They know it’s not going to fly with the Dems.”

BOHICA the military takes it again.

House and Senate leaders have not said whether they plan to bring up any bills to restore the military benefits cuts.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) did not include the military pension issue in his January legislative agenda. A Senate leadership aide said retirement benefits legislation would not be considered next week, and could not elaborate beyond that.

One House aide said that leadership may be waiting before making a decision on the retirement benefits to see how strongly the issue resonates back in lawmakers’ districts.

“If members come back and go to leadership and say they’re really getting hit on this, leadership might be in a mood to adjust it,” the aide said. “If they come back and there’s not as much passion behind it, that tells you it will be a completely different story.”

There is likely to be at least one change made to the retirement benefit cuts: exempting medically retired veterans.

There have been an additional four bills introduced to address that issue, including from Murray. Both Murray and Ryan say that disabled veterans were included in the budget deal due to a “technical error” and they want to quickly fix the problem.

A list of the various bills offered to repeal the military-pensions cut can be found here.

— Erik Wasson contributed.

http://thehill.com/blogs

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://dailycaller.com

 

Posted by:Patrick Howley

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/28/dnc-sends-email-defending-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/#ixzz2orC4uvhK

‘AMERICAN WARRIOR BLOOD IS POOLING IN OVAL OFFICE’


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:GARTH KANT

Is Obama bigger threat to U.S. military than even Taliban?

author-image

WASHINGTON — Aaron Carson Vaughn was an All-American kid who became the best of the best, one of the most skilled warriors in history.

He was a highly decorated member of the elite Navy SEAL Team 6, but he was killed in Afghanistan under suspicious circumstances.

According to his father, Aaron’s life was squandered by a president who was more concerned with appeasing the enemy, and even our allies, than protecting those serving under his command.

Billy Vaughn also believes his son is dead because the Obama administration put a target right on the back of SEAL Team 6.

That’s why the title of Billy’s book about his son is “Betrayed.”

Former Rep. Allen West, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, called it a “must read.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin described the book as “a fascinating story of incredible courage and sacrifice, government deceit and the changing nature of warfare.”

And syndicated columnist Diana West wrote, “Betrayed takes aim at the lies and secrecy of a government no longer true to the American people — not even to the families whose sons have paid the ultimate price.”

Born to be a SEAL

Aaron Vaughn grew up on a small Tennessee farm enjoying fishing, hunting, football, four-wheeling and mudding. But he was born for something bigger, and he knew it.

At age 8, he began telling people, “One day, I’m going to be a Navy SEAL.” But he didn’t know he would have to overcome a torn ACL that left him even unable to jog, and two failed surgeries, to even try to realize his dream.

This remarkable overachiever didn’t just beat incredibly long odds, he excelled, setting SEAL training records that still stand.

Aaron’s father believes, because “he gave his life to Christ at such an early age,” his son always had a clear understanding of right and wrong, and good and evil, and also had a keen sense of history that “recognized the 1,400-year-old-war Islam has waged upon the world.”

Aaron was a family man, a devoted husband and father of two who risked everything to serve his country.

Tragically, according to Billy, Aaron became the sacrificial victim of a president more concerned with a quixotic quest to win hearts and minds than in winning a war.

“This is what our government wants, the appeasement of our so-called allies as well as our enemies,” Billy told WND.

Lives sacrificed for politics

Asked whether he believes President Obama is sacrificing American lives for politics, he said, “Yes, I absolutely do. We know that he did not take the advice of his generals in Afghanistan. We know what a train wreck he has committed in Iraq, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We know that he is removing generals and admirals, one after another.”

And why would Obama do that?

“He is removing the men who might advise him differently than the route he wants to go,” he said.

Billy said Obama’s “hearts and minds’ strategy” made his son’s death a “calamity waiting to happen” and that “the shoot down of Extortion 17 (the call sign for the mission helicopter) is a symptom of a far bigger problem in our military today.”

Do you believe President Obama is causing American blood to be shed?

Revenge for Osama

Revenge for Osama bin Laden

Thirty-year-old Special Operations Chief Aaron Vaughn was one of 30 U.S. special forces soldiers among those killed on Aug. 6, 2011, when a Chinook chopper was shot down by the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan.

SEAL Team VI had killed Osama bin Laden three months earlier, on May 1, 2011.

The deaths are not unrelated, according to Aaron’s father, and many others.

They strongly suspect the downing of Extortion 17 was payback against SEAL Team VI for the death of bin Laden.

And they blame the Obama administration for recklessly identifying who killed the famous terrorist leader.

WND asked Billy: Who holds the most responsibility for your son’s death?

“Absolutely, it is the United States government.”

Blood is pooling in the oval office

He strongly suggested the U.S. president has the blood of American fighters on his hands.

“American blood is being shed in a foreign land, but the trail leads right back to the Oval Office,” he said. “American warrior blood is pooling in the Oval Office.”

Billy implied the commander in chief is a bigger threat to U.S. military personnel than even the Taliban: “The biggest killing field opened up on our American warriors today in that foreign land is on their rear flank by the Obama administration.”

He also suggested that a cowed military brass also has American blood on its hands and that high-ranking military leaders “refuse to speak up” because of politics.

Billy offered a radical solution to Obama administration policies.

“I think we need to withdraw our war fighters everywhere until this man is out of the White House and our rules of engagement are changed to allow our men and women to fight to win.”

Extortion 17 mystery

There is a fog surrounding the downing of Extortion 17, which leaves the families of those killed with many questions unanswered to this day.

  • Why was this elite unit made to fly into a three-hour-long firefight with an antiquated helicopter from the Vietnam War era?
  • Why were they forced to ride along with a team of quite possibly less-than-trustworthy Afghan allies?
  • Why did the Taliban seem to know SEAL Team 6 was aboard?

On the Navy SEAL website are these questions:

  • Why didn’t the helicopter have an air escort?
  • Why wasn’t the helicopter’s black box recovered?
  • Why weren’t last-minute changes in the Afghani personnel recorded in the flight manifest?
  • Why were all the bodies cremated?
  • Did leaks from the Osama bin Laden raid factor into the largest loss of life since the inception of the Naval Special Warfare?

What happened to Extortion 17?

What happened to Extortion 17?

Biden’s loose lips targets SEALs

There is no mystery who made the leak. It was the vice president of the United States, and he did it very publicly.

Vice President Joe Biden told the world in a speech on May 3, 2011, during a Washington, D.C., dinner event that a Navy SEAL team killed bin Laden.

SEALs were stunned by the revelation.

However, the administration had actually beaten Biden to the punch and almost immediately leaked word to the media that SEAL Team VI had killed the al-Qaida chief.

The very day of the mission, ABC News reported, “The force that swooped down on the world’s most wanted terrorist has been identified as SEAL Team Six of the “Naval Special Warfare Development Group.”

“[W]e don’t need to spike the football,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said three days after bin Laden was killed.

But, to the contrary, it appeared the administration had not been able to wait even 24 hours to reap political gains at the possible expense of the very team that executed the mission.

Billy said Aaron immediately told his mother, Karen, to delete all personal information from social media sites and to remove every reference to SEAL Team VI from her Facebook and Twitter accounts.

“The next day Aaron called his mom and said, ‘Mom, you need to take everything off your social media. There’s chatter. Our lives are in danger. Your life is in danger,’” Billy told WND.

“I never heard Aaron this concerned and worried in his entire life,” Karen told the Washington Times. “He called me and said, ‘Mom, you and Dad have to take everything down. Biden has just put a huge target on everybody.’”

Biden endangers 300 military families

Karen told Fox News, “I realized all of those families, you know, you’re talking about a community of around 300 families who were all of a sudden made targets by this administration.”

The Washington Times was scathing in its condemnation of the vice president’s revelation.

“Mr. Biden is a cynical opportunist, who will say and do anything to advance Mr. Obama’s agenda. He hung the SEALs out to dry in order to score cheap political points. He compromised a highly sensitive, covert operation that ended up costing dozens of U.S. lives.”

The Vaughns are among several SEAL Team 6 family members represented by former Reagan Justice Department attorney Larry Klayman in a lawsuit filed against Biden, former-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The suit seeks $200 million in damages. It alleges Biden and Panetta put a “target on the backs” of the SEALs, and Karzai tipped the Taliban off about the helicopter coordinates of the Extortion 17 operation.

As WND has reported, among their many suspicions, the families question the sudden replacement of seven Afghan commandos on board the helicopter just before take-off. The seven who died in the attack are not the seven listed in the flight manifest. The families say, to this day, none of them know who those dead Afghans were.

That leads the families to wonder if the original Afghan commandos may have tipped off the Taliban as to who was on board.

Was the fate of Extortion 17 due to negligence or a set-up?

Inside Job

An inside job

Billy told WND he believed the downing of the chopper was an inside job.

“Everything points to a probable ambush.”

Was that because, if our allies knew, then our enemy knew, as well?

“Absolutely,” he said. “The Pakistanis knew, too. And we had just invaded their sovreign air space 93 days earlier to kill bin Laden.”

Some suspect the Taliban set a trap by luring the SEALs into a firefight with false information about the presence of a high-value target.

A series of factors combined to make the family believe this attack was carefully planned and not just the result of a random “lucky shot,” as the U.S. military brass had told them.

Billy said the SEALs were ferried by a Vietnam-era Chinook helicopter rather than their customary state-of-the art special forces choppers because of a shortage of those models, due to an increase in special operations ordered by the president.

‘Surge’ becomes a ‘fake war’

Billy said special operations commanders were essentially tasked with filling quotas, because the president wanted to report an increase in the “surge” requested by military brass, while actually winding down overall combat operations.

The father called it a “fake war.”

The Taliban were apparently aware of that situation and quite plausibly could have been waiting for the opportunity to target the older and much more vulnerable aircraft.

Making matters infinitely worse, before landing the Chinook, rules of engagement prevented U.S. fighters from clearing the area of potential enemies with suppressing fire because there could possibly have been civilians in the area.

Lt. Col. West said to put a Chinook into an operation that had been going on for hours with no suppressing fire was “incomprehensible.”

The Chinook was attacked at its most vulnerable moment, just as it was landing.

The U.S. military said the helicopter was hit by a “one-in-a-million” rocket-propelled-grenade lucky shot, but others suspect the craft was more likely hit by a heat-seeking missile.

Hearts and minds

Perhaps more than any other factor, Billy blamed his son’s death on the “winning hearts and minds” strategy that caused so many other dangerous factors to come into play, such as the lack of suppressing fire and the integration of less-than-trustworthy Afghans into the ranks.

“All the years Aaron was training to be a SEAL he never once told me, ‘Dad, we’re being trained to win their hearts and minds.’”

Billy said he didn’t remember the U.S. military trying to win the hearts and minds of the Nazis in World War II.

History lesson

On the the website devoted to Aaron, Billy and Karen have devoted themselves to fighting this war culturally, as opposed to kinetically, and asked him what that meant.

“It’s what Karen and I feel we must do,” he said. “The U.S.A. could win this war against the jihadists tomorrow, if we would engage them.”

Billy warned we must learn from history.

“On Dec. 7, 1941, America was not engaged against the Japanese. But the Japanese were fully engaged in all-out war against the United States.”

President Obama declared America will never be at war against Islam. But Billy believes radical Islam is at war with America.

“Islamist jihadists are fully engaged against America today,” he said. “They are operating on our soil. Our walls have been breached.”

He believes America has let its guard down since Sept. 11, 2001, and, “We have Muslim Brotherhood in our government actively working against regular American citizens.”

Billy describes jihadist infiltration in America as a clear and present danger made worse because it is being ignored.

“Today, we are not worried about the jihadists being here, and they are here among us, and they are winning everyday because we refuse to engage,” he said.

‘We could very easily lose’

He and Karen are trying to warn Americans, “We could very easily lose. We could very easily lose what our son and other men and women have given their lives’ blood to defend.”

Billy, a devout Christian, puts the emphasis on love rather than hate.

“They (American warriors) volunteered to go fight in a foreign land because they love what’s behind them more than they hate what’s in front of them.”

He closed with one last warning: “We could lose, even after all those men and women have sacrificed.”

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/american-warrior-blood-is-pooling-in-oval-office/#w2ZVTvg28ol8Hp2s.99

 

House Republicans Are Finally Trying to IMPEACH Eric Holder


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!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.capitalisminstitute.org

 

Posted by:

A group of House Republicans are making a move to finally impeach Attorney General Eric Holder and remove him from office.

Eric Holder is behind Fast and Furious, has targeted journalists who challenged Obama, and has constantly trampled on the US Constitution. He should be immediately impeached.

Whether this process takes off still depends on getting more Republicans on board, grassroots activism, and getting past the party establishment. This needs all the public support it can get — please spread the word.

 

The National Review Online has reported:

A group of Republican congressmen are taking the first steps to impeach a Cabinet secretary for only the second time in American history with the target set on Attorney General Eric Holder.

Freshman congressman Ted Yoho of Florida told a local newspaper that he is hopeful that he and a handful of other lawmakers will meet with John Boehner to discuss their plans. “This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not,” Yoho said. According to his spokesperson, Yoho is not the member who is drafting the impeachment resolution.

Holder has provoked the ire of Capitol Hill Republicans over the years for his ties to a number of controversies. Last year, the House voted to hold the attorney general in contempt for his lack of cooperation in the Fast and Furious investigation. He has also faced questions from lawmakers for the Department of Justice’s seizing of phone records and e-mails from Associated Press and Fox News reporters.

Politico reported:

“It’s to get him out of office — impeachment,” Yoho said, according to the Gainesville Sun, adding “it will probably be when we get back in [Washington]. It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

Yoho cited frustration over the botched “Fast and Furious” program – in which federal agents allowed guns to “walk” to Mexican drug cartels as part of an investigation – as one of the main motivations for the impeachment push. That sting operation failed, and weapons tied to the Fast and Furious program were found at the shooting scene when a Border Patrol agent was killed in Dec. 2010.

Omar Raschid, a Yoho spokesman, said Yoho was not actually drafting the impeachment resolution against Holder but declined to say which lawmaker was doing so.

Boehner’s officer declined to comment on the potential Holder impeachment resolution. A Justice Department spokesman also would not comment.

The House approved both civil and criminal contempt resolutions against Holder in June 2012 over his failure to cooperate with congressional subpoenas during the Fast and Furious probe. The Justice Department – as has been done in previous administrations – would not move forward on any criminal charges against Holder. DOJ and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have been locked in a lengthy legal battle as part of the civil contempt fight since that time.

The good news is that Republicans are finally starting to resist the Obama administration. The bad news is that this goes nowhere without grassroots support, and even then it has to get past John Boehner.

We’ve constantly said that John Boehner has to go, and this is a good example of why that’s still the case. Boehner is in a position where he can pretend to fight Obama most of the time — but defend him whenever it actually counts.

 

Army Officer Wants You Disarmed: “We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers”


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Mac Slavo

cold-dead-hands

Within the upper echelons of our military there still remain men and women who are committed to the fundamental laws of the land. But assuming that all members of our military will be there to support the Constitution of the United States when our nation needs them most would be a mistake.

Understand this: There are those within their ranks who would turn on their oaths and forcibly seize the very rights our Founders fought so hard to preserve without giving it a second thought.

cold-dead-hands

The following opinion piece, penned by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, shows in stark detail exactly what we’re dealing with and argues in no uncertain terms that the American public must be disarmed in order for the United States to survive.

The ideas proposed by Lt. Col. Bateman in It’s Time to Talk About Guns and the Supreme Courtare nothing short of shocking.

This is coming from an active military commander, and though not officially sanctioned by the administration, his work is obviously a propaganda piece designed to give the gun grabber initiative direct support from military leadership.

Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not “upset enough” over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following “Gun Plank” to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:

1. The only guns permitted will be the following:

  • a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
  • b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
  • c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.

2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)

3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs — or the jobs of some other cops — harder.)

4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.

5. We will initiate a nationwide “buy-back” program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget.

Why is the money coming from DOD budget, so it will hurt the military more WHY?

This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.

6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.

Excerpted from Esquire Magazine via Sipsey Street Irregulars

You won’t see the establishment media publishing arguments from top military leaders in support of the Second Amendment. Sadly, however, those who would take away our right to defend ourselves have been given a limitless platform to push their agenda to the masses.

Hundreds of thousands of services members, both active and retired, have put their lives on the line to uphold those rights which have made our nation great. There’s no doubt that they will do so again when the need arises.

But on the flip side of that coin are potentially hundreds of thousands of others who have no qualms about “just following orders.”

A report earlier this year from well connected philanthropist Dr. Jim Garrow claims that there is a new litmus test for military leadership:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks.

“The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”.

Those who will not are being removed.

Obviously, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman passed the test with flying colors.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/army-officer-wants-disarmed-will-pry-gun-cold-dead-fingers/#xHe50pPqed6g0wxD.99

 

‘RISE OF UBER-PRESIDENCY’ DRAWS IMPEACHMENT TALK


Congressman: Founding Fathers ‘intended for Congress to have certain powers’

Barack Obama is being blamed for creating an “uber-presidency” that some members of Congress say steps on their constitutional powers.

They believe impeachment is a logical solution, but there’s another idea: Vote Republican in 2014.

In an interview with Sean Hannity this week, Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, offered details of their charges against Obama.

King pointed to the president’s actions on immigration, such as his orders for authorities not to enforce current immigration law.

He said there are multiple violations related to Obamacare and asserted the president’s “recess” appointments of judges when the Senate was not actually in recess also is worthy.

The “uber-presidency,” King said, has little or no respect for the Constitution.

Farenthold said Obama “is grabbing as much power as he can” but Congress also is doing little to draw in the reins.

The two said that politically, Obama is exercising great power and believes Congress cannot or will not stop him.

“The president knows it; he’s exploiting it,” King said.

He said Obama “will spend money if he decides, will tax if he decides, will defy the Constitution if he decides.”

Farenthold’s solution is for people to vote Republican in 2014, creating a barricade of a GOP Congress against a renegade president.

The congressmen said that American people “have to rise up.”

Meanwhile, a witness a House Judiciary Committee hearing featured arguments against Obama’s alleged assumption of extra-constitutional powers.

He noted a “check on executive lawlessness is impeachment” but went further.

Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

 WND has reported on members of Congress raising the issue of impeachment.

Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, even handed out copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations, and possibly prosecutions, are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.

“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.

 He said at some point a decision must be made.

“I think if the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”

But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.

To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure that even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.

Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

“I think he”s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

 WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.

Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”

Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”

“I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions,” he said.

A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”

Coburn said he agreed.

“Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time,” he said. “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”

Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.

 Days earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.

Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”

He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”

Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.

Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.

“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”

Farenthold, who thinks there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, said he often is asked why Congress doesn’t take action.

He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”

But, like others, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.

The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.

In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”

But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.

“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.

One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.

Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.

Stockman recently distributed copies of the book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office,” to the other 434 members of the House of Representatives to bolster his case for a special investigation of the President.

The bestselling “Impeachable Offenses” presents an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines.

The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.

“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.

The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

• Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.

• Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.

• The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.

• The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.

• Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.

• From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.

• New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.

• The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.

• Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/rise-of-uber-presidency-draws-impeachment-talk/#sUgwHpymcRLPqqQq.99

 

Nuclear Terrorist Threat Looms On Our Southern Border


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!

 

Reblogged from:

http://news.investors.com

 

Posted by:

National Security: The theft of a truck carrying dangerous radioactive material combined with terrorist group activity in the hemisphere shows that the need for a secure border involves more than illegal immigration.

Mexican authorities said Wednesday they found the stolen truck and likely recovered all of the radioactive cobalt taken by a group of thieves who were probably after the truck, unaware it carried a deadly cargo.

Cobalt-60, which is used in radiation therapy to treat cancer, was being transported from a hospital in the northern city of Tijuana to a radioactive waste storage center. But what if the thieves were terrorists who knew what the truck was carrying and targeted it to gain material for a so-called “dirty bomb”?

At a nuclear security summit in South Korea last year, Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), identified cobalt-60 as one of the materials that could be used with conventional explosives to make such a weapon.

“A dirty bomb detonated in a major city could cause mass panic, as well as serious economic and environmental consequences,” Amano said, according to a copy of his speech. Detonation of such a bomb in a big city, he warned, “could cause mass panic, as well as serious economic and environmental consequences.”

Bombs made with cobalt-60 “pose a threat mainly because even a fraction of a gram emits a huge number of high-energy gamma rays; such material is harmful whether outside or inside the body,” according to a 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service.

The U.S. government has sensors at border crossings and seaports to prevent radioactive materials from entering the country. But nuclear terrorists are not likely to check themselves through customs or show up at border checkpoints. They’d more than likely cross through porous openings in our border with Mexico, or maybe through one of the sophisticated tunnels that have been dug under the border.

We know state sponsors of terror have nuclear material and that terrorist groups have plans for such material. We know OTMs — other than Mexicans — have been coming across our border with the flood of illegal immigrants. We also know that cross-border tunnels capable of smuggling more than drugs, guns and people have been uncovered.

Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., recently sent a letter to the Homeland Security Department asking that a task force investigate growing ties between Hezbollah and the drug cartels as well as growing evidence of a Hezbollah presence in Mexico. If the cartels can smuggle drugs and people into America, Hezbollah and al-Qaida have to know they can smuggle in trained terrorists or the makings of a dirty bomb.

In 2010, the Los Zetas paramilitary drug cartel tried to blow up the Falcon Dam near Zapata, Texas. The Zetas’ motive was to destroy a rival cartel’s smuggling route. Imagine if it had been Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist proxy, and the objective was an even bigger target in America.

The U.S. Border Patrol in recent years has captured thousands of people classified as Other Than Mexican. These include individuals from Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan, and countries classified as state sponsors of terror.

This is something not being reported by main stream news

Terrorism expert Steve Emerson, author of “American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us,” said not long ago that, compared to al-Qaida, “Hezbollah has got a greater network, much more developed around the world,” including “throughout the United States,” and that “potentially Hezbollah can wreak a lot more damage if they chose to attack the United States within the continental borders.”

Authorities recently discovered a massive drug tunnel from Tijuana to San Diego that stretched the length of nearly six football fields and had lighting, ventilation and an electric rail system used to convey marijuana and cocaine into the U.S. Unless we are vigilant, someday it could be a dirty bomb.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120513-681915-mexico-truck-stolen-with-radioactive-material.htm#ixzz2mf2fBYys

 

Allen West warns Obama’s ‘backdoor gun control is moving forward’


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.washingtontimes.com

 

Posted by:Cheryl K. Chumley

  • ** FILE ** Former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, speaks at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Hotel in National Harbor, Md., on Thursday, March 14, 2013. (Andrew Harnik/The Washington Times)

Come 2014, all ammunition sold to civilian gun-owners in America will have to be imported, a result of President Obama’s crackdown on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions and accompanying harsh Environmental Protection Agency regulations, said former Florida congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West.

And for defenders of the Second Amendment, that means higher ammo prices are likely on the way — a situation Mr. Allen writes on his blog, AllenBWest.com, is akin to a federal power-grab on guns, albeit through the backdoor.

He said the situation stemmed from the shutdown of The Doe Run Lead Smelter in Missouri, a business that’s been around since 1892 but due to close at the end of this month. Mr. West said it’s due to new air standards placed on the company that would have cost $100 million to achieve.

“[This] will surely increase the price and possibly come under government control,” Mr. West warned, Breitbart.com reported. “It seems this is fully in concert with the U.S. Military and Homeland Defense recent purchase of large quantities of ammunition.”

He said the “chilling effect” is that while the closure of the smelt plant doesn’t take guns out of the hands of Americans, it does put in jeopardy ammunition supplies.

“You can own all the guns you want, but if you can’t get ammo, you are out of luck,” Mr. West wrote, on his blog. “Remember when President Obama promised his minions that he was working on gun control behind the scenes? Welcome to it. The result is that all domestically mined ore will have to be shipped overseas, refined and then shipped back to the U.S.”

Mr. West warned: “Not only will ammo be even harder to come by, the demand and the process of supply will cause the price to skyrocket even more. And ponder this, there is an excellent chance that Obama will rig the market to where all ammo has to be purchased from the government, instituting an ammo registration. … So America, back door gun control is moving forward … [and] our Second Amendment rights are undergoing an assault by clandestine infiltration.”

The gun grabbers are always using any means they can to hurt the American hunters and home defense folks!

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/2/allen-west-warns-obamas-backdoor-gun-control/#ixzz2mM1a3aky

U.S. deploys submarine-hunting jets to disputed air defence zone over East China Sea as tensions in volatile region mount


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.dailymail.co.uk

 

Posted by:TOM GARDNER

 

America has deployed the first of six state-of-the-art submarine-hunting jets to the East China Sea as tensions between Japan and China over a group of disputed islands mounts.

China last month established an air defense zone covering islands controlled by Japan and claimed by Beijing – sparking fears that it could lead to an unplanned military incident.

Now the U.S. Navy is sending P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft which will strengthen America’s ability to hunt submarines and other vessels in seas close to China.

Tensions: U.S. Navy FA-18 Hornets cram the flight deck of the USS George Washington during a joint military exercise with Japan in the Pacific Ocean as the territorial row over the disputed islands intensified

Tensions: U.S. Navy FA-18 Hornets cram the flight deck of the USS George Washington during a joint military exercise with Japan, last week, in the Pacific Ocean as the territorial row over the disputed islands intensified. (File phot0)

Tensions in the volatile region have risen since the Chinese Air Force stated that it ‘escorted’ foreign warplanes out of its newly-declared air defence identification zone (ADIZ).

The deployment, planned before China established the ADIZ, includes six aircraft to be delivered to Kadena air base on Okinawa this month.

The first arrived on Sunday, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy told Reuters. The mission in the waters west of Japan’s main islands will be the new aircraft’s first anywhere.

Flashpoint: Chinese and Japanese air defense and economic zones and locating the islands in the East China Sea that the two countries have been disputing

Flashpoint: Chinese and Japanese air defense and economic zones and locating the islands in the East China Sea that the two countries have been disputing

Dispute: Relations between Japan and China have become strained as both assert their claims to disputed islets known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and Diaoyu islands in China, in the East China Sea. (File photo)

Dispute: Relations between Japan and China have become strained as both assert their claims to disputed islets known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and Diaoyu islands in China, in the East China Sea. (File photo)

The jet, built by Boeing Co based on its 737 passenger plane, has been built to replace the aging propeller-powered Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion patrol aircraft, which has been in service for 50 years.

Packed with the latest radar equipment and armed with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, the P-8 is able to fly further and stay out on mission longer than the P-3.

The arrival of the P-8 came a day before U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is due to arrive in Tokyo, a visit that is being overshadowed by the territorial spat in the East China Sea between Japan and China.

While taking no position on the sovereignty of the islands known to the Japanese as the Senkakus and to the Chinese as the Daioyu, it does recognize Japanese control and therefore part of territory it would defend under a security pact with Japan.

Stand-off: China last week scrambled fighter jets to monitor two unarmed U.S. bombers that flew over the East China Sea

Stand-off: China last week scrambled fighter jets to monitor two unarmed U.S. bombers that flew over the East China Sea in defiance of Beijing’s declaration it was exercising greater military control over the area. (File photo)

Tensions in the region became even more strained last week when China sent two fighter jets to investigate US and Japanese military planes’ entry into a disputed area of the East China Sea.

Beijing has declared that all aircraft crossing through airspace must file flight plans and identify themselves or face unspecified ‘defensive emergency measures’. But the US, Japan and South Korea have all defied the ruling over the past few days.

In an intensification of the spat, China launched fighter jets into the area at the same time as foreign military flights.

Chinese Air Force spokesman Colonel Shen Jinke said warplanes had been scrambled to monitor two US surveillance aircraft and ten Japanese planes, including an F-15 fighter jet, crossing through the ADIZ.

He was reported by state media as saying that the jets had tracked and identified the planes.

Ministers in Tokyo declined to give details of the flights but said the Japanese Air Force was on routine operations and had encountered no ‘abnormal’ incidents. China announced the creation of the zone.

It covers a vast area of the East China Sea, including a region where gas has been discovered.

The row centres on airspace over three uninhabited outcrops called the Senkaku Islands by Japan and Diaoyu by China.

Taiwan also has a claim to the islands – bought by Japan from private sellers in 2012, much to the anger of China – and South Korea maintains an interest in a submerged rock in the zone known as Ieodo. The US called the establishment of the ADIZ a ‘destabilising attempt to alter the status quo in the region’.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516723/U-S-deploys-submarine-hunting-jets-disputed-air-defence-zone-East-China-Sea-tensions-volatile-region-mount.html#ixzz2mLx1xvgR

Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://gopthedailydose.com

 

Posted by:AmyElizabeth

 

640x392_37451_237362-600x350

BRITAIN G20 PALACE

Pat Dollard-Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question:

1. a Palestinian state and

2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency.

  And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.

Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard

Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.

Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.

The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)

So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)

You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)

This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)

Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.

It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.

It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)

And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)

It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)

The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)

In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:

“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)

What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:

“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)

He was, of course, right.

As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

Percy Sutton on Obama and Khalid Mansour

 

OBAMA AIMS ‘WRECKING OPERATION’ AT MILITARY


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:F. Michael Maloof and John Griffing

Reaction to ‘purge’ of generals, flag officers, includes frustration, alarm, worry

obama_with_military

WASHINGTON – President Obama is aiming a “wrecking operation” at the U.S. military, according to a former Defense Department official who was reacting to a WND report about his dismissal of nine generals and flag officers so far during his second term.

And the official was joined by hundreds of commenters who responded to the story with blasts of criticism for the president.

WND reported earlier this week that Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, explained right away it looked like a part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source said.

Frank Gaffney, founder and director of the Center for Security Policy and former Undersecretary of Defense for the Reagan Administration, cast his lot in with Vallely.

“President Obama is engaged in a wrecking operation on the U.S. military particularly, and under the guise of ‘fundamentally transforming America,’ doing what he can to remake society in his image,” he told WND.

Get “Court Disaster: How the CIA kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack.

Gaffney said he believes Obama may be attempting to install military rule or martial law as part of his plans, saying, “One of the issues that has been raised by colleagues of mine who are serious students of national security policy and practice is that a way of accelerating the transforming of America would be essentially dispensing with our constitutional form of government under the rubric of ‘emergency measures,’ martial law, a military shutdown of our society.

“Does the wrecking operation of the military have something to do with that particular purpose?” asked Gaffney.

Gaffney answers his own question by claiming the existence of an ongoing “purge.”

“Increasingly of late, there is effectively a purge going on of people of faith from the U.S. military, a social engineering of the institution of the military between homosexuals and women in combat, the evisceration of the military’s training resources and in some cases, senior leadership. Could you at some point get to a point where that military was willing to enforce martial law against the people of the United States under circumstances less than national emergency?

“It’s a conversation we ought to be having,” he said.

“When you look at the assaults on the Constitution Obama is engaged in, when you look at the assaults on the military Obama is engaged in, at least it is a scenario [martial law] that could both explain what he is doing and … what he has in mind,” Gaffney continued.

He contends, “The American people don’t want any part of where Obama is taking us, despite the fact they have elected him twice, but I believe that’s mostly because they are not aware of how truly radical and subversive Obama’s agenda is.”

A number of other retired generals told WND they aren’t commenting on the issue, apparently out of caution due to the potential for political retribution by the Obama administration.

Besides, even those who are retired remain linked to the Department of Defense through the pensions, benefits and other ties.

The reluctance to comment extended to the motives behind the handling of these generals’ individual cases, most of whom were dismissed for “personal misbehavior.”

“Yes, I have my own personal thoughts on the matter,” one retired general told WND, “but they are most likely just as authoritative as any other citizen.”

Vallely lacks those inhibitions, charging the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Public comments that followed WND’s report on the firing of the generals and flag officers was anonymous, but pointed none-the-less.

“If we don’t impeach Obama SOON, it will be too late for America and Americans,” wrote Geneva Phoenix.

“Barry’s just following the communist playbook. Stalin did the same thing when he came to power…,” said Ernie Kaputnik.

“Obammy is purging the military. He is doing it for two reasons

1) To help destroy America’s ability to protect itself and so it will have less standing in the world.

2) To advance his I’m-better-than-GOD agenda,” added Old Salty Dog99.

“Obama is the cancer within the body of America. It is metastasizing now, and spreading that cancer thru the land…,” wrote Alfred King of Wessex.

Other readers compared Obama’s actions to those of Germany’s Adolf Hitler, or the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin.

Three of the nine firings just this year were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements in the area that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He was immediately relieved of his command and retired.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends that aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

He was relieved of his command by Ham for allegedly groping a civilian. However, there has been no assault or sexual misconduct charge filed against him with the military Judge Advocates General’s Office.

Six others were removed for a variety of alleged misconduct. They include Army Brig. Gen. Bryan Roberts, who took command of Fort Jackson in 2011; Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command; Marine Corps Major Gen. Charles M. M. Gurganus, regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan; Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr., as the 58th superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.; Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command; and Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force.

John Griffing contributed to this report from Texas.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-aims-wrecking-operation-at-military/#7J6Tv3sPe0M1GpZx.99

 

Americans ‘collecting torches, pitchforks’ over feds’ arrogance


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:Bob Unruh

Montana lawsuit plaintiff tells Supreme Court justices to rein in Washington

author-image 

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

leadbullets

The plaintiff in a Montana lawsuit has written an open letter to members of the U.S. Supreme Court, where his case soon is to be appealed, pleading with them to rein in the federal government’s arrogance and conceit.

The letter from Gary Marbut, president of Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of “Gun Laws of Montana,” actually described the problem as the “overweening federal power,” and that’s defined as “overconfident, conceited, cocksure, cocky, smug, haughty, supercilious, lofty, patronizing, arrogant, proud, vain, self-important, imperious and overbearing.”

Sound like Washington?

“The natives are beyond restless,” Marbut wrote to the justices. “They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse.”

He continued, “There is plenty of evidence for this assertion. Nine states have enacted Firearms Freedom Acts, and 23 others have introduced FFA clones and may yet enact them. Other states have enacted or introduced other ‘Freedom Acts,’ such as the Whiskey Freedom Act, the Light Bulb Freedom Act, and the Healthcare Freedom Act. But those only tell part of the story. States are passing laws prohibiting enforcement of indefinite detention under the NDAA, there are police agencies that have publicly declared refusal to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act(s), there are the states that have enacted various marijuana tolerance laws in defiance of federal law, and much more. These rejections of overweening federal power are happening not only at the state level, but at the county, city level, and with individual citizens.

“Frankly,” he wrote, “the working people of America are fed up with an overbearing federal government bent on regulating everyone and everything.”

His lawsuit seeks a court decision that his state’s Montana Firearms Freedom Act allows him to manufacture and sell within Montana a “Montana Buckeroo” .22 rifle.

Without oversight from the federal government.

Read the letter itself.

The federal bureaucracy responded to his plan by threatening him with criminal charges.

However, he lays out an argument that Washington has stepped so far beyond its constitutional authority that unless it is reined in, bad things are bound to happen.

Peaceful revolution

“President John F. Kennedy informed us, ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.’ MSSA v. Holder is our best, and could be the last or near last, attempt at the peaceful revolution we’d all emphatically prefer to the alternative Kennedy asserted,” Marbut wrote.

“It could well be that MSSA v. Holder marks an historical cusp similar to that served up to SCOTUS in Scott v. Sandford. (For any non-attorneys reading this, Scott v. Sandford is often known as the ‘Dred Scott decision,’ a Supreme Court decision thought by many historians to have been the spark that set off the Civil War, a decision that effectively upheld the institution of slavery.)”

The lawsuit was filed by Marbut and several firearms organizations in Montana after the state legislature there adopted the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. It simply states that firearms made and sold inside Montana’s borders are exempt from federal regulation.

Washington disagrees. It maintains that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, it has the right to control commerce inside states, even though the constitutional provision specifies it’s for commerce “among” the states.

Montana Buckaroo

The case never was about just a Montana Buckaroo, though.

“I wrote the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) in 2004, specifically to use firearms as the vehicle to challenge federal power under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC),” Marbut explains.

The lawsuit was thrown out by a federal district judge on grounds of standing and merit. The far-left leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that the plaintiffs do have standing, but it affirmed the ruling on merit, opening the door to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Marbut argues in his letter that the problem traces back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in a fight over wheat price supports threatened to “pack” a Supreme Court with six extra justices so he could ram through his agenda of government control.

The then-members of the Supreme Court folded, deciding the “Wickard” case in Roosevelt’s favor, creating the basis for the long string of later decisions that continued to tighten the federal grip on instate activities.

New Definitions

Marbut explained the court did its work by creating new definitions for “regulate,” “commerce” and “among,” which resulted practically in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since the existing understanding would be changed.

He said commerce was changed to mean “any economic activity, no matter how minor,” regulate was given the meaning “prohibit” and among was made to mean “within.”

“The word ‘among’ is a bit slippery to define, although we all grasp what it means. However, we can easily define what it does NOT mean with a simple thought experiment: You say, ‘Among the three children they had enough money for two ice cream cones.’ I ask, ‘Is an X-ray machine required to find the money.’ You answer, ‘No, because the money is not within them, it is among them.’ Thus, we see clearly that the meaning of ‘among’ does NOT include ‘within.’ Yet to make the Wickard decision do what FDR wanted, SCOTUS had to redefine ‘among’ to mean ‘within.’

Conflict

He also points out that a standard principle of law is that provisions adopted later amends those adopted earlier. Marbut pointed out that the Second Amendment, as well as the Ninth and Tenth, were adopted after the commerce clause, and thus amended it.

And he noted, “The laws that the U.S. asserts prohibit Montana from implementing the MFFA, and that prohibit me from making and selling the Montana Buckaroo sans federal regulation, are clearly a form of prior restraint. SCOTUS has been clear that prior restraint upon the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights is not to be lightly tolerated. Because federal laws being applied inhibit exercise of Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendment reserved rights in advance, those laws neatly fit the prior restraint definition. Generically, prior restraint of a reserved constitutional right may not be done when supported only by a rational basis. It will be difficult or impossible for the U.S. to muster persuasive arguments to satisfy a level of review more strict than a simple rational basis concerning an asserted federal trump of the MFFA.”

He also argues that Montana entered statehood in 1889 under a compact, or contract, and the state accepted the U.S. Constitution as it was understood at the time.

“If the people of Montana had understood in 1889 that this proposed Compact would preclude them from being able to make firearms, or even repair firearms, without a federal license, I seriously doubt that the Montana Legislature would have approved the Compact and Ordinance 1.”

Specific performance of that contract would be an appropriate remedy, or in the alternative, “rescission.”

Saber-rattling

“We prefer not to rattle that particular saber, but that ultimate remedy remains an inescapable final option that cannot be blinked away,” he said.

What the court needs to do, he said, “reverse Wickard and all of its progeny, based on demonstration that the Wickard Court improperly amended the Constitution.”

“That would certainly take courage. But such a decision would repair a lot of wrong that has happened in our nation, and would reaffirm the proper principles by which our federal government is supposed to be governed.”

Or it could simply leave the federal bureaucracy untouched, he noted.

“Suffice it to say that where the primary role of government is supposed to be to protect the liberties of the people, our federal government is charging madly down the road to transform the U.S. into some form of police state where everything that is not permitted by government is forbidden. That is simply unacceptable.

“The time will come very soon when the Kennedy equation is likely to tip decisively in one direction or the other. I dearly hope that SCOTUS will avail itself of MSSA v. Holder to shepherd in the much preferred peaceful revolution in President Kennedy’s equation. The alternative is too dire to contemplate, but remains clearly potential.”

Attorney Nick Dranias represented friend-of-the-court party the Goldwater Institute and others in the 9th Circuit’s oral arguments, and Quentin Rhoades represented Marbut and Montana shooting interests.

The arguments before the 9th Circuit have been posted online:

Americans start fighting back

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/americans-collecting-torches-pitchforks-over-feds-arrogance/#tvsp03vEvGbEKZ2t.99

 

Impeachment Gains Ground: “I Think if the House Had an Impeachment Vote it Would Probably Impeach the President.”


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://freepatriot.org

 

Posted by:Michelle Wright

images

WND has published an exclusive article revealing that Representative Stockton out of Texas distributed copies of the  ” articles on impeachment” for Barack Obama, and is pushing for special investigations of the president. Stockton notes that possible prosecutions are in order over such debacles as Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and a multitude of other scandals that have been swept under the rug by this administration.

Stockton is not alone in his thoughts, a total of 15 members of congress have now discussed impeachment of Obama. Rep. Bill Flores of Texas brought up the idea at a townhall meeting.  A video of the meeting depicts Flores claiming: “I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights.” He says they’ve come to a point where a decision must be made, and feels that “if the house had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”

WND’s exclusive reveals:

To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure that even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.

Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

“I think he”s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.

Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”

Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”

“I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions,” he said.

A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”

Coburn said he agreed.

“Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time,” he said. “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”

Days earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.

Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”

He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”

Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.

Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.

“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”

Farenthold, who thinks there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, said he often is asked why Congress doesn’t take action.

He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”

But, like others, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.

The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.

In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”

But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.

“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.

One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.

Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.

Stockman recently distributed copies of the book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office,” to the other 434 members of the House of Representatives to bolster his case for a special investigation of the President.

The bestselling “Impeachable Offenses” presents an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines.

The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.

“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.

The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
  • From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
  • New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
  • The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
  • Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

 

4 Things Obama Will Deny Americans…


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!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.westernjournalism.com

 

Posted by:Rick Badman

 

Photo Credit: caroline_1

President Obama was one of the most promising candidates to ever run for President. He promised us so much that he might as well have run for National Genie.

Obamacare is the skunk that has been called a kitty in hopes that everyone would embrace it. But the stink is nearly impossible to eliminate. There were promises made that turned out to be lies. They could bring down the President. But forget about impeachment. There are too many Democrats to allow that, even though Obama nearly makes Nixon look like a saint.

In medical research, we were maybe a generation away from breakthroughs that could have helped most Americans and lowered medical costs dramatically. The pain bypass unit that will be smaller than a AAA battery would be placed at the base of the brain to prevent most pain signals from being felt. Millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of others around the world would have benefited from the development of the device, which might have cost less than $1,000 to users thanks to government absorption of most of the expenses. The need for pain pills and pain treatment would be dramatically reduced, and multitudes would have lived normal lives. But since the company or companies that would have developed the idea would also have been taxed heavily and maybe driven out of business, they may never develop something people need and would have financially benefited from (thanks to less need for pain medication.)

Another device that might be denied is the nerve bypass that would be implanted to allow paralyzed people to function normally again. The first version of the device was drawn in 1974, and I approached a head of surgery with that idea and the idea that nerves would be transplanted from one part of the body to another. He said that both ideas were impossible. At the time, he might have been right. But the second idea has become reality, and I trust the first idea will also become reality unless Obamacare prevents it from becoming available.

My synthetic heart that would use the body’s energy, a nuclear battery, and a catalyst to use chemicals in the blood to produce energy is written about in my book THE MADHOUSE PROJECTS. The surgeon tells the doctors in the gallery that he would advise his patient to eat more sugar since it would be used by the catalyst to generate energy for the heart. It would use an electrochemical reaction to expand and contract the synthetic muscles at a heart rate determined by sensors in the heart. Such a heart might last longer than the patient and could be transplanted into another person years later. But it might remain a device in the science fiction world for fear its development will bankrupt developers, thanks to Obamacare.

A fourth idea is a chemical catalyst that would do a better job than the liver. Simple chemicals would be pumped into the catalyst, and a computer would analyze the blood to see what substances were needed and produce them. Doctors could use such a device to eliminate toxic substances from the body and prevent countless deaths in the future. People who have personal chemical catalysts might spend less than 10% for chemicals than they spend for drugs. There would be few if any side effects. But Obamacare may once again prevent the development of the device that could save untold millions in the future.

If Obamacare can be abolished, and sensible medical care solutions are used instead of this one-circus-tent-fits-all approach to health care coverage , maybe the delays will be reduced. But their use will be denied by Obama for economic reasons. That’s the price Americans might have to pay thanks to Obama.

We can’t change what should have been, to produce what should be. But we can eliminate the bad to produce the good we will experience in the future. We shouldn’t use excuses to justify the bad that exists. And by all means, we shouldn’t blame others for problems we should try our best to solve. “It’s not my fault” is an excuse we too often use. Incompetent people who use that excuse to justify failure admit that they are failures too. But those who cause the problems they complain about in hopes that the listeners will not blame them, but blame the targets they have designated, are despicable.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/things-obama-will-deny-americans/#JTiQvrAmZLTJgrKB.99

 

Former Obama Administration Official: Obama Will ‘Pay Price’ For Healthcare Promise Reversal


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!

 

Reblogged from:http://news.yahoo.com

 

Posted by: Benjamin Bell

This morning on This Week,” Crossfire co-host Van Jones, a former Obama administration official, said the president would “pay a price,” for reversing course on his now famous promise that those Americans who like their plans could keep them if them if they wished under Obamacare.

“”And he overpromised. And he will, listen, he will pay a price. ‘Mission accomplished,’ you pay a price. ‘No new taxes,’ you pay a price. ‘You keep your plan,’ you pay a price,” Jones said.

During his appearance on the “This Week,” roundtable Jones also tweaked the Obama administration for being too ambitious with Healthcare.gov, which has been plagued by problems since its launch last month.

“First of all, they tried to do too much on this website, you could just have the website where you allow people to shop and then they could just call in, I mean, they tried to do too much and I think part of it was because it was a central thing they did, they tried to do too much,” he said.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who appeared on “This Week,” defended the president.

“If the president didn’t intend to keep this promise, why would he have gone out of his way to put a provision in the law that specifically says that if you have a plan before Obamacare passed, you can keep that plan,” he asked.

Jones also took the Republicans to task for what he described as hypocritical behavior.

“It is amazing to me now to see the Republican party now become the party of Ralph Nader. They’re the biggest consumer protection operation in the world now but 6 months ago, we had people who were getting these same cancellation notices and the Republican party was silent,” Jones said.

 

ABC van jones this week jt 131103 16x9 608 Former Obama Administration Official: Obama Will Pay Price For Healthcare Promise Reversal

 

More Gang of Eight Foes


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!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.nationalreview.com

 

Posted by:Andrew Stiles

Immigration officers complain that DHS won’t let them enforce immigration laws.

Andrew Stiles

Conservative critics of the Gang of Eight immigration bill are closely watching the House, wary of any actions that could lead to a conference committee with the Senate. Many have been critical of what they regard as House leadership’s equivocation on the issue, and now some are accusing House Republicans of failing to adequately investigate the Obama administration’s failure to enforce existing immigration law.

Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, the union representing more than 7,500 officers and support staff at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is urging House lawmakers to investigate alleged abuses by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before introducing any immigration-reform legislation. “We are urging all lawmakers to demand an investigation of DHS before moving immigration bills,” Crane, a vocal critic of the Gang of Eight, wrote in a letter to members of Congress on Monday.

Advertisement

He is joined by Kenneth Palinkas, president of the union representing officers and staff of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), who also opposes the Gang of Eight bill. “At every step, this administration places obstacles and roadblocks in front of our adjudication officers in their attempts to protect our nation’s security and the American taxpayer,” Palinkas said on October 10. He has warned that pursuing immigration reform of any kind “without first confronting the widespread abuses at USCIS would be to invite disaster.”

Both union presidents complain that neither the Gang of Eight nor President Obama has sought their input on the issue of immigration-law enforcement. Crane has been trying to secure a meeting at the White House since February.

“ICE officers are being ordered by DHS political appointees to ignore the law,” Crane wrote Monday. “Violent criminal aliens are released every day from jails back into American communities. ICE Officers face disciplinary action for engaging in routine law enforcement actions.” Last year, a group of ICE agents sued the Obama administration over its June 2012 policy directive designed to give certain illegal immigrants — so-called DREAMers, who were brought to the country as children — a reprieve from deportation efforts. The agents contend that the administration’s directive has been applied far too broadly and often forces them to release illegal immigrants arrested for violent crimes, such as assaulting an officer. In some cases, known gang members with criminal histories are let go without charge. All they have to do is claim protection under “Obama’s DREAM Act,” as some have taken to calling it.

“This a public-safety issue,” Crane tells National Review Online. “The administration’s actions are putting the American people at risk, and I think every member of Congress should be demanding answers.” Essentially, his agents are prohibited from enforcing the law; they are “beat down and scared” and under the constant threat of retaliation from an agency (DHS) that “rules with an iron fist.” He is skeptical of any immigration-reform effort that fails to address these concerns.

Palinkas argues that USCIS, which is charged with processing immigrant applications for visas and requests for legal status, has become “an approval machine” at the administration’s behest: The approval rate of applications for legal status under the so-called “DREAM order” is almost 100 percent. Adjudicators are given “approval quotas” and discouraged from fully vetting applications, Palinkas says. Employees are forced to comply with administrative orders requiring USCIS to grant welfare benefits to immigrants who are not legally eligible to receive them.

“We’re ready and willing to meet with anyone and everyone who asks, and to help out with any investigations,” Crane says. House Republicans have held a number of hearings dealing with issues of border security and interior immigration enforcement, but none so far have specifically addressed the concerns presented by the immigration-law-enforcement community.

A senior conservative aide opposed to the Gang of Eight suggests that House leadership is reluctant to draw attention to the accusation from immigration officers out of fear that it could further complicate the politics of immigration reform, which is backed by prominent interest groups in both parties. “It’s easy to be tough when you don’t have to confront any embedded special interests,” the aide said, citing as examples Republican resolve during investigations into scandals surrounding the IRS and the Fast and Furious program. “The real question is, Are you tough when it requires you to take on the special interests in your own party?”

The “grand thinkers” in the Republican party just want to “get the immigration issue behind” them and know that the base is already on edge, the aide adds. “It would be inconvenient to explore these scandals and corrupt activities, because revealing them would require taking action to address them, and that would be an unpleasant roadblock to the swift passage of an immigration bill.

 

Former Navy SEAL Team Six Commander Says Special Ops Assault on Obama Is Just Beginning


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!

 

Reblogged from: http://politicker.com

 

Posted by: Hunter Walker

 Former Navy SEAL Team Six Commander Says Special Ops Assault on Obama Is Just Beginning

Ryan Zinke in his Navy days. (Photo: IraqVetsForCongress.com)

Earlier this week, Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc., a group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces personnel, launched a campaign criticizing President Barack Obama for unfairly taking credit for killing Osama bin Laden and leaking national security information for political gain. This is the second high-profile attack on the president from ex-elite military operatives. Last month, Ryan Zinke, a Montana State Senator and former commander of Navy SEAL Team Six, started a super PAC, Special Operations for America, which is dedicated to supporting Mitt Romney and hitting President Obama on leaks and on politicizing Bin Laden’s death. According to Mr. Zinke, these two super PACs are just the first salvo in what will be a sustained assault on the president by high-level ex-soldiers.

“There’s a number of groups out there,” Mr. Zinke told Politicker this morning. “I think what it demonstrates is, there’s a lot of anger, there’s a lot of concern among the former military community.”

Mr. Zinke said he believes these feelings of anger were fueled by a series of White House leaks and an Obama campaign commercial featuring President Bill Clinton that questioned whether Mr. Romney would have ordered the SEAL Team Six raid that killed Bin Laden.

“I think there is huge concern that the administration is using and continues to leak class documents for less than–well, for political gain,” said Mr. Zinke. “I think when the commercial came out with President Clinton and President Obama, and they talked about the political ramifications of failure, they didn’t talk about the families that would be left without a father. They talked about political consequences—that was a bridge too far.”

Mr. Zinke also pointed to White House leaks about the Bin Laden raid to a pair of filmmakers who are making a movie about the operation as something that was upsetting to military personnel.

“There’s a lot of reasons you can release classified information, a lot of justifiable reasons, but making a movie for political gain isn’t one of them,” Mr. Zinke said.

According to Mr. Zinke, there are currently at least four other anti-Obama groups made up of former elite military operatives: Special Operations Speaks, Veterans for a Strong America, Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc. and his group, Special Operations for America. He said he expects that number to climb. Because active-duty soldiers are barred from engaging in political activity, Mr. Zinke believes it is especially important for retired military personnel to speak up.

“It’s really incumbent upon the retired guys to articulate a message. You look at the approval ratings of the president, Congress is in single-digits, the president is not far behind, and I think Americans still appreciate the credibility of our military,” he said.

(For the record, the president’s approval rating actually currently stands at over 40 percent.)

Mr. Zinke described his group and VSA as “kind of sisters” and said he knows some of the officers involved in other groups from his days in the SEALs, but said SOFA doesn’t coordinate with any other groups.

“We’re trying to link many of these organizations for a unified effort and, to a degree, they’re like herding cats,” said Mr. Zinke.

Though he knows there’s “power in a unified message,” Mr. Zinke said part of his reluctance to associate his group with other similar organizations is because, “SOFA is a little more cautious; we don’t want to editorialize.”

The Obama campaign criticized Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc. as being akin to the “swift boat” attacks that smeared John Kerry in 2004 and noted that, despite claims of nonpartisanship, the group has ties to the GOP.  Mr. Zinke dismissed these criticisms of the former military groups attacking President Obama.

“There’s going to be attempts to discredit,” Mr. Zinke said. “I guess when you take a stand, you expose yourself to rocks. And so be it.”

For his part, Mr. Zinke said his organization is “not swift boat.”

“I can speak for SOFA—we are not swift boat in that what we are articulat[ing] is factual, and we’re very careful not to make personal attacks. We are making a complete argument of why the administration’s actions and policies are not in the best interests of national defense and national security,” said Mr. Zinke.

Special Operations for America’s upcoming plans include a television commercial. Mr. Zinke said the ad would be “edgy,” but wouldn’t be “a personal attack.”

“I don’t stoop to personal attacks,” he said. “You know, I’m not from Chicago. In Montana, we do things a little differently.”

Watch the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc. video, “Dishonorable Disclosures,” below.

Fred Rustman

 

Explosive New Report — Obama Knew Benghazi Would Be Attacked


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!

 

Reblogged from: http://eaglerising.com

 

Posted by: Onan Coca

You have to give it to CBS. On Benghazi, they are the network holding the Obama administration’s feet to the fire. At some point, Americans will have to begin to realize that there is a scandal hiding in all of the BS that the Obama administration has been peddling about the 9-11 Benghazi attack and its aftermath. Just this past weekend, CBS ran an explosive report providing first-hand accounts that the White House and the State Department (headed by Hillary Clinton) knew full well that the Benghazi attack was indeed an al-Qaeda orchestrated attack right from the start. Even more damning – there is new evidence that shows they were expecting this attack for months!

Andy Wood: We had one option: “Leave Benghazi or you will be killed.”

Green Beret Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, was one of the top American security officials in Libya. Based in Tripoli, he met with Amb. Stevens every day.

The last time he went to Benghazi was in June, just three months before the attack. While he was there, al Qaeda tried to assassinate the British ambassador. Wood says, to him, it came as no surprise because al Qaeda — using a familiar tactic — had stated their intent in an online posting, saying they would attack the Red Cross, the British and then the Americans in Benghazi.

Bloodyhands

Lara Logan: And you watched as they–

Andy Wood: As they did each one of those.

Lara Logan: –attacked the Red Cross and the British mission. And the only ones left–

Andy Wood: Were us. They made good on two out of the three promises. It was a matter of time till they captured the third one.

Lara Logan: And Washington was aware of that?

Andy Wood: They knew we monitored it. We included that in our reports to both State Department and DOD.

Andy Wood told us he raised his concerns directly with Amb. Stevens three months before the U.S. compound was overrun.

Andy Wood: I made it known in a country team meeting, “You are gonna get attacked. You are gonna get attacked in Benghazi. It’s gonna happen. You need to change your security profile.”

Andy Wood: –“Shut down operations. Move out temporarily. Ch– or change locations within the city. Do something to break up the profile because you are being targeted. They are– they are– they are watching you. The attack cycle is such that they’re in the final planning stages.”

Lara Logan: Wait a minute, you said, “They’re in the final planning stages of an attack on the American mission in Benghazi”?

Andy Wood: It was apparent to me that that was the case. Reading, reading all these other, ah, attacks that were occurring, I could see what they were staging up to, it was, it was obvious.

We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.

greghicksattacknotdemo

The entire report is well worth watching and deals more with all of the things that transpired on that horrible night in Libya. My focus was on this part of the interview though, where we learn that the Secretary Clinton and President Obama had plenty of intelligence warning them of an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. These men are not the only whistleblowers who are talking about the events in Benghazi. Gregory Hicks gave similarly damning testimony to Congress, but the White House has continued to stonewall and obfuscate any attempts at getting to the truth.

We must continue to demand answers from our Representatives. We cannot allow them to become complacent about the murders of American citizens overseas. All of the evidence points to the complicity of President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton in the deaths and cover-ups of these four brave Americans… and they deserve better than us forgetting what has taken place.

We must stand up for the Benghazi victims.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/2577/explosive-new-report-obama-knew-benghazi-attacked/#zsJQEI3vFpsLFjSQ.99

 

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: