Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “B. Hussein Obama”

Citizens revolt, refuse to register guns


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:Greg Corombos

Americans declare, ‘I’m prepared to go to jail’

author-image 

Tens of thousands of Connecticut residents are refusing to register their firearms in defiance of new gun-control laws, and law-enforcement officers in that state and others are simply refusing to enforce the recently imposed restrictions.

In December 2012, the nation was horrified by the merciless killings of a classroom of young children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. In response, the Democratic state legislature approved sweeping new gun-control laws, and Gov. Dan Malloy signed them into law. Several other states followed suit, including New York, Maryland and Colorado.

In addition to banning new sales of many types of firearms and larger capacity magazines that were previously legal, the state is also requiring residents who legally purchased those weapons and magazines to register them with the state.

For many Connecticut residents, that is a bridge too far, and they are refusing to comply with the law. Gun-rights groups are standing with them.

“The revolt is underway. Tens of thousands of people in Connecticut have intentionally missed the deadline. They are not registering. Some of them actually said they would not when they were at the hearing when the law was being considered in the legislature,” said Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Larry Pratt below:

Video of cops and folks saying won’t support Conn. law

Pratt said the backlash does not stop there. He said Connecticut state lawmakers from both parties who supported the new gun laws are facing fierce tests at the ballot box.

“Almost all of the RINOs in the State Senate that voted for the measure are being opposed in the primary,” Pratt said. “Democrats, you might have to face some angry voters in November, but Republicans are looking over their shoulder right now.”

He also said Connecticut and other states with new gun-control laws will have a tough time enforcing them because of a growing resentment toward the law among police officers.

“Two hundred and fifty police (in Connecticut) have signed a letter that they are not going to enforce the law. They have no intention of collecting anyone’s firearms,” said Pratt, who noted that the resistance from law enforcement in Colorado is even stronger.

“All but two of the state’s county sheriffs have said, ‘We’re not enforcing the law.’ To the surprise, I think, of a lot of legislators, it turns out lawmen are not particularly enamored with gun control. After all, they own guns personally. A lot of them enjoy recreational use of guns, and for them to be put in the position of collecting guns for some liberal ideologue in the legislature, they didn’t really sign up for that,” Pratt said.

Gun Owners of America is urging residents in Connecticut, Colorado and other states to reject new laws requiring the registration of newly illegal weapons. But at a time when many on the right condemn President Obama for alleged selective enforcement of laws, are those same conservatives guilty of a double standard in this situation?

Pratt said the Constitution provides the road map in both situations.

“Frankly, I don’t have a constitutional problem with what the president is doing. We can deal with him and his party using the means provided in the forthcoming elections. If we end up sending a tsunami wave over his party and making his last two years in office totally miserable, that’s the way the system permits it to be done,” Pratt said.

“Same thing in Connecticut. People are saying, ‘I’m prepared to go to jail.’ Well, if you get so many tens of thousands of people saying that, it becomes difficult to imagine how that (many arrests) can happen, especially if there aren’t any police around to arrest them in the beginning,” he said.

“I think it’s an American’s right to exercise his conscience. He has to be prepared to take the consequences, just like Martin Luther King. He exercised his conscience. (Rosa) Parks went and sat down right in the front of the bus. Now she was taken off the bus and escorted away, and she was put in jail for a bit. She was prepared to take the consequences, but she had decided, ‘No more,’ Pratt said. “The people of Connecticut, I think, are in the same frame of mind.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/citizens-revolt-refuse-to-register-guns/#Ekfq1PCaw7jOv78P.99

Advertisements

Obama’s use of executive power faces reckoning at Supreme Court


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.teaparty.org

 

Posted by:

obama-1-600x286

(The Hill) – Nothing less than the boundaries of executive power are at stake Monday as the Supreme Court considers whether President Obama violated the Constitution during his first term.

Oral arguments slated for Monday will center on a trio of recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that were deemed unconstitutional by lower courts.

If they uphold the decision, experts say the justices could endanger hundreds of NLRB decisions.

Even more significant are the ramifications for future presidents, with the court poised either to bolster or blunt the chief executive’s appointment powers.

“Rulings like this have implications that last for centuries,” said Michael Lotito, an employment and labor attorney and co-chairman of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute.

Presidents have for decades used recess appointment powers when the Senate is away to install judges and fill top federal vacancies that ordinarily would be subject to confirmation proceedings.

But with the disputed NLRB appointments, Obama became the first president to appoint nominees when the Senate was in a “pro-forma” session, when the upper chamber is briefly called to order and adjourned every few days.

The sessions are intended to prevent recess appointments, and usually only a handful of senators are present for them. In filling the NLRB posts, the Obama administration claims that the Senate is generally not available to conduct business during the sessions, so the president’s recess appointment power is in effect.

“The sham pro-forma sessions are nothing more than that,” said Catholic University law professor Victor Williams, who filed a brief backing the government’s position.

The impetus for recess appointments has faded now that Senate Democrats have changed their chamber’s rules to allow for a simple majority vote on presidential nominees. Nevertheless, the case could stunt Obama’s and future presidents’ authority when it comes to staffing administrations.

The case was brought by Noel Canning, an Oregon-based soft drink bottling and distribution company that challenged the appointments as unconstitutional.

In January of last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The appellate court ruling under now review at the Supreme Court found a narrow window for the president to make recess appointments. Under its decision, the president can only make such appointments when the Senate is in recess between sessions of Congress, and only if a vacancy occurred in that same time period.

That goes well against protocol adopted by past Democratic and Republican presidents. A Congressional Service Research report found 329 such appointments since 1981 that would not meet that criteria and would be ruled void if the appeals court decision was law.

Some see the fight against the labor board as a broader effort in which opponents have sought to stymie the Obama administration’s rules and regulations.

“I think the battle against the NLRB over the last few years has been a proxy war about the proper role and scope of government,” said Wilma Liebman, who served as chairwoman of the NLRB from January 2009 to August 2011.

The obscure agency has become ground zero in that war, pitting business against labor and Republicans against Democrats.

The private sector mobilized a massive lobbying campaign after Obama’s election, fearing a Democratic president might enact a host of policy changes favorable to unions.

The effort first targeted legislation that would ease union organizing, but shifted to the NLRB nominees and its decisions.

“There has been an especially rancorous degree of controversy whipped around the NLRB. It got swept up with the Employee Free Choice Act,” Liebman said.

The NLRB has had its decisions overturned by the high court before. In 2010, the Supreme Court found the board lacked the authority to make decisions for more than two years because it only had two members — one short of a quorum.

About 600 NLRB decisions were made in that time period, and the board was forced to go back through about 100 of them.

Liebman said it was a time-consuming process, but one the labor board could do again.

“We issued new decisions in a relatively short period of time. We had a process in place and went methodically back through them,” Liebman said. “It took some time that we could have spent doing other things. It wasn’t the end of the world.”

But having to turn its focus on previous decisions could sidetrack the NLRB from what is seen as an activist agenda at a critical moment, said Lolito, whose firm represents employers.

The board is now at full strength for the first time in years, and was expected to tackle numerous issues involving union elections.

“If this board has to spend the next good couple of years looking backward instead of forward, many in the employer community would say that’s good news,” he said.

In Monday’s arguments, attorneys with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will argue on behalf of Noel Canning that the NLRB operated without a quorum for well over a year, causing confusion for both employers and employees.

“We look forward to the much needed clarity that the Supreme Court’s decision will bring,” said Lily Fu Claffee, the Chamber’s general counsel.

The Obama administration’s case hinges on winning three points, according to Georgetown University Law Center’s Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who is arguing against the government.

First, it must convince the justices that presidents may make appointments during regular recesses and not, as the appeals court ruled, only during the breaks between numbered sessions on Congress.

Next, the court must agree that the appointments may include the filling of vacancies that existed before the recess began, rather than those that occurred during a recess.

Finally, it must conclude that the pro-forma sessions do not count as formal sessions of Congress.

Proving all three points, particularly the last, would be a tall order, said Rosenkranz, who predicted a 9-0 ruling in favor of Noel Canning.

“I don’t think this is a close case,” he said.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/195155-supreme-court-to-decide-the-limits-of-executive-

– See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/obamas-use-executive-power-faces-reckoning-supreme-court-33090/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.lkDhQFk9.dpuf

Why Bridgegate made headlines but Obama’s IRS scandal didn’t


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://nypost.com

 

Posted by:JOHN PODHORETZ

John Podhoretz

 

Why Bridgegate made headlines but Obama’s IRS scandal didn’t

Photo: Illustration by Leah Tiscione

Most government scandals involve the manipulation of the system in obscure ways by people no one has ever heard of. That is why George Washington Bridgegate is nearly a perfect scandal — because it is comprehensible and (as they say in Hollywood) “relatable” to everyone who has ever been in a car. This is the reason this one is not going to go away so easily, even if one accepts the contention that Gov. Chris Christie had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Government officials and political operatives working for Christie, for weird and petty reasons, chose to make traffic worse. That’s the takeaway. When they are reminded of the fact that people working on Christie’s behalf thought it was a good political game to mire tens of thousands of their fellow Americans in the nightmarish gridlock that is a daily dreaded prospect for tens of millions, they will be discomfited by that and by the politician in whose name it was done.

And yet, you know what is also something everybody would find “relatable”? Politicians who sic the tax man on others for political gain. Everybody has to deal with the IRS and fears it. Last year, we learned from the Internal Revenue Service itself that it had targeted ideological opponents of the president for special scrutiny and investigation — because they were ideological opponents.

That’s juicy, just as Bridgegate is juicy. It’s something we can all understand, it speaks to our greatest fears, and it’s the sort of thing TV newspeople could gab about for days on end without needing a fresh piece of news to keep it going.

And yet, according to Scott Wheelock of the Media Research Center, “In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.”

Why? Oh, come on, you know why. Christie belongs to one political party. Obama belongs to the other. You know which ones they belong to. And you know which ones the people at the three networks belong to, too: In surveys going back decades, anywhere from 80% to 90% of Washington’s journalists say they vote Democratic.

Scandals are not just about themselves; they are about the media atmosphere that surrounds them. They are perpetuated and deepened by the attention of journalists, whose relentless pursuit of every angle keeps the story going. That is exactly what has been missing from the IRS scandal from its outset; Republicans in Congress have been the dogged pursuers, not the press.

There was plenty of material. Just as journalists remain skeptical today about who exactly might have gotten the idea for the lane closures, they could have been asking without letup who got the idea to dig into conservative tax-status applications. Several officials at the IRS resigned, retired and took the Fifth, just as was the case with Christie-aligned Port Authority officials.

It’s pretty clear the questions about how high up Bridgegate went are going to be pursued far more diligently than they have been in the IRS case.

What gives?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding among conservatives about the causes of partisan media bias — the reason there is unequal coverage of scandals of this kind. It exists not because there is a conscious effort to soft-pedal bad news for politicians you like and to push hard on bad news for politicians you don’t.

It’s actually more personal — more relatable, shall we say—than that.

Journalists know the Obamans. Intimately. They know them from college, they know them from work, they know them from kids’ soccer. They’re literally married to them.

To the journalists, the Obamans don’t look like crooks and cheats. Far from it. For them, it’s like looking in a mirror.

In September, Elspeth Reeve of The Atlantic Wire took note of 24 major journalists who have taken posts at senior levels in the Obama administration. All of them have worked for decades in various news organizations, thus creating personal ties and bonds of affection with literally hundreds of working reporters and editors.

The journalists are not covering up for their friends and their spouses. They just believe the people they know could not be responsible for behaving badly, or cravenly, or for crass political advantage —and the tone they strike when such things are discussed is often one of offense, as though it is a sign of low character to believe otherwise. It would be, well, like believing the journalists themselves were crooks.

It’s fair to say that most conservatives don’t know people in the Obama administration, and they dislike and disagree with its policies. When they look at it, their dislike and lack of any personal connection make it easier for them to see officials mired in scandal and tush-covering cover-up. This is a direct analogue to the way liberals — of whom journalists comprise a central cohort — viewed the George W. Bush and Reagan administrations.

They saw people with whom they disagreed and who they thought were bad for the country and so found it much easier to believe they were acting out of malign motive and doing evil.

Christie may be entirely innocent of all wrongdoing. Or there may be some connection, even a very tenuous and suggestive one. But there will be little let-up now.

For in the end, because Christie is a Republican. Christie isn’t them.

America’s expanding police state


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://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

Author

In the increased police state around us and the amplified NSA surveillance everywhere, citizens are feeling more and more like they are guilty until proven innocent. The police in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot stop many people for speeding since the interstates and highways are constantly partially blocked by accidents, road repairs, and rush hour – it is almost impossible to go fast – just a crawling speed bumper to bumper at all hours of the day and night.

What is a cop to do to make his quota of tickets? “Taxation through citation” for simple stuff, often made up charges, harassing innocent citizens, while real crimes go unpunished. The area is overrun with illegal aliens who drive unlawfully and badly because they cannot read nor understand the road signs, yet ordinary Americans are stopped constantly. Is the role of police to protect Americans who pay their salaries or has it morphed into taxing citizens through endless minor but expensive citations?

The tickets run from you did not stop long enough at the stop sign, you ignored it, you stopped way before the white line, you stopped past the white line, you changed lanes illegally, you did not signal, etc.  When roads are treacherous or covered in black ice, it is hard to stop precisely on the white line as policemen dictate.

Stop light cameras everywhere catch even the most diligent drivers who are tired of waiting in endless traffic lights that are not synchronized, and misjudge the timing of the camera flash after the light changes from yellow to red. Nobody argues with cops, it’s their words against the mighty police, unless they want to wind up in jail, tazed, or cavity searched.

I am sure many policemen put their lives on the line at times when they encounter bad guys. Must they hide behind unmarked cars in order to catch speeders or other violators? If the police’s role is to protect and serve the honest, law abiding taxpaying citizens, if we are in real trouble and need to seek police help, how do we know who to ask? How do we know they are the legitimate cops and not bad elements prowling to kidnap or rape the innocents?

Do police need tanks and armored vehicles like the ones used in battle in Iraq to protect its citizens from drunks, bar brawls, home invasions, convenience store robberies, and traffic violations? Yes, criminals have outgunned police at times, as was the case years ago in California during a bank heist gone terribly perilous.

For every lazy and novice cop who hides in quiet neighborhoods to catch residents going 2-3 miles over the speed limit or not stopping long enough (What is long enough and who decides?) at the stop signs, there are thousands of policemen who put their lives on the line to really serve and protect innocent citizens from harm. And they do it for modest remuneration.

As a law abiding citizen who has nothing to fear, I find myself more and more afraid of the police. It’s a feeling of dread I had growing up under communism. A person in police uniform was someone to fear because they were not there to protect us, they were there to harm and harass us – we were guilty until proven innocent. For three years after I arrived in the U.S., my heart skipped a beat every time I saw a cop – they were the enemy. I learned that policemen in the U.S. were there to help and protect, and I relaxed.

I never see a policeman on the road in Virginia helping a stranded motorist or changing a tire for a lady in distress as was the case in other parts of the country where I lived.

I see blue lights as more aggravation on the side of the roads with perennially slow moving traffic. Is it necessary for cops to call in another cruiser as a backup when they are ticketing someone for allegedly ignoring a stop sign?

Lately, I am anxious and fearful again every time I see a policeman in uniform – my old feelings of dread are resurfacing. As the police state tightens around us, heightened by the NSA spying on all American citizens, the question to ponder is, how free are we anymore?

SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUN


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

New ‘rules’ would suspend 2nd Amendment even for ‘outpatient’ treatment

author-image

In an end-of-week “information dump” often resorted to by political leaders to publicly release information they would like overlooked, President Obama formally has launched his much-feared expansion of the use of mental health diagnoses to crack down on gun ownership.

The Obama Department of Homeland Security already is on record casting aspersions on the mental ability of returning veterans, third-party candidate supporters and people with pro-life bumper stickers – calling them potential “right-wing extremists.” It was also caught, through the IRS, targeting conservative organizations that might be critical of Obama.

So critics of the administration long have warned the move would come. On Friday, it did.

Obama announced that his Department of Justice is proposing a rule change that would “clarify” that being committed to a mental institution – a key red flag under gun ownership rules – would include receiving nebulous “outpatient” services from a professional, such as a psychiatrist.

The president said his Health and Human Services agency is issuing a rule to pierce the privacy protections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so there would be “express permission” for “entities” to hand over to the federal government certain medical records – that is, “information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands.”

WND reported six months ago on alarms raised by various groups over this issue.

At the time, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, warned that the administration was widening the door for those subject to a “mental” deficiency definition, looking for ways to send people to a mental institution for “mental defectiveness or mental illness” or “for other reasons.”

“The phrase ‘for other reasons’ is overly broad and vague,” EPIC said. “Although the DOJ has illustrated that drug use is an example of ‘commitments for other reasons,’ the nebulous language would grant the DOJ sweeping authority to prohibit individuals from possessing firearms, a constitutionally protected right.”

The privacy advocates warned: “Until the DOJ clearly defines and enumerates the types of formal commitments that can bar gun ownership, HHS should not amend its regulations to release sensitive mental health information to the DOJ.”

The Obama administration’s gun-control agenda accelerated after the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012. It then began to press for “closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands,” a ban on “military-style” weapons and some ammunition magazines, as well as “making schools safer” and improving mental health services.

See the real details about the Second Amendment in the Whistleblower issue on “Firearms and Freedom: Why the Second Amendment is more important than ever.”

But the vague generalities used to describe the plans have worried privacy advocates and Second Amendment supporters.

‘Wrong hands’

On Friday, Obama announced his executive actions to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

“Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence,” his statement said. “While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.”

That, he wrote, explains the need for the DOJ rule “to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm” and the HHS rule change is “to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information … to the federal background check system.”

His statement noted that Obama already has directed federal agencies to hand over criminal records and other “information” about those who are prohibited from having guns “for mental health reasons.”

And he spent $20 million to “improve incentives for states” to hand over background check information to the federal government. He’s proposing to spend $50 million on that in 2014.

At the Washington Times, commentator Michael E. Hammond said, “The real agenda of the gun-hating Obama administration is to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans, even if the result is to discourage people from seeking counseling.”

He asked: “Do you really think a hunter or gun owner feels somehow less violated when, as a result of sharing his deepest secrets in confidence, his name is turned over to government as either a dangerous or incompetent person and – as has happened – a SWAT team is sent to his house to seize his guns?”

It was just a year ago that Obama announced 23 executive actions aimed at curbing gun rights. Then Congress handed him a massive defeat, refusing to go along with some of the more reaching plans to curb gun ownership.

The federal government admits it already has banned from gun ownership those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, or otherwise have been determined through an adjudication process to have a severe mental condition.

Judicial records

The mental health records come from the judiciary, not the health system.

Now the federal government wants access to all such records from health care providers, too.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center said the best way to handle the federal government’s plans would be to leave in place the protections provided for consumers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s Privacy Rule, which doesn’t allow such discussions of diagnoses or treatment.

EPIC said at the time if changes are made, there need to be clear protections.

“HHS should assign liability to states that disclose excess mental health data for NICS purposes,” the comments said. “HHS should mandate states notify NICS as soon as possible but no [later] than 10 business days of an incorrect or outdated mental illness record.”

Said EPIC: “There are not enough adequate privacy protections in place, under state law or otherwise, for data collected by state entities for reporting to the NICS. … Many states do not have privacy laws that explicitly address privacy protection of mental health records and availability to the NICS.”

WND also has reported on another anti-gun strategy, which is a possible explanation for why the Obama administration has failed to launch legal action against Colorado and Washington, where voters have voted to legalize marijuana under their state laws, even though federal law doesn’t allow it.

Some have asked if there something about the idea of legalizing marijuana that Washington likes. The idea may have been borne out recently when the Congressional Research Service released its report on the “State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues.”

As attorneys Todd Garvey and Brian Yeh wrote in the report, Washington has flexibility regarding drug prosecution, stating: “The extent to which federal authorities will actually seek to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana-related activities in Colorado and Washington remains uncertain. President Obama himself has suggested the prosecuting simple possession is not a priority, while the Department of Justice has said only that ‘growing, selling or possession any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.’”

What is more certain, they wrote, is that federal firearms regulators will be aggressive about banning anyone who uses marijuana from buying – or possessing – a weapon.

“With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado and Washington, it seems likely the ATF will … consider a recreational user of marijuana to be a prohibited possessor of firearms regardless of whether the use is lawful under state provisions,” they wrote.

The attorneys said the ATF specifically has stated “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

They further wrote, “These individuals are to answer ‘yes’ when asked on the firearms transfer form if they are unlawful users of a controlled substance.”

Targeting veterans

Also, the government has been using its interaction with veterans to designate many of them – by the tens of thousands – incapable of handling their own financial affairs and, therefore, banned from having guns.

A lawsuit was just filed by the United States Justice Foundation against the Veterans Administration for snatching veterans’ gun rights without “due process” or any “factual or legal basis.”

WND has published reports about how returning veterans were being deprived of their Second Amendment rights without a court-based adjudication competency process, based on arbitrary VA agency decisions.

The problem arises when the agency wants to appoint a fiduciary – someone to advise a disabled veteran or one receiving certain government benefits – to help with the management of the benefits.

The government then routinely notifies the FBI’s NICS system, a federally maintained list of those whose competency has been challenged. That means they no longer can purchase a gun or even keep the one they may have.

Michael Connelly, executive director of the USJF, told WND the initial lawsuit is to compel the VA to respond to two requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The information requested included Veterans Benefits Administration rules, regulations and criteria for making ‘determinations of incompetency due to a physical or mental condition of a benefit recipient,’” the legal team explained.

“The USJF has received numerous complaints from military veterans around the country who are being declared incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and then told that they can no longer purchase or own firearms or ammunition,” said Connelly. “This determination is being made without due process protections for the veterans and the basis for the incompetency ruling is often arbitrary and without a factual or legal basis.”

Just a month ago, WND columnist Jeff Knox warning about Obama’s newly announced strategy.

A front

“The strategy is to use the wide acceptance of the idea that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms as a front for prohibiting a broad array of ‘normal’ people from possessing guns or ammunition. As with most things, the devil is in the details. What is mental illness? Who is mentally ill? How mentally ill must one be to warrant revocation of a fundamental human right? Who makes that determination? Who is ‘normal,’ and how ‘normal’ do they have to be to own guns? We all know people who have dealt with some mental health issues or who people consider a bit odd, but who are also fully functional, completely rational, good people who would never harm anyone. The new anti-rights strategy is to cast doubts on those people and deny them their rights to own guns and ammunition.”

Knox also reported his sources confirm the strategy of using “emergency” legislation to “pass draconian bills with no hearings, no committee votes and no public input” that would further “control” firearms.

“While this anti-rights sneak attack is just getting under way, you can be sure it is well-planned and well-funded, so expect to see a flood of bills dealing with mental health in general and firearms access by the mentally ill in particular introduced in Congress and state legislatures nationwide in the coming months,” Knox wrote.

“These bills will be promoted as ‘common sense,’ but they will contain definitions so broad that hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of regular folks who have been or are being successfully treated for common, minor, mental and emotional issues will be denied their right to arms as ‘mental defectives.’ People suffering from mild depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, even women treated for PMS, could be lumped in with violent schizophrenics and the criminally insane.”

And be banned from having a firearm.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/see-a-shrink-lose-your-gun/#1QYva5tgeF6sQxsw.99

Why is there no Benghazi Special Committee?


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.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

Dear GOP

The 9/11 12 attack on the Benghazi Diplomatic Facility is a deep stain on America, and the Obama administration, with the cooperation of media allies like the New York Times, is determined to dismiss it from public consciousness. That’s understandable, perhaps, out of political self-interest.  But why is Speaker John Boehner playing along, and standing in the way of a House Special Committee that could put people under oath and get to the bottom if the scandal?

It is not as if such a committee would be unpopular. Matthew Boyle reports at Breitbart:

A poll released by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin shows that a vast majority of American voters want a special select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. However, House Speaker John Boehner is denying them a shot at it.

Secure America Now president Allen Roth, whose organization commissioned the poll, points to it as a major reason why he signed a letter to Boehner sent Monday that demands he stop obstructing the investigation and install a select committee.

“In a recent national poll, conducted by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin, 62% of Americans say it is important that Congress create a special committee to get to the truth about Benghazi,” Roth told Breitbart news in an email over the weekend before the letter became public. “A large majority of House Republicans agree. The American people understand that if Republican leaders allow the Obama Administration to cover up its negligence that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans, it would be a crime. We will continue to apply pressure on House leadership until they create a select committee.”

Fortunately, pressure can be placed on Boehner. Matthew Boyle reports separately:

Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a leader in the conservative movement and retired Lt. Colonel of the United States Army, told Breitbart News that he thinks House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) might be trying to help the Obama administration cover up the Benghazi scandal.

lWesis a signer of the letter from a coalition of conservative and military eaders, along with three family members of the victims in the Benghazi terrorist attack, that demanded Boehner create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack. Boehner has been blocking the House Resolution from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) that would create such a committee, even though H. Res. 36 has 178 cosponsors in addition to Wolf.

“There is widespread support for a select committee to get to the bottom of disturbing questions surrounding the attack, as H.Res. 36 has 178 cosponsors,” West said in an email to Breitbart News. “Yet Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor refuse to bring it to the House floor for a vote. You have to wonder, is there something they know that they prefer not come to light?”

The letter delivered to Boehner on Monday similarly questioned whether Boehner is helping President Barack Obama’s administration cover up the Benghazi scandal.

There has been much speculation that some sort of national security-endangering secret is at risk in Benghazi. Perhaps Boehner has received secret briefings that have coopted him into the cover-up faction. But frankly, the lack of response to the Benghazi attack is itself threatening our national security, declaring open season on our overseas facilities.

Let the truth be known.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/why_is_there_no_benghazi_special_committee.html#ixzz2pmmWutkG

POLL: MAJORITY WANT BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE


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.breitbart.com/ :

 

Posted by:MATTHEW BOYLE


A poll released by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin shows that a vast majority of American voters want a special select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. However, House Speaker John Boehner is denying them a shot at it.

WHY is he stopping it ?

Secure America Now president Allen Roth, whose organization commissioned the poll, points to it as a major reason why he signed a letter to Boehner sent Monday that demands he stop obstructing the investigation and install a select committee.

“In a recent national poll, conducted by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin, 62% of Americans say it is important that Congress create a special committee to get to the truth about Benghazi,” Roth told Breitbart news in an email over the weekend before the letter became public. “A large majority of House Republicans agree. The American people understand that if Republican leaders allow the Obama Administration to cover up its negligence that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans, it would be a crime. We will continue to apply pressure on House leadership until they create a select committee.”

Roth’s group’s poll was released in late October and showed that 62 percent of voters believe that congressional leaders should create a select committee on Benghazi, whereas only 32 percent think such a procedure is not important. More specifically, 83 percent of GOP voters and 58 percent of independents support a select committee, while 50 percent of Democratic voters oppose a select committee. A majority of self-identified moderate voters, 53 percent, want a select committee as well.

Conservative leader Ginni Thomas, who also signed the letter to Boehner, told Breitbart News: “Americans can see John Boehner is not serious about using the constitutional powers of investigation to get at the truth of Benghazi. On the anniversary of September 11 in 2012, Americans should have been rescued in a firefight started by radical Islamists, not left alone while the president prepares to go to a fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas.”

“Republicans are playing ‘small ball legislating’ when America wants professional investigations and accountability from an administration that is running circles around Republicans,” Thomas continued. “If Republicans with gavels don’t do oversight capably, garnering the respect of the Obama administration, at some point, Republicans are as complicit in the scandal. We are approaching that deadline.”

The VA Corruption Scandal You Haven’t Heard Of


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:MIKE SUHOR

What if I told you that the requests for information from a Congressional Oversight committee were being repeatedly ignored by a member of Obama’s administration?

What if I told you that this has been going on for months on an almost daily routine, and that the head of this congressional committee had to resort to a subpoena to get any responses to his questions?

What if I told you that millions of dollars had been spent wastefully by this department for lavish conventions, where the attendees celebrated as if they were on a vacation, with gifts, helicopter rides, and services paid for with taxpayer money?

What if I told you that this department has ignored Congressional investigations into the deaths of Americans in the care of this department?

What if I told you that those responsible for the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and deaths of Americans in their care were given bonuses and allowed to retire on lavish pensions instead of answering the hard questions before Congress?

If you are thinking that it should be a scandal of epic proportions, you’d be right.

Except that it isn’t because you aren’t really being told about it until now.

The Department, of course, if you haven’t guessed it already, is the Veterans Affairs Department.

There is truly nothing sadder in my eyes than having to resort to British Newspapers to get news about our VA:

A former assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs pleaded the Fifth on Wednesday, refusing to testify about a pair of taxpayer-funded human resources conferences in 2011 that cost a scandalous $6.1 million or more.

John Sepulveda oversaw the conferences, which included the screening of a parody video based on ‘Patton,’ whose production cost the Treasury more than $52,000.

But in front of the House Oversight Committee, he chose to remain silent; taking advantage of a clause in the U.S. Constitution intended to protect citizens from incriminating themselves.

‘You are not excused,’ committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa ultimately told Sepulveda before sending him away. ‘You are dismissed.’

Sadly, it gets worse. This was just the loss of a whole lot of money by the VA on what was nothing more than paid vacations to Orlando for VA human resources staff complete with Karaoke, Massages, and a pathetic and insulting imitation of General George S. Patton, which can only be seen to be believed:

There is still the deaths of veterans from wretched care to be discussed.

Examples of the department’s lack of accountability are numerous. But almost as plentiful — and even more shameful — are the many cases where VA employees and executives are being rewarded rather than punished for their incompetence.

Officials with the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System have botched the handling of a deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreak at nearly every turn. Five veterans are now dead from the pneumonia-like disease. But instead of giving those who failed to prevent the outbreak pink slips, VA gave them glowing performance reviews and huge bonuses.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to 21 veterans were sickened between February 2011 and November 2012, but that didn’t stop VA Pittsburgh Director Terry Gerigk Wolf from receiving the highest possible score on a VA performance review covering the bulk of the outbreak period.

Shockingly, Wolf’s review makes no mention of the outbreak, and instead praises her for leading a “groundbreaking Civility Initiative” and helping improve her employees’ resume-writing skills.

Memories of the outbreak seem to have eluded VA officials again when they nominated Wolf’s boss, VA regional director Michael Moreland, for the Presidential Rank Award, America’s highest civil-service accolade. For Moreland, the honor included a whopping $62,895 bonus, which he formally accepted just three days after VA’s inspector general reported VA Pittsburgh’s response to the outbreak was plagued by persistent mismanagement.

Most people would find VA’s celebration of Wolf and Moreland in the aftermath of a deadly outbreak they were too incompetent to stop hard to believe.

Amazingly, this expose of the VA didn’t come from a “trained Journalist,” but instead came directly from the pen of Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Click here to read just one of the many letters that Rep. Miller has sent to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. This particular one is asking why The VA spent a million dollars on TV commercials in and around the DC area during the World Series.

Here is the video in question:

Vet Burial

And click here to read Rep. Miller’s letter to President Obama on the lack of responses from the VA.

“Grave concerns” is a term not used lightly in government; it is political speech for “Hey Dummy, you are screwing the pooch on this, and there will be an investigation.”

Even the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has become involved, and yet it takes an actual subpoena before The VA responds to any request for information from Committees of Congress.

There is something seriously wrong with the VA these days, even more than the usual obstacle course our Vets have to endure to get treatment. It is almost as if Obama wants to force vets into Obamacare.

Actually, he does and is willing to triple healthcare fees Vets pay to do it.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/told/#vjBCBPGXqkzfsK8Z.99

Paul Ryan vs. the 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.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Elise Cooper

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) have wrongly and outrageously cut the budget on the backs of the U.S. military.

On December 26 President Obama signed a new bipartisan bill that includes a $6 billion cut from military members’ retirement. These cuts to COLA (cost-of-living adjustments) also affect medically retired veterans, including those wounded in combat. American Thinker interviewed those who are directly affected.

Amongst Congress and the president there is always the talk of how those serving, past and present need to be admired for their sacrifices. Michael Hall, a former Ranger Command Sergeant Major who served thirty-four years, felt that on December 26th President Obama could have “done the right thing” by refusing to sign the bill unless this provision was taken out. He lost a chance to be the supportive commander-in-chief, missing an opportunity to be the hero and protector to those who have served in the military.

Paul Ryan still insists that the cuts are necessary because military compensation growth is out of hand. With this new budget he obviously did not throw grandma off the cliff, but instead has thrown those in the military. The former and current defenders of America were transformed into sacrificial lambs in an attempt to make Republicans more appealing to the left. Ryan did not balance the budget, pay off the debt, or reform entitlements. Instead he, along with Senator Murray, broke a promise when they changed the contract signed by having the annual cost-of-living adjustments cut by one percent for military retirees 62 or younger.

Iraqi and Afghanistan veteran Pete Hegseth is surprised that it was as much Paul Ryan’s idea as Patty Murray. “I felt he should have known better. Never has a Paul Ryan budget included these kinds of cuts. I understand that the military personnel part is eating up the DOD budget and we need to figure out how to reform it. However, it must be addressed without slashing the budget of current retirees. There are better ways of coming up with reform instead of this arbitrary manner.”

Many wonder, as Jennifer Haefner has, if the politicians really understand the sacrifices made since it appears, “They look at the money side without looking at the sacrifice side. Many military families move around for the different deployments and have to start their careers over again. That means no buildup of a career or a financial cushion. My husband, a Marine officer, has missed birthdays, anniversaries, watching his children grow, and has seen his friends killed. He has had to work in horrible environments sometimes 7 days a week for 24-hour periods. Shame on those politicians for not understanding that military men and women have sacrificed their lives, limbs, and families.

These politicians do not understand us because they have never lived our culture.”

Army retired Colonel Jack Jacobs noted to American Thinker, “Let’s remember this money was paid to people that are doing a job that no one else wants to do. If it is such a great deal how come everyone who is complaining about the military compensation doesn’t immediately sign up and put on the uniform? By all means we should be seeing millions and millions of people clawing their way to get this job. People who sign up for the military do it for G-d, country, and family.”

Joyce Wessel Raezer, the Executive Director of the National Military Family Association, wants Americans to understand that a number of promises were broken. “They changed the rules in the middle of the game. In 2012 Congress established the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to examine the entire military-compensation system. At the time the Commission was established it was promised that none of the changes would affect currently serving members and retirees. It would be a proposal only for future military members. Effectively this new budget deal hamstrings the commission before it finished its work and made its recommendations. Other promises broken are that active duty people will be getting smaller pay raises in 2014 then they should have under the law. Congress set the raise to what is the private sector average (ECI), 1.8%; yet, in 2014 military members will only be getting a 1% raise, the lowest since 1962. The military people feel singled out because no one else receiving a government payment is getting hit.” She seems to make a good point since CNN reported that any federally funded program that directly serves the needy “could benefit from Murray-Ryan.”

Congressman Ryan, who has never served in the military, tries to spin this provision by explaining, “all this reform does is make a small adjustment for those younger retirees.” Not true, says those who were interviewed. Americans always hear Ryan quoting numbers — maybe he should consider these: Joyce cites the Military Officers Association who estimates that the average enlisted retiree will lose about $300 per month; Jennifer, whose husband is an officer, will lose approximately $500 per month; and Michael Hall wants Americans to understand that he only gets $50,000 per year which will be reduced. In addition, former SEAL Jason Redman says Tricare health premiums are rising substantially, as high as 300%, and wonders how a child tax credit of $4.3 billion could be granted to illegal immigrants while “breaking a promise to the one group of Americans who have actually sacrificed and earned the benefits they are receiving as part of a contract signed.”

Retired Colonel Jack Jacobs is utterly frustrated since he believes that in the big scheme of things $6 billion is not a lot of money. “This basically has no overall fiscal effect on the budget; yet, has a negative effect on the people that served. The politicians have no interest in saving money regarding their districts because that affects them personally. There are a lot of other places it can be saved including getting rid of a lot of the waste in government. No one should be persuaded by those people who say the reductions are not a lot of money.”

Ryan also stated in an op-ed that these “younger military retirees [in their] late 30s and early 40s [in their] are prime working years, and most of these younger retirees go on to second careers.” A current Army Master Sergeant who has served over twenty-four years, vehemently disagrees. “Many of the soldiers who retire do not have a skill. There are also those who have health issues, such as PTSD, back and knee problems, which put limitations on the type of job they can find. Unemployment is still high so jobs are not readily available. I am fifty and if I retire I will have to fight age discrimination, making it harder to find a job. This means for twelve years I will have to suffer with lower pay. I ask Mr. Ryan how many of those retirees will be able to find a job? This bill was a slap in the face.”

Why do they think the politicians voted for these proposals? Everyone interviewed agrees with Michael Hall that there is no lobbyist for the soldiers who jumps up and down saying military benefits cannot be cut. He feels that they do not have a voting bloc since the contingency is spread throughout the country. “They cut the military benefits because it is the easy way out. The lawmakers have the notion it does not matter what they do to us. Even though we in the military were taught that a person’s word and integrity are really important the politicians do not live by this rule. They refuse to ask other Americans to make the sacrifices, and because we are an easy target we were singled out.”

Debbie Lee, a spokesperson on military matters, is frustrated with this “government attack on our troops. They honored their contract and did what was required. If any changes are to be made it should be spelled out for future enlistees. As Americans we should remember that military families live in constant fear of getting that knock on the door as I did when I was informed my Navy SEAL son Marc was killed. Politicians forget the dangers because they work in a safe environment with guaranteed benefits.”

Not all politicians are of the attitude that they want to take advantage of the silent warriors. Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) told American Thinker he voted against the 2013 Budget Act for a number of reasons, including “cutting military staff benefits, while not addressing the fraud and waste in the military procurement process, something I find offensive. This budget uses the same old tactics of placing the financial burden on the backs of our brave soldiers and their families. I will continue to focus on eliminating the rampant fraud and abuse in our federal system, so legitimate spending such as military pay is not jeopardized.”

One Congresswoman who does understand the military members’ plight is Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FLA). Her husband is a combat veteran and her children were Marine officers in Iraq. She is cosponsoring a bill to remove any reduction in COLA and commented, “Our veterans are owed the highest protection, care, and service by our grateful nation, and I will continue to work to ensure that we take care of America’s heroes.”
Former SEAL
Jason Redman summarized it best when he quoted Calvin Coolidge, “The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.” Americans need to remember that these brave men and women already sacrificed for their country and should not be asked to sacrifice anymore. They stepped up to defend Americans because they thought it their obligation to serve. As Colonel Jacobs stated,

“Lets hope this broken promise is not a commentary on how this country deals with people who serve because if that is the case the answer is not well.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/paul_ryan_vs_the_military.html#ixzz2pmkQpSPL

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.

Hillary Clinton will run on repealing Obamacare


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://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Alan Joel

Author

 

 

 

With all the talk abuzz about an inevitable Hillary Clinton candidacy, I wager that her platform will include repealing ObamaCare. Hillary will declare late in the spring so that she can positively impact the midterm elections to benefit the Democrats.

 

What would Hillary gain from a repeal-ObamaCare platform?

First, such a position would effectively neuter the Republican position of anyone running in 2014 (and beyond). All the hand-wringing and fundraising, all the sob-stories and alarm bells about ObamaCare would be utterly weakened if Hillary was out there saying the exact same thing. Any Republican candidate on the same policy page as Hillary Clinton would be disastrous for them. The Republicans are hoping for strong gains in 2014 — possibly even taking the Senate — and are banking on a fledgling ObamaCare to do it. This objective could not be achieved with Hillary added to the mix.

Second, a repeal-ObamaCare position from Hillary would give vulnerable Democrats a free pass to sever close ties and loyalty to Obama. Obama is toxic right now; his popularity is in the mid 30’s and his signature legislation is overwhelmingly disliked across the country. With Hillary jumping in, Democrats would be able to rally around a more popular and likeable Democrat (what Democrat doesn’t like the Clintons?) and distance themselves from Obama and ObamaCare without hurting the Democrat brand. In fact, she enhances it right now.

Finally, Hillary herself was intimately involved in health care reform after Clinton’s election in 1992. The legislation she helped champion via the Taskforce For Health Care Reform was aptly dubbed “Hillarycare”. Twenty years later, in comparison to ObamaCare, it doesn’t look so bad, does it? Perhaps not anymore. Hillarycare had its own, but different, mandate: for all employers to provide healthcare for their workers. Is this the alternative solution and finally Hillary’s day in the sun? Or is it possible that Hillary would take healthcare reform even further than ObamaCare? Knowing the growing disdain for mandates perhaps Hillary would instead lobby for a single-payer system — which is a dream of many progressives.

Whatever the case, running on repealing ObamaCare is a win-win for Hillary. She gets to directly impact and help the midterm elections for the Democrats. Six years after her primary defeat against Obama, Hillary will emerge as the better, wiser, and more likeable Democrat (revenge is a dish best served cold?). And finally, Hillary will have the unprecedented opportunity to finish the healthcare reform she started two decades ago, since practically anything will be seen as better than ObamaCare now.

Do Democrat lawmakers anticipate treason trials?


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:

 

Posted by:Erik Rush

It is possible that we not only have a pathologically unethical oligarchy in perpetual residence in our government, but various Mafia-like “families” sharing and trading off power

Author

According to a report by Breitbart’s Elizabeth Sheld, eight Democrat lawmakers have proposed a bill that would eliminate the death penalty as a consequence for individuals convicted of numerous federal crimes, among them espionage and treason. Nothing happens in Washington without a reason, so The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act (HR 3741) gives rise to a bevy of questions and suspicions.

What motivation would congressional Democrats have for wishing to neutralize the death penalty option for such serious crimes? While the average news consumer is conditioned to summarily dismiss the machinations of government unless it directly impacts their pocketbook, or their sensibilities are deliberately targeted by the press, common sense dictates that elected officials proposing such a law could be anticipating the requisite conditions, thus necessitating the law in the first place.

So, who do these lawmakers suppose might be tried for treason, espionage, or the host of other federal crimes now punishable by death in the not-so-distant future?

Well, take your pick. President Obama himself committed a treasonable offense in supplying military aid to rebels fighting against the Assad regime in Syria, first clandestinely and then overtly after circumventing laws expressly prohibiting same. What other treasonable offenses he may have committed attendant to this process (including those related to the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi compound) remains to be seen.

Obama’s insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into sensitive government positions, as well as actions pursuant to his relationship with them are likely treasonable offenses. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s intended goal in subjugating America and the rest of the globe, the only reason that this has not been an issue of contention is because Obama and his surrogates themselves do not wish it to be, the press has been complicit, and the Republican leadership are invertebrates.

Then, there are the recent reports coming out of the Middle East as represented by former Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat. According to Naglaa Mahmoud, wife of Egypt’s ousted President Mohammed Morsi and Muslim Sisterhood operative, Bill and Hillary Clinton (with an emphasis on Hillary) have been deeply involved with the Brotherhood since the 1980s. Mahmoud has been implicated in Egypt in anti-government operations dedicated to returning her husband to power; he remains in Egyptian custody.

Mahmoud recently appeared on Turkish television network Mehwar TV and alleged that the Clintons recruited her and her husband in the 1980s toward the end of advancing everything from “Green” initiatives in the West to the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton’s “Girl Friday” just happens to be Huma Abedin (her Deputy Chief of Staff when she was Secretary of State), whose mother is a colleague of Mahmoud’s and a long-time leader in the Muslim Sisterhood. Oddly enough, one of the few topics that Mahmoud refuses to discuss is Abedin. According to Shoebat, “In December of 2011, Abedin went on maternity leave. She returned in June of that year while simultaneously taking a job a Special Government Employee (SGE). In addition to her role their being quite ambiguous, questions about the legality of the arrangement caught the eye of Senator Charles Grassley, who sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter demanding answers.”

What was Abedin doing? Who knows, but some of the activities in which Mahmoud alleges the Muslim Brotherhood and the Clintons were involved most certainly do not reflect a primary concern for the security of the United States. Were they treasonable? Only an extensive investigation might reveal that, but these allegations proffer that the Clintons’ relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood predates Bill becoming Governor of Arkansas.

Then, we have the body counts. Recently, Larry Nichols, a former Clinton operative, almost casually admitted to having murdered for the Clintons on a regular basis, whether it was low-level political opponents, or “weak link” confidants who held information that might compromise their power. 

The lengthy list of individuals whose suspicious deaths directly benefitted Barack Obama began even before he received the Democratic nomination. Most recently of course, Hawaii State Health Director Loretta Fuddy was killed when the small plane carrying her and eight other people crashed into the ocean off the Hawaiian island of Molokai. The only fatality, she is the individual who certified (I use the term loosely) President Obama’s long-form birth certificate. The circumstances and accounts of her demise are respectively, sketchy and conflicting at best.

It is well-known that Obama’s close associates include members of the Weather Underground, whose stated mission was overthrowing the American government. For his entire life, he has been surrounded by radicals, embittered, America-hating anti-colonialists, black nationalists, and avowed communists – yet this has never entered into the area of popular discussion, even in the face of the myriad policies, orders, and actions the President brought about which have directly compromised America’s economy, national security, and domestic tranquility.

Obama’s origins narrative of course remains unresolved. This week for the first time, a mainstream publication supported the voracity of evidence that the President perpetrated a fraud with the forged long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April 2011. It is a little-known fact that the submission of fraudulent documents toward attaining public office on the federal level remains an executable offense under the law. 

It is possible that we not only have a pathologically unethical oligarchy in perpetual residence in our government, but various Mafia-like “families” sharing and trading off power, operating as they see fit, and compromising this nation in ways most Americans cannot yet imagine. If so, the perpetrators must shudder to think of what an independent prosecutor or commission with no political allegiances might make of their activities over the last couple of decades.

So, congressional Democrats sponsoring HR 3741 might have been persuaded to do so by influential parties who fear that they may at some point be charged with espionage or treason. On the other hand, they might be acting independently, in the anticipation of other prominent Democrats being so charged. Perhaps some may even have purposed to facilitate such charges being leveled, knowing how toxic certain individuals have become to the party.

In such a case, they may be trying to spare their lives, as well as facilitating easier convictions. Some might rather not have the blood of colleagues on their hands, but perceive the imperative of removing people who have become dangers to the Democrat Party, as well as traitors to the United States.

Oops! There’s no way to add a newborn baby to your ObamaCare coverage


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:Canada Free Press.Com

 

Posted by:Herman Cain

Americans need to realize that when politicians offer to take care of your needs, that comes with a price you don’t want to pay

 Author

The government geniuses who decided they could run health insurance better than everyone else apparently overlooked the fact that circumstances in people’s lives sometimes change, and it becomes necessary to update your insurance information to reflect that.

People now covered under ObamaCare are getting a rather unpleasant surprise upon the joyous event of having babies added to their families. It turns out giving birth may be easier than giving the baby health coverage. Try going to HealthCare.gov and looking for a way to add your newborn to your coverage. It doesn’t exist. While you’re at it, try looking for a way to indicate a change in your marital status, your job status, your income . . . I’ll save you the trouble. HealthCare.gov doesn’t offer a way to do any of that.

Now, you can call your insurer and they’ll take the information and update your insurance, so problem solved, right?

Problem not solved. For many people forced to buy coverage on the ObamaCare exchanges – coverage that often features exorbitant premiums to cover mandatory coverage they may or may not even want (including maternity care . . . ahem) – the federal subsidy that comes as part of the deal is the only thing making the coverage even remotely affordable.

Having a baby will increase your premium, and will theoretically increase your subsidy, but that will only happen if you can somehow let the federal government know about the change in your circumstance. How do you do that? Don’t ask them. The Associated Press reports:

In questions and answers for insurers, the government said that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to add a child until the system’s automated features become “available later.” It does not provide any clue as to when that might take place.

The federal marketplace serves 36 states through HealthCare.gov and call centers. The Medicare agency, which runs the government’s other major health programs, is also responsible for expanded coverage under Obama’s law.

The question-and-answer circular says parents with a new baby will be told to contact their insurer directly “to include the child immediately” on their existing policy.

After the federal system is ready to process changes, parents will have to contact the government to formally bring their records up to date. Albright said parents will be able to add a new child to their policy for 30 days.

Making your life better through government!

Supposedly they would have had this feature ready to go by now, but they had to postpone it because they were too busy dealing with the fact that the entire web site was completely dysfunctional. The fact that they had three years to build the web site doesn’t appear to matter, but then nothing makes sense in the development of this fiasco.

There is, of course, a bright side to this. Americans really don’t need to be checking in with the federal government every time a circumstance in their lives changes, and that’s one of the most insidious things about ObamaCare to begin with. Thanks for the subsidy offer, but if that means I need to keep you in the loop every time something happens in my life . . . no thanks.

Americans need to realize that when politicians offer to take care of your needs, that comes with a price you don’t want to pay. At best, you have to deal with their incompetence as we discover they are never as good at running things as their hubris tells them they will be. At worst, you turn yourself into their subject, hardly free to make a move without letting them know.

That’s why I keep telling you: It’s freedom you want, not free stuff!

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1998-2014 the individual authors.
Site Copyright 1998-2014 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement

StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

BREAKING: Judge Ruling Means Obama Social Security Card Fraud Questions May Finally Have To Be Answered


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://conservativeangle.com

 

Attorney Orly Taitz has been fighting to shine a light on the document fraud that is B. Hussein Obama for as long as anyone. She was there in the beginning when it was only her, Phil Berg and a few others pointing out the inconsistencies that we have now become all too familiar with. Other inconsistencies and falsified documents have arisen since those early days and others have joined the fight.

Obama Social Security Fraud

She has just won a victory in the attempt to get an explanation as to how B. Hussein Obama ended up with the social security number that he is using. Like every other form of documentation that is connected to the White House occupant, it is dirty, it is clouded, and it is likely not genuine.

The website for Attorney Taitz gives the following update regarding a recent decision by a Maryland Judge:

Judge Hollander in Maryland gives Attorney Orly Taitz 21 days to file a second amended complaint and add allegations in regards to an improper withholding by the Social Security Administration of records   of Harry Bounel, whose Social security number is being illegally used by Barack Obama. When Taitz filed the complaint, SSA did not respond at all. After the law suit was filed, SSA responded by fraudulently claiming that the records were not found. Taitz responded that this is a fraudulent assertion, since the records were found before and denied to another petitioner due to privacy concerns; however Social Security has no right to claim privacy as according to their own 120 year rule they have a duty to release the records. The judge stated that the plaintiff Taitz might be correct, however at this time she cannot rule in her favor as her original complaint was filed before SSA responded, so the judge gave Taitz an opportunity to refile a second amended complaint and add new allegations, stating the SSA responded but improperly hidden the records . This is a great development. This all but assures that the judge will order the SSA to release the    SS-5, Social Security application of resident of CT, Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose CT SSN 042-68-4425 was stolen by Obama and used in Obama’s 2009 tax returns, which initially were posted on WhiteHouse.gov without proper redaction, without flattening of the file . Taitz will be very careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied in the next 21 days.

Additionally, there is an increased tampering with the web site of Orly Taitz and with her ability to send mass -emails. It seems her private server is somehow affected and Taitz is unable to send mass e-mails on two different programs.

The fact that a judge actually is forcing the federal government to respond is a first. Usually, the efforts to bring the actions of Obama and his enablers to light have been stymied by judges who appear to have been unduly influenced. The ruling of this judge now puts the Social Security Administration employees in the uncomfortable position of having to produce documents or face personal consequences.

Let’s hope that in addition to Ms. Taitz, nothing happens to those employees and equally importantly, that the records are not suddenly misplaced or destroyed.

This could be the irrefutable evidence that finally opens the occupant of the White House to a full Congressional investigation. We have twenty one days to wait.

.

http://conservativeangle.com

 

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: