Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Benghazi”

Ted Yoho plans push 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.politico.com

 

Posted by: JOHN BRESNAHAN

  •  

    Eric Holder is pictured. | AP Photo

Sources close to the issue say Holder is staying at the Justice Department into 2014.

GOP Rep. Ted Yoho says a group of House Republicans wants to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder — an action not taken by the chamber in nearly 140 years.

Yoho, a Florida freshman who never held elected office before winning his seat in Nov. 2012, told the Gainesville Sun that the group wants to meet with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to discuss removing Holder from office.

“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.

Holder had been rumored to be leaving office after President Barack Obama won reelection to a second term last year, but so far, he is staying put. Sources close to the issue say Holder is staying at the Justice Department into 2014.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the House has the authority to begin impeachment proceedings against the president, vice president, Cabinet members and federal judges over accusations of treason, bribery, ‘or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Senate then conducts a “trial” with a two-thirds majority needed for conviction.

Only one Cabinet official has undergone impeachment proceedings – Secretary of War William Belknap.

In March 1876, the House impeached Belknap over corruption allegations, despite the fact that the he resigned minutes before the House vote. The Senate held a trial for Belknap, acquitting him on all five charges. Belknap was never prosecuted over the allegations.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/ted-yoho-eric-holder-impeachment-99492.html#ixzz2jxChE6hQ

Democrats Beginning To See Reality On ObamaCare: Higher Premiums, Empty Promises


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://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:Joseph R. Carducci

ObamaCareFailure

 

Obama won re-election in 2012 on the back of a number of promises that he was able to use to convince the American people of his sincerity. Or maybe he just seemed to be a more believable person than Romney. Whatever the reason, he made a lot of promises about how his new healthcare program was going to work. Of course we all heard a lot about being able to keep our policies if we wished, and that our premiums would actually be lowered (something about the average family saving around $2,500 per year seems to ring a bell).

With these promises now generally regarded as having been nothing more than lies to win support, many Democrats and others who had supported Obama in the past are starting to see things differently. Many Obama supporters were ‘laughing’ at the Republicans, until they saw that their own premiums were going up under the new healthcare law. Or how about this quote from a committed liberal: “Of course, I want people to have healthcare. I just didn’t realize that I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

This is really ultimately what liberalism comes down to. The people always want something for nothing. No one really thought to examine the economic feasibility of ObamaCare before it passed. Instead, many of us simply tool the president at his word. Many liberals thought that ‘someone’ else would actually be paying for it, and they could simply have free healthcare. Woo-hoo.

Of course, the roll out of the healthcare website exchanges has also been filled with problems and difficulties. This has rightly made headlines for news organizations and cyber space all around the country and the world. However, we should also mention that the program itself is actually fatally flawed. Even after the online exchanges are fixed (good luck meeting the new end of November goal on that one), the program will still be a failure.

 

Middle income Americans are finding it more and more difficult to afford ObamaCare. In California, there is an estimated 30% average rate hike, although many people are seeing even larger premium increases. A good many people may even just decide to go without, finding it more affordable to simply pay the fine or penalty. It has been said also that if a large number of young and healthy people do not sign up for ObamaCare, the program will have serious financial problems. Many ObamaCare supporters echo this comment, made by a young woman after seeing a 50% rate increase: “I was all for ObamaCare until I found out I was paying for it.”

I guess a number of people just simply assumed that Obama was telling the truth about his plan and that the Republicans were lying. Sadly, it took many former Obama supporters this long to figure out the truth of things, but now the scales are slowly beginning to fall from the eyes of people. Debra Saunders, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle says that she has seen evidence indicating at least 500,000 Californians are going to be kicked off their current healthcare plans next year, with more to follow later as the employer mandate begins to take effect in 2015.

It has also been now clearly reported and proven that the Obama Regime deliberately postponed key steps in the process in order to protect Obama’s re-election efforts. Yet HHS head Kathleen Sebelius continues to lie about all of this.

What do YOU think? Are the Democrats starting to see reality on this? Do you see that more and more people are turning on Obama in response to realizations of higher costs? What should be done about all this?

 

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.

 

Exclusive: Benghazi Whistleblower Says He Was Smeared


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.thedailybeast.com

 

Posted by: Eli Lake, Josh Rogin

A leaked memo appears to undermine significant details in a new book from a witness to the embassy attacks. But its alleged author tells The Daily Beast he didn’t write it. Plus, new pictures from the compound.

The Benghazi whistleblower whose new book details massive security failures in the run-up to the September 11, 2012 attacks denies he wrote an incident report made public this week that undermines key details in his memoir.

The debate over the Obama administration’s actions before and after the attack on the U.S. mission was reignited following an Oct. 27 60 Minutes report featuring an interview with Morgan Jones, a pseudonym for a British security contractor who trained and advised the local Libyan guard force for the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Jones’s book, The Embassy House, was released two days later and contains a firsthand account of his time in Benghazi and his actions during the series of attacks that resulted in the death of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

131102-benghazi-attack-tease

Morgan Jones

Controversy over Jones’s interview and book reached a high pitch on Oct. 31 when The Washington Postpublished details of an incident report allegedly written by Jones that contradicts the account in his book and reveals his real name, Dylan Davies.

The four-page indicent report, obtained by The Daily Beast, has not been previously published. A State Department official confirmed it matches the version sent to the U.S. government by Davies’s then-employer Blue Mountain Group, the private security company based in Britain, on Sept. 14, 2012, and subsequently provided to Congressional committees investigating the Benghazi attacks.

In an interview Saturday with The Daily Beast, Davies said he did not write the incident report, nor had he ever seen it.

“I am just a little man against some big people here,” Davies said. “They can do things, make up things, anything they want, I wouldn’t stand a chance.” Davies said he did not know who leaked the report to the Post but said he suspected it was the State Department, an allegation that could not be independently corroborated. “It would not be difficult to do,” Davies said. “I knew I was going to come in for a lot of flack and you know mud slinging, so yeah I’d say it was them, but I can’t be sure.”

The State Department has declined to comment on Jones’s book or his 60 Minutes interview.

The Blue Mountain Group incident report is written in the first person in the voice of Davies. The version of the document obtained by The Daily Beast is not signed by anyone. It contains two stamps at the top: one of the Blue Mountain Group and one that reads “Embassy of the United States of America.”

The incident report differs from the version of events told in Davies’s book The Embassy House and by Davies in his 60 Minutes interview in several significant ways. It also differs from the accounts that Davies gave to the FBI and various other U.S. agencies in the wake of the attack, Davies said.

Both Davies’s book and his 60 Minutes interview have Davies and his driver attempting to drive to the U.S. mission in Benghazi from Davies’s villa about 30 minutes after the initial attack on the compound began but failing to reach the compound due to roadblocks set up by a local jihadist militia known as Ansar al-Sharia.

But the incident report states that Davies then returned to his villa, rather than traveling to the hospital as he claims in the book. In the report, Davies learned of the ambassador’s death from a Blue Mountain Group guard who had gone to the hospital and taken a photo of the ambassador’s body. In the book, however, Davies recounts in detail his trip to the hospital where he saw the body himself.

In the report, Davies remained at his villa until the next morning, when he visited the ruins that remained of the compound. In the book, Davies tells a harrowing tale of his late-night visit to the compound, where he claims he scaled a 12-foot-wall, killed an extremist with the butt of his rifle, saw that the compound had been totally destroyed, and then escaped and returned to his villa.

Each account has Davies visiting the compound the morning of Sept. 12, during which he took 25 photos of the burnt-out buildings. (Click here to see nine of the photos.)

In his interview with The Daily Beast, Davies said the version of the events contained in the incident report matched what he told his supervisor, called “Robert” in his book, who is a top Blue Mountain Group executive. Davies said he lied to Robert about his actions that night because he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders to stay at his villa.

The Daily Beast has redacted the true name of Robert out of his concern for his privacy.

“He told me under no circumstances was I to go up there. I respected him so much I did not want him to know that I had not listened to him,” said Davies, referring to Robert. “I have not seen him since.”

Davies also wrote in his book that Robert had instructed him not to go to the compound under any circumstances. Davies called Robert after going to the hospital, he said, but before his first visit to the compound on the night of Sept. 11. Davies says he told Robert the ambassador was dead but did not tell him what he was up to.

“He was my boss, but more important, he was a father figure and a man of unrivaled experience,” Davies wrote about Robert in the book. “Robert presumed I was still in the villa. I’d chosen not to tell him that I was in a car with two of my guards driving away from the hospital.”

In his interview with The Daily Beast, Davies said in addition to writing the book, he was interviewed by a team of U.S. officials from various agencies, including the FBI and the State Department, via a conference call when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, shortly after the attacks. Davies said he also discussed the events in Benghazi with FBI and State Department officials who interviewed him in person Sept. 21 at his home in Wales. These accounts, Davies said, match the ones in his memoir and interview with 60 Minutes.

Davies was angry that his real name was published by The Washington Post and was not redacted in the Blue Mountain Group incident report leaked to the media, even though the report redacted other names. “It means I won’t work in the industry again and I can be tracked down pretty quickly with that name,” he said.

Damien Lewis, who co-authored The Embassy House with Davies, said in a statement to The Daily Beast Saturday that the leak that included the real identity of Morgan Jones “is deeply disturbing.” Lewis continued, “To deliberately leak his real name means those who may wish to do him harm now have access to his real identity. This is unconscionable.”

Davies said he believed there was a coordinated campaign to smear him. This week, Media Matters, a progressive media watchdog, sent a public letter to CBS News asking it to retract the 60 Minutes Benghazi piece on the basis of the Washington Post article. On the Fox News Channel, reporter Adam Housley claimed on air this week that Davies asked for money in exchange for an interview. Davies denied this charge. 60 Minutes has stood by its reporting.

“These questions have been looked into ad nauseam for months and months and months by a range of independent officials and boards,” State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psakisaid onOct. 28. “I’m not going to speak to every interview that’s done.” A State Department official speaking on background also downplayed the 60 Minutes Benghazi report. “We don’t have any validation of his story, he wasn’t identified as the person he was,” the official said, referring to Davies. “There honestly wasn’t a great deal new in there.”

All of this comes for Davies at a challenging time for him personally. Last week he underwent medical procedures for what his doctors believe is testicular cancer. “If I have to get another bollock chopped off, then so be it,” Davies said.

But despite his recent medical problems, Davies said he has a message to the person he believes deliberately outed him to the press. “If you want to let me know who you are because you’ve told everybody who I am, I would like to meet you,” he said.

Executives at Blue Mountain Group, including Robert, did not respond to emails requesting comment.

Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for The Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for The Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

 

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

 

Obama’s Military Purge


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:Arnold Ahlert 

usa-nazi-banner

Author

Is the Obama administration in the midst of a military purge? This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort. “I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website. “Remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.” The general spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still provides the government with services and believes this administration would retaliate against him.

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a “stand down” order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham “retired” less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three for the Navy, was relieved of duty for allegedly using profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.” Though he was cleared of criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, administrative penalties have effectively ended his career. In testimony regarding Benghazi, Gaouette, who was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea on the night of the attack, told Congress there may not have been time to get flight crews to Libya. But under cross examination, he admitted he could have sent planes to that location.

Major General Baker, a two-star general who served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa, was fired for alcohol and sexual misconduct charges. The U.S. reportedly runs counter-terror operations out of Djibouti, and once again, military officials told TheBlaze Baker was involved in some aspect of Benghazi.

The other six were terminated for a variety of alleged offenses. Army Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, commander of Fort Jackson beginning in 2011, was fired for adultery. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, was terminated over a successful attack on that facility by the Taliban, resulting in two American deaths and the destruction of eight American planes. Sturdevant claims British forces were responsible for security at the base prior to the attack.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus was terminated for questioning the “winning hearts and minds” policies that led to “green on blue” murders of American officers by “trusted” Afghan recruits. Other Afghan recruits led a platoon into an enemy ambush. Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship,” according to the Department of Defense. A blog written by a 26-year-old cadet medically discharged from West Point claims the three-star general was under investigation because a West Point Superintendent “improperly used” his office, and because of an insufficient investigation of a lewd email chain perpetrated by the men’s rugby team. Nothing was officially released by the DoD regarding any of the charges.

The last commanders, three-star Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, and Major General Michael Carey, were fired within 48 hours of each other. Giardina was the deputy commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, an entity that oversees all nuclear-armed missiles, bombers and submarines. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Groups 9 and 10, which comprise all 18 of our nuclear-armed submarines. He was fired for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino. Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force, a role that put him in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings, was fired “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment,” said Air Force spokesman Brig. Gen. Les Kodlick. The decision to fire Carey was made by Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the head of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Obama fired Giardina.

The firing of military leaders goes much further than top generals, however. On its Facebook page, Breitbart.com compiled a list of more than 197 military commanders, mostly at the rank of Colonel or above, who have been purged by the Obama administration since 2009.

According to military.com, allegations of sexual misconduct account for the firing of 30 percent of military commanders over the past eight years. That figure that increases to 40 percent when “ethical lapses” such as sexual assault and harassment, pornography, drugs and drinking are lumped together. But there are other dubious reasons why these commanders have been terminated, ranging from unspecified dereliction of duty, to improper saluting.

One of the largest purges occurred on the last day of November in 2011, when the administration terminated 157 Air Force Majors, a move the Chapman University of Military Law and its associated AMVETS Legal Clinic characterized as illegal. They noted that the Department of Defense specifies that absent extenuating circumstances, service members within six years of retirement would ordinarily be retained, and allowed to retire on time and collect benefits.

The Air force cited budget shortfalls as their primary reason for the terminations. Yet as institute director Maj. Kyndra Rotunda explained, based on the Defense Department’s Instruction 1320.08, “derogatory information” is the only reason officers can be terminated. “The defense department’s own regulation does not authorize what the defense department is doing,” Rotunda contended at the time. “The Airmen relied on the law when they entered service and now the Secretary wants to change that law, without authority.”

Earlier that same month, two-star Major Gen. Peter Fuller was relieved of his command in Afghanistan, after he told Politico that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials in that country were “isolated from reality.” Ironically, Fuller was fired by Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who was himself the subject of an FBI investigation a year later, for his role in the sex scandal that led to the resignation of CIA Director and retired general David Petraeus. Despite the FBI informing the Pentagon it had uncovered thousands of pages of emails between Allen and Florida socialite Jill Kelley, President Obama subsequently expressed “faith” in Allen’s ability to continue doing his job. It is impossible to determine whether Allen’s ideology played a role in maintaining that faith.

2012 also saw several terminations of officers based on questionable rationale. In May, Commander Derick Armstrong, commanding officer of the guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans, was relieved of duty by Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe “as a result of an unprofessional command climate that was contrary to good order and discipline,” according to a Navy news release. A week earlier, the Navy relieved Cmdr. Dennis Klein of command of the submarine USS Columbia, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to serve effectively.

Stars and Stripes listed several other Navy commanders relieved of duty in 2012. While some on the list were terminated for seemingly legitimate reasons, a curious lack of specificity applied to others. They include Capt. James CoBell, commanding officer of Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic, who was let go for “leadership issues”; Cmdr. Franklin Fernandez, commanding officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24, for a “loss of confidence” in his ability to command due to allegedly “driving under the influence”; Capt. Marcia Lyons, commander of Naval Health Clinic New England, for problems with her “command climate”; and Capt. Sean McDonell, commander of Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 in Jacksonville, FL, for mismanagement and unspecified “major program deficiencies.” Several others were fired for “inappropriate personal behavior” or “personal misconduct.”

Theories for these purges run the gamut. One posits that anyone associated with Benghazi had to go. Another states that many of these firings are an effort to clean up “operational failures,” most notably a 2007 incident in which six nuclear-tipped missiles went missing for 36 hours. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, believes it is part of the president’s strategy to reduce America’s standing in the world. “[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 contended.

Vallely’s assessment was echoed by a source at the Pentagon who wished to remain anonymous because the source was not authorized to speak on the subject. He or she contended that “young officers, down through the ranks, have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job—just keep your mouth shut.”

This theory finds validation when one considers the Obama administration’s larger assault on the military. The military is the last organized bastion of conservative values, due in large part to the nature of the military itself. Yet, in recent years, the push to embrace progressive values, such as openly gay servicemen, women in combat and diversity worship have been pursued with vigor. Even the aforementioned effort to “win the hearts and minds” of Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to pursuing victory, marks a sea change from traditional military values.

Not only is the Obama administration apparently on a mission to undermine the integrity of the military in this way, but it has also revealed itself to be entirely intolerant of dissent of any kind. Whether it is reporters or domestic opposition groups such as the Tea Party, Obama has made clear he will aggressively pursue anyone who defies his agenda. Now it seems that chilling message his been sent to the military as well.

 

 

 

NEW SCANDAL THREATENS OBAMA, HILLARY


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:AARON KLEIN

Report confirms what well-placed sources have been saying

author-image

hillaryobama

TEL AVIV – Has the White House been misleading the public by repeatedly denying it was coordinating arms shipments to the rebels in Syria, insurgents known to consist in large part of al-Qaida and other jihadist groups?

Other top U.S. officials and former officials, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have implied in congressional testimony that they didn’t know about any U.S. involvement in procuring weapons for the rebels.

Now, a starkly different picture is emerging, one that threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.

Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times two days ago reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.

While the Times report claims most of the weapons shipments facilitated by the CIA began after the latest presidential election, Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

Aaron Klein’s New York Times bestseller, “Fool Me Twice,” is more relevant than ever.

In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Recruiting jihadists

Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Now the New York Times has bolstered WND’s reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.

The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.

The Times further revealed that from offices at “secret locations,” American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.

The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.

The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.

Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.

Both WND’s reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.

Last month, the White House flatly denied involvement in arming the Syrian rebels, going so far as to say the Obama administration rejected a plan by former Secretary of State Clinton and then-CIA Director Petraeus to help arm the rebels.

‘Nobody has ever raised that with me’

Further, in testimony during the Benghazi hearings, Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in procuring weapons.

The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

In testimony last month, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked then-Defense Secretary John Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether they had supported a plan “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria.”

“We do,” Panetta replied.

“You did support that?” McCain asked again.

“We did,” added Dempsey, who was sitting next to Panetta.

Neither Dempsey nor Panetta elaborated on their positions or commented on any actual arms shipments.

Rebel training

This is not the first time WND’s original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.

A story generating worldwide attention by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.

The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the past three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.

At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/new-scandal-threatens-obama-hillary/#KARLM4Axzhiubb6x.99

 

“Deliberate effort by Obama to hurt the public”


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

This is a Reblogged from Infowars.com

Posted by Paul Joseph Watson

The National Park Service erected barricades to shut down parking lots surrounding Mount Vernon despite the fact that the tourist destination is privately owned, another example of how the feds are deliberately worsening the government shut down.

Mount Vernon is the former plantation of George Washington and is owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, which doesn’t receive any government funding. The attraction’s official website reads, “NO SHUTDOWN HERE – The Federal government may be shut down, but Washington’s home remains open. Mount Vernon has remained a private non-profit for more than 150 years.”

However, a dispute began when the National Park Service began putting up barricades to block off the facility’s car park, blockading the entrance as well as a spot where tour buses turn around.

The parking lots are co-owned by Mount Vernon and the NPS, but require no immediate maintenance at all, meaning the decision to close them down was completely unnecessary.

The feds even blocked off a small area consisting of just three parking spaces.

After blogger Stephen Gutowski exposed the situation, Newt Gingrich got in on the act, tweeting, “The tour bus turnaround at Mount Vernon has been closed by federal police. This is deliberate effort by Obama to hurt the public. Disgusting.”

Numerous other sites around DC have been unnecessarily closed by the NPS and other federal agencies in what critics are labeling a cynical political stunt which only serves to punish the American people.

In some cases, efforts to shut down these sites actually require more manpower and resources than if they had been left open, highlighting the fact that this is an act of partisan theater by the Obama administration to pin the blame for the government shutdown on Republicans and opponents of Obamacare.

– Numerous hiking and biking trails throughout the greater DC region, despite requiring zero immediate maintenance or patrols, have been closed down. Irate citizens are merely flouting the law and using them anyway.

– The NPS has stationed officers along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal that runs 184 miles from Washington, D.C. to Cumberland, Maryland to make sure nobody uses the bike paths. It would have required less manpower to keep this trail open. The handles on all the well pumps have also been removed.

– The feds also shut down a tiny park in which children play on fake turtles, prompting angry mothers to remove the barriers, only to see them put back up. “The park is extremely small and sort of seems pointless to block off,” reports the Daily Caller.

– Lincoln Park in DC, which is known to be used by several Democratic Senators, was not shut down, but numerous national parks across Montana were closed.

– The most widely reported case occurred at the World War II memorial in DC, where the NPS tried to prevent veterans from seeing the monument by erecting barriers and even threatening vets with arrest. The veterans stormed through the barricades anyway. “People had to spend hours setting up barricades where there are never barricades to prevent people from seeing the World War II monument because they’re trying to play a charade,” Senator Rand Paul told Fox News.

Senior Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee are considering opening up an investigation into where the Obama administration directly ordered the “outrageous” closure of the memorial as part of a ploy to “make the current lapse in appropriations as conspicuous and painful to the public as possible,” according to the letter from chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and subcommittee chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

 

President Barack Obama owes world explanation about why he supports al-Qaeda


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

This is a Reblogged from http://canadafreepress.com 

Posted by Judi McLeod

 Author

If ever there was a terrorist attack that cries out the name “President Barack Hussein Obama!” the massacre at Kenya’s Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi is it.

The Somalian terrorist group, al-Shabaab, which has links to al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the slaughter of at least 62 people, including Canadian diplomat Annemarie Desloges and an as yet unnamed other Canadian. Annemarie’s husband, Robert Munk was injured and has since been released from hospital.

Imagine this horrific scene: Terrified shoppers hid behind counters as the gunmen went on the rampage using guns and grenades. (Daily Mail, Sept. 22, 2013)

Today 10 to 15 hostages are still trapped in the shopping center as security forces lay siege to the building, from which Armed police managed to lead about 1,000 people to safety.

This time the radical Islamic terrorists live-blogged their carnage on Twitter.

Campaigning on the slogan “Obama here, Obama there” promising voters he would have a “direct line to the White House”, Barack Obama’s half brother, Malik Obama went down to humiliating defeat, garnering only 2,792 votes and trailing the winner by 140,000 votes.

With typical Obama family ‘blame the other guy’ tactics, Malik accused the Kenyan Election Commission of concealing the official results.

Earlier this week Malik Obama denied that his Lois Lerner-approved Barack H Obama Foundation has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Malik Obama is not the only Barack Hussein Obama relative knocking himself out in Kenya.

Two days before yesterday’s terrorist attack, Obama’s cousin, Raila Odinga, ‘Your Agent for Change’ was naming his shadow cabinet as Kenya’s Opposition leader.

Sore loser Odinga has lost two presidential elections.  When the Supreme Court ruled against nullifying the results of last March 4th’s general elections, he left for South Africa to avoid the swearing in of President Uhuru Kenyatta on April 9, 2013.

That was small potatoes compared to the result of his 2007 presidential failure.

Odinga’s presidential loss in 2007 led to claims of voter fraud and mass rioting with overtones of ethnic cleansing.

“A man beats at a smouldering ambulance’s number-plate with his machete. “See,” he explains, “this belongs to the government of Kenya.” Mobs cry out for their fellow Luo, Raila Odinga, to be made president of Kenya. They plead for guns. An earnest man pushes to the front of one mob. “What we are saying is give violence a second chance.”

“In the past few weeks, Kisumu has been ethnically cleansed. The Luos have driven out 20,000 or so Kikuyus from a population of 380,000; few will return. Every Kikuyu business and home has been looted and burned.

“Odinga had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Muslim leaders, which eventually led to the deeper incorporation of Sharia into the Kenyan legal system, with the accompanying loss of women’s rights.

“Obama had campaigned with Odinga and strongly endorsed him and the atrocities committed by Odinga’s followers eventually forced a coalition government in which Odinga became Prime Minister and sold out Kenya’s civil rights to Islam.”(Daniel Greenfield, frontpagemag.com, April 6, 2013)

Barack Obama sold America’s civil rights out to Islam when on Sept. 17, 2013 he waived the ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition which includes members of Al-Qaeda.

Incredibly, Odinga Raila, self-touted on his webpage as ‘Your Agent for Change’ was at the ravaged mall scene.  Former Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga told reporters at the mall that he has been told officials couldn’t determine the exact number of hostages inside the mall. (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation).

“There are quite a number of people still being held hostage on the third floor and the basement area where the terrorists are still in charge,” Odinga said.

Blood relatives notwithstanding, Barack Obama owes an explanation to his Kenyan brothers why he openly supports al-Qaeda.

Nairobi Video

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA ON ATTACK IN NAIROBI, KENYA
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement on the terrorist attack that took place at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, which has claimed the lives of many, and left many more injured. At this point, we can confirm that two Canadians have died, including one Canadian diplomat.
“Canada condemns in the strongest possible terms this cowardly, hateful act that apparently targeted innocent civilians who were simply out shopping.
“The hearts and prayers of all Canadians go out to the families and friends of all those affected by this senseless tragedy, and we extend our deepest condolences to those suffering the loss of Annemarie Desloges, one of our diplomats who has died in the attack.
“Annemarie Desloges was a distinguished public servant of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration who served in Canada’s High Commission to Kenya, as a liaison officer with the Canada Border Services Agency. She will be remembered and honoured.
“Terrorist attacks like this seek to undermine the very values and way of life that Canadians cherish, and they reinforce the need for us to continue taking strong actions to protect the safety of Canadians no matter where they are in the world.
“Acts of terror cannot be allowed to go unpunished. Canadian staff at our mission are offering Kenyan authorities every possible assistance to bring the perpetrators of this heinous attack to justice.

LAWMAKER ‘CONFIDENT’ CIA GAGGING EMPLOYEE


Here is some information and my rules:

I do not like Liberal Ideology;

Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

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

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

Stands by story after agency calls his Benghazi charge ‘false’

author-image

WASHINGTON — It’s not everyday the CIA effectively calls a member of Congress a liar, especially a veteran who is so well-respected on both sides of the aisle.

But Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., isn’t backing down and is too seasoned to be intimidated.

He is standing by his comment that a CIA employee has been suspended for refusing to sign a nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, preventing him from discussing the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The Washington Free Beacon reported the CIA told a reporter Wolf’s allegations are “categorically false.”

Wolf is too diplomatic to get into an argument with the CIA in the media.

But he told WND he is “confident” what he says is true.

Wolf also told WND how the whole issue arose.

He said his office received a tip about an “employee of the CIA who is being disciplined because he wouldn’t sign a nondisclosure agreement.”

The congressman’s office contacted the law firm representing the employee, and the firm confirmed “there is a person there who is their client” and “they gave us a name, I think, by accident.”

The law firm declined his assistance, as Wolf said they told him, “We will work this thing through the normal legal process, and we don’t need any congressional help.”

He explained, “I don’t know what their plans were. We offered to help. My office works on a lot of whistleblower cases, and they said, ‘No, they were going to go through the normal procedure,’ and I’m not sure what normal procedure they’re talking about.”

But, Wolf said, “We have given people the names of who’s involved.”

WND asked the congressman if he has been in contact with the numerous people forced to sign NDAs.

“We’ve been in touch with people who are in touch with people,” he said. “There are different nondisclosure agreements. There are NDAs signed by the CIA, and NDAs signed by people on the ground who were not employees of the CIA,” such as independent contractors.

Asked why the CIA would call Wolf’s claim false, he replied, “I’m not going to get into an exchange back and forth. Maybe John Brennan knows, I don’t know.”

CIA Director John Brennan denied a CNN report that the agency has forced employees to sign NDAs and take polygraph tests.

CNN called it “an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.”

In the past Wolf had declined to speculate why the administration is trying to keep people quiet, but WND asked the congressman if he’d heard anyone discuss possible reasons for the pressure.

“Well, would it be fair to say they don’t want people to know what happened?” he asked rhetorically.

“I think everyone who was on the scene at the time of the attack ought to be brought before Congress, subpoenaed, because that protects them, and given the opportunity to testify under oath in public.”

Wolf has been leading the charge to form a bipartisan select committee to investigate Benghazi, and has extensively discussed with WND his reasons for that on a number of occasions.

His bill to establish a select committee currently has 171 cosponsors, which is nearly three-fourths of the Republican majority in the House.

The Virginian said it would be very easy to find out who should testify, “because the CIA and others know who was on the ground, their human resources (departments) know, so the committee could find out.”

While he seemed frustrated with what appears to be an administration stonewall on Benghazi, the senior statesman remained optimistic.

“I think eventually the truth will come out, but it will come out slowly,” he said. “And perhaps in six months or a year, somebody will come forward. Eventually these things come out.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/lawmaker-confident-cia-gagging-employee/#pVscCbPBlU6LPcsl.99

 

Liberals in Retreat


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by John Fund

Three elections across the globe deliver an unpleasant shock to liberal ideologues. Recall supporters walk the line in Colorado. John Fund   Three elections in the last week have challenged long-held liberal premises about how elections are fought and what the public wants. It’s worth examining those results in such widely separated places as Australia, Norway, and the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. In Colorado, liberals are already in denial about the fact that two Democratic state senators were recalled from office in districts Barack Obama carried by some 20 percentage points only ten months ago. The recalls were organized by citizens upset with the lawmakers’ votes in favor of a gun-control measure. The two senators also helped pass bills perceived as being against the interests of rural areas and helped push through a fraud-prone election law that shifted the Centennial State to all-mail voting.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee’s chairwoman, said the results simply reflected voter suppression, pure and simple.” Matt Vespa of Red State scoffed at her flimsy explanation: More Democrats and independents signed the two recall petitions than did Republicans, he noted, which “only further discredits DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s insane claim that her side lost due to voter suppression.”

Liberals are also claiming that the black arts of the National Rifle Association skewed the results. But the gun-rights group came very late to support the recalls, and the Denver Post reports that pro-gun-control groups spent some $3 million versus only $540,000 by recall supporters. Grover Norquist, a board member of the National Rifle Association, claims once again that liberals mistook “position for passion” on an issue. In the wake of the Newtown massacre of last December, the Left believed public opinion had finally turned in favor of gun control; in support of this view, they cited surveys showing overwhelming support for background checks and limits on ammunition magazines. As Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wrote, “You cannot oppose the will of 90 percent of the public and expect no consequences.” But in terms of intensity, the advantage goes to those who oppose restrictions on gun rights and believe that even the most modest of them will only embolden those who ultimately aim to restrict access to guns even further.

As Norquist explains it: “The polls showed many people wanted some new gun-control laws at the same time they told pollsters they didn’t think they would prevent future Newtowns. Understandable outrage at murders accompanied by an acknowledgement it won’t make things better doesn’t make a passionate voter. Gun-rights supporters are always passionate, which is why more laws expanding gun rights have passed since Newtown than laws restricting them.”

What should worry Democrats is that the two Colorado districts that recalled their senators last Tuesday represent the two sides of their electoral coalition. The district in downtown Colorado Springs was urban, trendy, and filled with upper-income social liberals; it voted 59 percent to 38 percent for Obama. The other district in nearby Pueblo and its suburbs was Hispanic, moderate-to-lower income, blue-collar, and more culturally conservative; it voted 58 percent to 39 percent for Obama. “The recall in Pueblo was started by two plumbers and an electrician,” notes Jon Caldara, head of the pro-recall Independence Institute. “Hispanics and blue-collar voters resented interference in what they regarded as their local rights.” And as for the NRA, the Democratic survey firm Public Policy Polling found voters in Pueblo had a positive view of the group. If the Colorado results showed the limits of liberal paternalism’s appeal, voters in prosperous Australia and Norway rebelled against liberal governments they perceived as incompetent and too focused on peripheral issues. In Australia, conservative leader Tony Abbott made opposition to the Labor government’s carbon tax the signature issue of his campaign. Polls showed that the public expressed general concern about global warming, but Abbott knew the polls also showed voters didn’t believe a carbon tax could do much about the climate and would probably serve as an excuse to extract more money from taxpayers. “Labor forgot about the basics of how to practice competent economic policy and went off on wild tangents to appeal to its special-interest backers,” Tim Andrews of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance told me. In Norway, after the 2011 massacre of dozens of teenagers by a white-separatist madman, the ruling Labor government was convinced that their conservative opposition would be discredited and that they could retain power in an economic climate where growth fueled by the nation’s abundant oil reserves was averaging over 3 percent a year. But an independent investigation of how the killer was able to evade capture for hours pointed out incredible bureaucratic incompetence in the national police bureaucracy, and even called into question rules banning almost all policemen from carrying guns. In addition, the leaders of the Conservative party and the libertarian Progress party succeeded in persuading voters that high taxes and suffocating regulations were preventing Norwegians from creating non-oil entrepreneurial ventures that employed people. “As rich and generous as Norwegians are, they want their children to inherit a real economy, and they demand better accountability from their government for the taxes they pay,” Jan Arild Snoen, a Norwegian political analyst, told me last August when a National Review cruise visited Norway. Michael Barone, the co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and an analyst of international elections, tells me that many people driven by ideology often feel elections should revolve around their concerns and reflect their priorities. “That can happen on the left or on the right,” he says. “But liberals are especially prone to not recognizing the public does care if their policies actually work in practice and are in sync with their everyday concerns.” In all three elections held in the last week — from Australia to Norway to Colorado — liberals forgot that their priorities aren’t often those of the average voter. In each case, they were punished for it. — John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.

Russian Paper: Once Drug Addict Obama Cannot Fight Against Vladimir Putin


How many people could ever have thought of Barack Obama making a statement that he was going to send missiles into any country, much less Syria? Then we have to ask why has he gone from a roaring lion to a paper tiger? Obama was going to attack first and ask questions later, he was drawing the line in the sand, yet when time came and that line was allegedly crossed, like a school yard bully, he says “That was the world’s red line, I never did that!” Now that we have seen the United States snickered at and in some places laughed at like the Rodeo Clown Obama and his friends demeaned, we see a man that is lost and has no way out. Just what does Russia think of him? They laugh as if Obama is the clown, and he is not in any sort of rodeo! Should anyone wonder just what some, if not all the people of Russia and maybe the world, think of Obama right now? All we have to do is look at recent articles about Obama in the Pravda paper, which is a Russian publication.

The following commentary comes from just one of many articles popping up all over Russia and the world especially after Obama drew the “red line,” then another and then another!

The following words are from Xavier Lerma:

Even though the US thinks they are in charge of humanity the reality is they are not. In their imaginary world the toothless media supports their spit ball shooting president. They actually think their words are supreme and final. Kerry and McCain keep dancing in a parade trying to influence a congress which is neither conservative nor moral but nevertheless war weary. The once drug addict now US leader cannot fight against Vladimir Putin who brought Russia from poverty in the 90’s to a more stable economy today. Obama’s buffoonery selling the war against Syria has hit a wall thanks to President Putin’s firm stance and leadership.

Putin Interview w/Channel One & AP

Putin’s Interview with Channel One and Associated Press news agency Focusing on war instead of a trillion dollar debt, Obama’s forte is to spread chaos not only in America but in the world. Like a fire bug his wake has left North Africa burning and he now supports terrorists the US once fought against. Bush once said that when Obama got into office that Barry would have to do the same and continue fighting in the Middle East. “Mr. I’ll bring home the troops next summer” has broken that promise and kept his “YES WE CAN start more wars” pledge. As they say in America, “he’s Bush on steroids”.

With just these words, the United States looks like a 3rd world nation rather than a leading nation. But this is just what the Marxist Obama wanted as he laid claim to being a staunch Marxist while he sat below the huge painting of Karl Marx and not just studied Karl Marx, but also wished he could direct a nation into oblivion like Karl Marx did! Yes Obama did say that many times while at Occidental College in California! Now he sits down when Putin talks and he listens like a good little school boy should, but why not, after all this is just what he had hoped for while studying Marxism in California! Now let us continue on with this article and see just what Obama is thought of outside of our nation where he should be respected!

 

“Although US public opinion is against another war the Bush haters will not protest Obama’s wars. I guess their feet hurt or Soros ran out of money. Code Pink went home to bake cookies or those in charge feel nothing can stop them now. Well, Putin is still in charge of the Middle East. The blood thirsty west can only grind its teeth, wail and scream, writhe in agony, spitting out lies, threats and accusations against Russia. Like Hitler and Napoleon, they will also meet their end.

Russia, who has slain its Red Dragon (Communism) long ago, is now facing Puff the Magic Dragon. Blowing smoke in his people’s eyes and spreading democracy with bombs. Magic that cannot fight against the truth. Puff must face reality and will try to save face. He will blame the Republicans who stand in his way and his worshipers will pity and love him. Playing the race card once again will bring more power to his throne.

The Saudi King whom Obama bowed to and Bush kissed will try again and again. Demanding Obama attack Syria. Trying to bribe Putin or threatening Russia with terrorists. He cannot let Russia, the largest country and the number one oil and gas producer, stand in their way. They want the world coming to them for oil and they know Russia will become more powerful in the future supplying Europe, China and other major countries. The Saudis must have complete control of the Middle East now before it’s too late.”

Mr. Lerma shows the discontent with Obama and just how people in other parts of the world see him. Obama is now showing himself to be such a weak President that few nations will even help him go into any sort of war! Many would bash and cut to pieces President Bush for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when he mentioned it he had the backing of over 21 different nations that not only supported him, but were willing to send troops also. Obama, on the other hand, is lucky if he can gather together people from his home nation of Kenya, much less any amount of other nations.

Is it not strange that Obama has come out throwing punches like a drunken fighter, only to be knocked out before making center ring by Putin? Some say this is Obama’s master plan; to diminish the United States standing since he has always harbored a hate for our nation due to the actions across the globe. We do not know that to be a fact. However, one does have to wonder why did he even take up any ideas on Syria without first finding out who would support those ideas? 

We should pay attention to what the world sees and writes which our own so-called newspapers seem to refuse to write. Mr. Lerma gives us insight into what some in Russia think of not just Obama, but some of the conservatives too, since it seems that some of those conservatives have in some cases seem to have crossed the line and followed behind Obama rather than lead from in front of him, men like the Speaker of the House John Boehner, who at times cries like a baby. What have we as a people done to allow a man who cries like a baby be a leader? However, we cannot just stop here, let us call into play the Vietnam Veteran Senator John McCain, who seems willing to jump the fence like a lost sheep. With leaders like these, we have become our own enemy! Let us not get caught up with these and let us get back to what is written about Obama in Russia.

Lerma continues: 

“Conservative Americans and those in the world are seeing Barry falling apart at the seams when he goes against Putin. They see a weak- kneed, lying, war mongering punk against a well-educated, confident and successful leader.  President Putin can stand alone and speak without a teleprompter or notes and argue reasonably. He can give interviews anytime without worry because he does not have to try to remember a lie or wonder what to say. He only has to gives facts which are easy to remember.  His conservative economics and religious views are admirable in their eyes.

Forgotten or ignored by the west are the Christian men and women of Russia who prayed, suffered and died for today’s free and united Russia. Last century they were attacked by Hell itself yet they endured and rebuilt Christ’s Church. Over 58 Million were killed in Communist Russia but the Faith survived. It is one of the greatest miracles in world history. The western media prefers to shriek like spoiled brats against Putin.  “Evil dictator!” they shout, while they themselves have rejected the Holy Spirit and proudly wear the seal of the Antichrist. They laugh but God is not mocked. Christ is Victorious in Russia where homosexuality is still a sin; blasphemy a crime; where crosses and holy images are in public view. A renewed faith in Christ our King has become our fortress. This is the wall Putin stands on and the wall that will cause Obama’s fall.”

Here, we see just what is written about Barack Obama in the Russian paper, Pravda, yet should we take this with a grain of salt? We should read this as a lesson learned, we should never vote another person into the office of President who only has experience as a “community organizer” because a local community is much smaller and different than a world of people. We should also make a note that in this article, Lerma openly called Obama a “liar,” something we have openly referred to Obama as, yet few seem to have noticed. Perhaps now that another country is making this statement, someone may well take heed and check out just what has he lied about.

We wouldn’t have to look hard to find out what Obama has lied about. Just one year ago, Obama was the biggest liar when it came to the terrorist attack in Benghazi! He could also be called a weak kneed man because he had many chances to capture at least one of those who killed the 4 men in Benghazi, yet Obama could not find them. Meanwhile, the very same press that loves Obama could not just find the first suspect charged in the Benghazi attacks, but they had interviews with him! We may not like the words Mr. Xavier Lerma writes, but we should ask if maybe the so-called news writers in our nation could be as bold? Maybe if the American reporters would be as bold as Mr. Lerma, our nation would not be the laughing stock of the world!

Maybe the Rodeo Clown knew just what he was doing when he wore a mask of Obama! 

 

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/russian-paper-drug-addict-obama-fight-vladimir-putin/#OI3Vh2Vea5alyMB8.99

 

Barack Obama ; The Bad, The Really Bad ; The Ugly


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

This is a Reblogged from freedomoutpost.com

Posted by

  The End of Obama? Looming scandal could ruin the 44th President and disrupt our country.

Who or What is Barack Obama? As you may already know, I contend that we under attack not just by evil but by FIVE EVILS.

These are (1) Communism, (2) Islamism, (3) New World Order (NWO) Corruption, (4) Crime, and (5) Hedonism. These are savageries which we must eradicate if we are to have any peace.

Under Communism, I place Putin, Red China, Venezuela, and several smaller players, though they often play by the rules of the NWO and criminals. Marxism is rampant also in our politics, media, schools, labor unions, and now churches. Alinsky tactics are used incessantly for these means, although one might properly say these are criminal tactics used with evil intent.

Islamism is the obvious urge towards jihad, Sharia, and the worldwide caliphate.

Under the New World Order, I place those governments and entities which use the hypnosis that everything is alright in order to enslave us to more hedonistic forms of freedom. The Western nations are deep into pacifying us with their form of capitalism, which is the promise of luxury. When it comes to evil, their’s is the most preferable form because it generally is not noticeable, that is, not painful… until it comes crashing down.

Hedonism means anything that, falsely, “is not hurting anyone but me.” Under this, I place sexual deviance, intoxication, and counter-culture. Society can never be rid of these things, but when society tolerates them, hedonism takes on a life of its own, a militant evil manifesting as “rights” to sodomy, bestiality, child sex, adultery, narcotics, public drunkenness, and unchecked radicalism.

Crime is the opposite, not pretending to be harmless. Crime caters especially to hedonism, providing gambling, prostitution, drugs, illegal alcohol, and other vices which, when prohibited, profit the criminal greatly. Thus, incompetent law creates mafias, gangs, cartels, and the like. If hedonism is provided a legal outlet, as gambling and prostitution in Nevada, crime must adhere to that law or suffer non-competitive products and services. Naturally, there is petty crime also (not so petty to those suffering the consequences): the pickpocket, the thief; and also the psychopath: the murderer, the rapist.

I give this brief overview in order to say that, while most evil is easily categorized, Barack Obama is not easily categorized. Let’s take a look:

OBAMA, THE COMMUNIST

MAIN SOURCE:

Note the overarching communist and/or Marxist history, enveloping Obama’s mother, father, brothers, grandfather, mentor Frank Marshall Davis, advisors David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Bill Ayers, Richard Trumpka, Jeremiah Wright, and so on. In college, Obama was an active Marxist radical, with many communist social ties. He was endorsed by the now-defunct New Party, who helped him in 1997, and the Communist Party USA. In a famous photo, he is shown teaching the principles of Saul Alinsky. Obama has a history of advocating for redistribution of wealth, of denying the true right to private property (“you didn’t make that”), against gun ownership, and between-the-lines against free speech and a free press. He is a community agitator, enjoys riling up the “victims” of society so he can play savior, and invokes “fairness” and “rights” for everything he desires to happen.

 OBAMA, THE ISLAMIST

Again to family, Obama’s step-father (Lolo), his father (Barack Sr., the confusing mix of Muslim and Marxist), and at least one brother are/were Muslim. Obama Jr. was enrolled in an Indonesian school where enrollment records say his religion is Islam (which of course doesn’t mean much). He has been quoted that there is nothing more beautiful than the Muslim call to prayer, and that the United States is not a (Judeo-)Christian nation. He bows to the Saudi prince (yes, among others). These Islamist things against Obama are more slight than the communist impregnation, bur religion, generally speaking, trumps political ideology (except for atheists).

The main evidence we see is Obama’s insistence on helping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. His foray into Libya, his encouragement of Egyptian revolution, his refusal to help in the attempted Iranian revolution, and his confusing stance in Syria, all have a pattern which favors the Islamists. Weapons have even been delivered to Al-Qaeda, our enemy! His policies favor Saudi and Kuwaiti oil while destroying American capabilities in gas and oil (Keystone pipeline, anti-Gulf, anti-fracking, anti-coal). These are geopolitical moves of great consequence which involve also Russia and China, which is why we see agitation there.

The avoidance of Christian safety is also of grave concern, and evidence for Obama’s Islamism. He wants to avenge fallen children from chemical weapons when they are Arabs (or when they serve a different agenda, viz. Newtown, CT), but burning churches in the Middle East are of no consequence to him, apparently. This plays deeply into his approval of the mosque to be built at Ground Zero in New York City, and into the manner by which a giant mosque in Maryland is forced upon the community (but we might also point to GW Bush’s avoidance of Dearbornistan).

There is also Obama’s record with Israel, from butting into their sovereignty by citing 1967 borders as a precondition to peace negotiations (with Arab terrorists!), to omitting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on at least one map (and providing an implausible explanation), and various other anti-Israel stances.

Recently, in-depth looks at The White House reveal Islamic advisers (not a sin but not looking good either). There also been accusations that Obama is a member-in-good-standing with the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

Of course, there is the bewildering counter-evidence that Obama takes credit for killing Osama, the Islamist prophet-of-the-moment, and has drone-struck Yemen, and also quickly eliminated the Boston bombers from being able to speak.

OBAMA, THE NWO PUPPET

Obama went to Harvard Law School. He surrounds himself with all of the familiar NWO faces, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton (yes, also a communist), Joe Biden (yes, also a numbskull), Chuck Hagel, David Petraeus, and the ever-dangerous Cass Sunstein, among many others.

His monetary policy utilizes the same old printing methods that cause the Federal Reserve to be such a menace, racking up more debt than any President to date (even taking % of GDP into account), on track to double the debt under his watch. And, despite his rhetoric, his economic policy (so to speak) benefits the same corporations and banks he rails against (without lowering the corporate tax rate).

Obama is an anti-constitutional authoritarian who would love to disarm all Americans (his candor makes him more communist). His stance on FEMA, the NSA, the IRS, the EPA, and other agencies is as all-encompassing as ever. Even if he is communist or Islamist, he is New World Order to the core.

Of special note, Obama is a hawk, not a dove. He has kept the wars going, and far more died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush (we’ll give credit on Iraq). He has not closed Guantanamo. He has struck violently in Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere in Africa and Asia (sorry if you didn’t know), and is contemplating starting World War 3 in Syria. He loves his drones. Among all NWO Presidents, Obama is most overt with his power, and most enjoys the arrogance of being commander-in-chief.

OBAMA, THE CRIMINAL

Regarding him personally, Obama is a typical Chicago thug politician, using dirty tricks to vanquish his Congressional rivals (I know, all’s fair in politics). No matter what you think, Obama definitely accepted help from Tony Rezko (Obama even called it “bonehead” – his slang for “oops”). Regarding corporate crime, the Solyndra deal smells of kickbacks (you may invoke Halliburton if it makes you happy). Obama is also a constant liar (thank you, Joe Wilson!), making him a perjurer in front of Congress and the American people.

Concerning more serious matters of national consequence, Obama supports illegal aliens by refusing his Justice Dept. the ability to capture. He has no border policy which favors America, making lower Arizona particularly a hazard, something not known in the United States for 100 years. This aiding and abetting illegal immigration is not only criminal but also treason.

Speaking of treason, the fact that Bill Ayers is an adviser to Obama makes him a sympathizer to the violence of Ayers’ radical bomb-throwing days. And onward we go, President Obama has been found in contempt of court.

At the very tip of the mountain, Obama is complicit in murder, abandoning our boys in Benghazi. He makes the final decision, he takes the rap. We might also add the innocents killed in his airstrikes (which other commanders have also in their laps).

OBAMA, THE HEDONIST

Again, we begin personally. Let’s talk golf. He is so addicted to it that immediately after the Rose Garden speech concerning Syria, he changed clothes and went to the links! As a I won’t deny a man his recreation, even personal vices, but this is just the start.

Nationally, he is an advocate for hedonism, particularly the homosexual agenda, though he says he is not (the Muslim ploy). Obama is so entrenched in this hedonism that he angers even his African brethren, even Mugabe. And who can forget Kevin Jennings? Or Larry Sinclair? But he is also heavily on the side of abortion, which is basically legislation in favor of promiscuity and murder (the communist ploy).

Most dangerously, Obama is addicted to himself. He is Narcissist Grande, never taking blame for anything, shoving it off on others, even throwing his own grandmother at one point under the bus. The mark of the hedonist is to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. This is Obama. In love with his stardom and fame, surrounding himself with music personalities like Springsteen and Jay-Z, using his power to take mounds of expensive vacations at taxpayer expense, even shuttling his mother-in-law to Africa in Air Force One. You may well ask “What’s wrong with that?” but his rejection of austerity for himself is simply stirring the pot.

SO, WHO IS OBAMA?

As was the capstone to his election, he is all things to all people. He is a peace-loving dove worthy of a Nobel Prize even while he spreads world struggle (geopolitical), racial division (Trayvon, et al), class war (“pay your fair share”), and does nothing to quell violence in Congo, Mexico (though he blames America) or Chicago. He is the smartest man in the room even though his budgets have been unanimously struck down, his foreign “policy” is a wreck, his economic measures are doomed, to the point where it looks intentional, making him not intelligent but rather craftily evil. He is the well-dressed church-goer whose church is that of racial dissent and anti-Americanism, whose doctrine is to force Catholics to permit birth control, whose concept of Bibles is that they are utilized by “bitter clingers” (imperialists). He is the communist atheist who is also a radical Muslim who is also a New World Order stooge who is also a common criminal who is also a narcissistic hedonist. But you can’t be ALL of these things. Can you?

The author of confusion and chaos is Satan. But even though an Egyptian newspaper made out Obama to be the devil incarnate (as did Mark Burnett in The Bible TV miniseries), I’m not ready to say they’re one and the same. But I will say that Obama is the merry prankster of politics, much to our detriment. When he released his birth certificate to a credulous public, it was signed by U.K. La Lee,” pronounced… “ukulele,” the Hawaiian stringed instrument. Obama – the practical joker. However, when our national security is on the line, when our economic stability is on the line, when our lives are on the line, when our national identity is on the line – we don’t need a joker, a kidder, a prankster. We need a leader.

And the one thing Obama has not been is a leader.

 

Read more:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/barack-obama-bad-really-bad-ugly/#ixzz2eqBEBAWD

 

The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Doug Patton 

Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything

Author

Obama: The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime

Speak softly and carry a big stick.” — Teddy Roosevelt
“The buck stops here.” — Harry Truman
“I didn’t set a red line.” — Barack Obama

Barack Obama is, without question, the most embarrassing president of my lifetime — and that is saying something, since my life so far has encompassed 12 presidencies, some of which have brought a lot of embarrassment to the nation. Even Richard Nixon, with his Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter, with his malaise, and Bill Clinton, with his lewd behavior in the Oval Office, could not top this president for pure, unadulterated disgrace.

Of course, in Obama’s case, it is not a matter of personal scandal like it was for Clinton. By telling the world a year ago that he was drawing a red line in the hot desert sands of Syria — that red line being the use of chemical weapons — he created the debacle that currently threatens to engulf the Middle East. He blustered at the time that if the regime of Bashar al-Assad crossed that red line, there will be a price to pay. No one yet knows what that price will be, but from the current discussion, it appears that it will involve the destruction of at least three camels, four sheep, a half-dozen goats and an abandoned aspirin factory. That oughta show ‘em!

What it will do, in all likelihood, is unify the Islamic crazies in the Middle East and turn Assad into a regional hero, emboldening him to attack Israel, secure in the knowledge that the United States has no stomach for a wider war.

Congressional offices on Capitol Hill are reporting phone calls coming in at a rate of more than 200 to 1 against approving Obama’s plan to attack Syria. Republican and Democrats alike are being bombarded with negative responses from their constituents. Still, there are those among the insulated legislative class — John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, etc. — who have not gotten the message that the American people are about as enthusiastic about Obama’s proposed war plans as they are about undergoing a quadruple root canal. In fact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve a resolution to allow Obama to use force.

Meanwhile, Facebook postings from members of our military are appearing with sentiments like this: “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al-Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.”

Yet there was the ever-arrogant Barack Obama, standing at the podium in Stockholm on Wednesday, embarrassing himself yet again (and, by extension, the fools who elected him) by announcing in response to a reporter’s question about his crumbling credibility, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”

Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything. Therefore, when something goes wrong among his cockamamie plans, it must be someone else’s fault. Usually, of course, it would be George Bush’s fault, but even Obama couldn’t bring himself to tell that one again, not in this case. No, this time it’s the whole world’s fault. And Congress. And America. It’s American credibility that will suffer, he told the world, not his. Unbelievable.

The questions that need to be asked are these: What is the national security interest of the United States of America in attacking Syria? Will our intervention accomplish anything more than assuaging the ego of an arrogant president who has no knowledge of military matters? Will the consequences for the wider region, and for the interests of the United States, be improved if we attack Syria? And the most frightening question: have we elected a president who so admires Islam and so hates Israel that he would deliberately aid al-Qaeda while provoking a brutal Arab tyrant to attack our tiny but crucial ally?

I fear the answers to these questions are as follows: none; no; no; and, unfortunately, yes.

Obama: I understand; American people aren’t with me on Syria strike


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Scott Pelley

 

Scott Pelley interview

(CBS News) WASHINGTON — In an interview Monday, President Obama responded to a surprising late proposal that could head off a military strike against Syria. The Syrians agreed to a Russian proposal to put their chemical weapons under international control and destroy them.

I talked to President Obama about that, and about a threat Syrian dictator Bashar Assad made during an interview with Charlie Rose.

SCOTT PELLEY: Can you accept the Russian/Syrian proposal?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we don’t know the details of it yet. But I think that it is a potentially positive development. I don’t think that we would’ve gotten to the point where they even put something out there publicly, had it not been — and if it doesn’t continue to be a credible — military threat from the United States and those who support Syria’s responses to what happened inside of Syria. But, you know, my central goal throughout this process has not been to embroil ourselves in a civil war in Syria.

I have shown great restraint, I think, over the last two years, despite the heartbreak that’s happened there. But what I have said is that the ban on chemical weapon use is something that is of U.S. national interest. It protects our troops, so that they don’t have to wear gas masks whenever they’re in theater, the weapons by definition are indiscriminate and don’t differentiate between somebody in uniform and a child.

And when we see images of 400-plus children being slaughtered without a mark on their body through these weapons, I think it is important for the international community and the United States to stand up and say, “This cannot happen.” Now the good news is I think that Assad’s allies, both Russia and Iran, recognize that this was– this was a breach, that this was a problem.

And for them to potentially put pressure on Assad to say, “Let’s figure out a way that the international community gets control of– of– of these weapons in a verifiable and forcible way” — I think it’s something that we will run to ground. So John Kerry will be talking to his counterparts in Russia, we will contact the U.N. Security Council members as well as the Secretary General of the U.N. And let’s see what happens over the next several days to see if in fact what they’re talking about is realistic.

President Obama spoke with Scott Pelley at the White House Monday.

President Obama spoke with Scott Pelley at the White House Monday.

/ CBS News

SCOTT PELLEY: What do you need to see in a diplomatic deal?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said, the key is — to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that we don’t just trust, but we also verify. And so the– the importance is to make sure that the international community has confidence that these chemical weapons are under control, that they are not being used, that potentially they are removed from Syria and that they are destroyed. And there are a lot of stockpiles inside of Syria, it’s one of the largest in the world.

Let’s see if they’re serious. But we have to make sure that we can verify it and enforce it, and if in fact we’re able to achieve that kind of agreement that has Russia’s agreement and the Security Council’s agreement, then my central concern in this whole episode is resolved. It doesn’t resolve the underlying terrible conflict in Syria.

And, you know, that I’ve always said is not amenable to a military solution. We’re gonna have to get the parties to arrive at some sort of settlement. But this may be a first step in what potentially could be an end to terrible bloodshed, and millions of refugees throughout the region — that is of deep concern to us and our allies.

SCOTT PELLEY: Is the only agreement you would accept one in which we can be assured that all of Syria’s chemical weapons are destroyed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I– you know, I think it’s premature for me to start drafting language. I think I want to see what exactly is being proposed, and in the interim, it is very important for Congress and the American people to recognize that we would not be getting even ticklers like this if it weren’t for the fact that we were serious about potentially taking action in the absence of some sort of movement.

And so we– we need to keep the pressure on, and tomorrow I’ll have the opportunity to explain to the American people just why it is that this chemical weapons ban is so important. It’s it in part humanitarian. Any parent who sees those videos of those children being gassed I think understands what a human tragedy it is.

But I want people to understand that this ban that almost every country in the world has signed onto and has been observed in conflicts around the world is something that helps protect our people, our troops. You know, it means that there’s less production of chemical weapons, which means it’s less likely to fall into the hands of terrorists who would have no compunction about using it in the United States of America. And that norm is worth protecting, particularly if we can do it in a limited, surgical way that does not involve troops on the ground or a long air campaign that would be both costly and could draw us into this long-term conflict.

SCOTT PELLEY: What could Syria do right now to show its good faith?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the first thing that we’re gonna want to see is both the Russians and the Syrians putting a serious proposal on the table, and let’s take a look and see what it says.

Syria says it “welcomes” Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
Hillary Clinton supports military strike on Syria
U.S.: 14 more nations back “strong” response to Syria
Majority opposes military attack on Syria, poll says
Complete Coverage: Crisis in Syria

SCOTT PELLEY: Assad essentially put you on notice today. In the interview with Charlie Rose, he said of the United States, “If you strike somewhere, you have to expect the repercussions somewhere else in a different form, in a way that you don’t expect.” He brought up 9/11 as an example of the kind of thing America did not expect. Do you take that as a threat?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think it was intended as a threat. I don’t take it as a credible threat in the sense that Mr. Assad doesn’t have the capacity to strike us in a significant way. Some of his allies like Iran and Hezbollah do have the capacity to engage in asymmetrical strikes against us. Our intelligence, I think, is very clear that they would not try to escalate a war with us over limited strikes to deal with this chemical weapon issue.

Keep in mind, Iran was subjected to chemical weapons use by Saddam Hussein. So the Iranian population thinks chemical weapons are terrible and probably consider what Assad did to be a grave mistake. So I don’t think they would start a war with us over that. But what is true is that, you know, our embassies in the region, U.S. personnel in the region, they’re always potentially vulnerable to asymmetrical attacks. But the truth of the matter is, those threats already exist from a whole range of groups. And we understand what those threats are and take those precautions very seriously.

SCOTT PELLEY: Mr. President, the administration has described evidence to the American people and the world but it hasn’t shown evidence. And I wonder at this point, what are you willing to show? What are we going to see in terms of the evidence that you say we have?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind what we’ve done is we have provided unclassified evidence. But members of Congress are getting a whole slew of classified briefings. And they’re seeing very directly exactly what we have. Keep in mind, Scott, that the– this is not a problem I’m looking for. I’m not looking for an excuse to engage in military action.

And I understand deeply how the American people, after a decade of war, are not interested in any kind of military action that they don’t believe involves our direct national security interests. I– I get that. And members of Congress I think understand that. But in this situation where there’s clear evidence that nobody credible around the world disputes that chemical weapons were used, that over a thousand people were killed, that the way that these weapons were delivered makes it almost certain that Assad’s forces used them, when even Iran has acknowledged that chemical weapons were used inside of Syria.

In that situation, I think the issue is not the evidence — most people around the world are not questioning that chemical weapons were used. I think the question now is what– how does the– how does the international community respond. And I think it is important for us to run to ground every diplomatic channel that we can. There’s a reason why I went to Congress in part to allow further deliberation, not just here domestically but also internationally.

But I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we understand this is important. And if the American people– are not prepared to stand up for what is a really important international norm, then I think a lot of people around the world will take that signal — that this norm is not important.

SCOTT PELLEY: The people aren’t with you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, well, not yet. And I, as I said, I understand that. So I’ll have a chance to talk to the American people directly tomorrow. I don’t expect that it’s gonna suddenly swing the polls wildly in the direction of another military engagement. If you ask the average person — including my household — “Do we need another military engagement?” I think the answer generally is gonna be no.

But what I’m gonna try to propose is, is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground, nothing like that. This isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Afghanistan, it’s not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important.

And that we should all be haunted by those images of those children that were killed. But more importantly, we should understand that when when we start saying it’s okay to — or at least that there’s no response to the gassing of children, that’s the kind of slippery slope that leads eventually to these chemical weapons being used more broadly around the world. That’s not the kind of world that we want to leave to our children.

SCOTT PELLEY: Thank you.

What a lying sack of BS

 

D.C. THROWS UP ROADBLOCK FOR PATRIOTIC BIKERS


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by BOB UNRUH

 

Permit denied for rally to counter Muslim march

author-image

Bikers22

Thousands of bikers, maybe even tens or thousands or hundreds of thousands, will be “rallying” in Washington, D.C., Wednesday even though city officials reportedly denied them a permit for a straight-through drive that would have allowed them to travel quickly on roads that would have been blocked to cross-traffic.

Now, the bikers will be stopping at every stop sign or stop light, yielding to pedestrians wherever appropriate, and otherwise observing all traffic regulations.

These are the plans being confirmed today on Facebook and other social media mediums for the bikers who decided to rally at the same time the American Muslim Political Action Committee proposed what originally was billed as a “Million Muslim March,” which was given a permit.

The Muslim organization later changed the name to “Million American March Against Fear,” and where promoters initially said their march was to protest “anti-Islamic bigotry in the years that ensued the al-Qaida terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil,” it later was changed.

Now the group says its goal is to “ask all individuals and organizations working for peace to attend this collective action to tell our government leaders we want transparency and policies of peace. In the past 12 years since 9/11 the United States government as failed to protect and promote constitutional liberties and human life, here and abroad. We feel that accountability in government has been ignored and the time has arrived to collectively speak truth to power.”

That was after an early statement from promoters that said, “On 9.11.01 our country was forever changed by the horrific events in New York. The entire country was victimized by the acts done on that day. Muslim and non Muslim alike were traumatized but we as Muslims continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains. To this day every media outlet and anti Islamic organization has committed slanderous and libel statements against us as Muslims and our religion of Islam.”

The issue of the denial of a permit for special accommodations for the bikers seem of little consequence to those attending.

At BizPacReview, writer Joe Saunders reported, “Denied a permit by the nation’s capital for a special ‘non-stop’ ride through town with a waiver for red lights, stop signs and other traffic controls, organizers of the ’2 Million Bikers to DC’ ride to remember 9/11 are undeterred.

“Just riding on a public street doesn’t take any special permission after all, even if you have a million people doing it. They just sought the permit to make life easier on the city’s residents and businesses.

“So the ride will go on. It’s just going to take a little longer.”

On a Facebook page for the organizers of the grass-roots movement, they wrote, “We find this regretful for the residents and businesses of that great city, and humbly offer our apologies. What could have been a one or two hour ride through will now likely be an all-day event. We will be obeying all laws. We will be stopping at all stoplights, stop signs, and yielding to all pedestrians.”

No route is being publicly announced ahead of time, but they said the event is to launch at 8 a.m. at the Harley Davidson of Washington location in Fort Washington, Md.

Kickstands go up at 11 a.m., Saunders reported.

Also on the BizPac site, organizations posted a comment, “We WILL ride as we did not really need a permit, but did apply for THEIR benefit. We were told by Sheila Gotha of the Permits DEPT. ‘This Ride Only event has been denied.’ When asked why, her only response was ‘It’s a weekday and DC residents are not going to (sic) happy with you folks.’

“We did our best to explain that IF we received assistance with road blocks, etc. it would be beneficial to the residents of DC as we would be able to get through in much less time. Her response, ‘Permit denied.’ NOW I will say almost every LEO Dept that was on that call did reach out to us afterwards. They were concerned as well, but MOST were “VERY SUPPORTIVE! They were not able to help with road blocks, but wished us well!”

The Muslim organization announced earlier it got a permit for its event.

In what was a virtual impossibility before the Internet, hundreds, even thousands, of biker groups are planning to show up for the “2 Million Bikers to DC.”

At the Mr. Conservative blog, the author said: “The best way to counter bad speech is to oppose it with good speech. Sometimes ‘speech’ can be expressed simply by the number of people who are willing to show up to support a principle. That’s the view that hundreds of bikers (so far) across American have as they prepare to join a ’2 Million Biker Ride to DC’ to counter the planned Sept. 11 ‘Million Muslim March.’”

On the Facebook page, the community purpose is described as: “To honor those who were killed on 911 and our armed forces who fought those who precipitated this attack!”

Volunteers were coordinating travel for groups from various states.

A Ronald Curaba said: “Who ever comments I would like to do this … should shut up and show up! I’m a retired FDN Lt. I should be at my old firehouse where I was on that ill fated day …. but I will be in DC riding! God willing!”

Added Bryan Short: “How appropriate. A million muslims surrounded by 2 million hogs!”

Organizers of the page added: “Folks, just wanted to say thank you for your support. This event has been a lot of work. But for our country it is worth it. As with any event such as this we are being attacked from every angle. But we will not allow those distractions to deter us from our goal nor the goal of the originator of this event Mr. Bill Williamson.”

“God Bless Ride Safe,” added Tammy Bowman.

“Ride on brothers,” said Bob Halley.

“Don’t forget ya’ll don’t need a bike to participate. Support vehicles will be needed. I suppose most of the U.S. will be there in spirit. Those of us who are lucky to still have employment still need to work their knickers off to survive these days. Perhaps red/white/blue boys can adorn people’s homes in support?” suggested Trish Zysk.

Options for those who cannot make the trek to D.C.?

“Organize a ride to your own state Capitol! Get with like-mined folks and get started planning! Someone take a lead in your state and get the event in motion.”

Also, get with your ‘Impeach Obama Overpass’ organization.

“Whatever you decide please do something to support America on 911!”

See a video on the event:

Bikers

ACT for America founder Brigitte Gabriel blasted the Muslim organization for setting an agenda, and then modifying it to make it appear more inclusive.

“It is amazing how fast they changed the original language on their website claiming victimhood, bigotry, and unfair treatment since Sept. 11th 2001,” Gabriel said. “Once they were confronted and debated by people like me who pointed out to them that in the last four years alone we have arrested on American soil 226 home grown terrorists. One-hundred eighty six of them were Muslims. Not Jews. Not Hindus, not Buddhist. But Muslims.”

Gabriel says the facts are that Muslim immigrants to the U. S. are responsible for a disproportionally large number of domestic terrorism cases.

“Of all immigrants who have ever immigrated to America since its birth, America never encountered such hatred and terrorism coming out of one faith based group in our country that accounts for less than 2 percent of the American population and is now responsible for over 80 percent of attacks against America,” she said.

“In 11 years since 911, the Islamic American community has not organized a one million man march to condemn Islamic terrorism against America and call Hamas, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, al-Shabaab, and other groups by their names – terrorists,” Gabriel said.

“Instead they are rallying to condemn America for what they call unfair policy here and abroad. It is about time the Muslim American community comes out and condemns every imam’s preaching in mosques throughout America who advocates overthrowing our democracy and inciting hatred against infidels and America,” Gabriel said.

“They should be coming out by the millions supporting America and its policy in eradicating Islamic terrorism, supremacy and violence,” Gabriel said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/d-c-throws-up-roadblock-for-patriotic-bikers/#GbTOuZkRLxRlbLB1.99

 

Intelligence insider: Syria, World War III & the hidden objective


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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

Posted by Doug Hagmann

Author

“Pay attention! You are seeing the opening acts to a global war, to World War III. Refer to the information I gave you right after the attacks in Benghazi, specifically to the information contained in‘Lemmings…at the precipice of WW III and you will see that everything I divulged to you was precisely correct.

World War III will begin in Syria, and no one on the planet (and Americans in particular) will be left untouched by what is about to take place. This has been planned for some time, and we are now seeing it happen right in front of us.” Those are the words of a trusted source with deep ties to the intelligence community, before providing more insight into what we might expect as this ‘crisis’ escalates and “Syria explodes.”

As I wrote in that article published on October 8, 2012, “All that is needed now is for a dutiful media to present one image, a video, or some other proof that Assad or someone else is using, or has their hands on, unconventional weapons. This will provide the necessary pretext for the U.S. and NATO, to intervene and ramp up the war against Assad. The UN will assist, and the red line will then have been crossed.” That will be the trigger event for U.S. involvement, and the escalation into a global conflict.

We are now at that critical moment, as the images of the use of chemical weapons are all over the news, and all fingers are pointing to Assad as the culprit. Just as predicted, The Guardian among other media outlets reported that “David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the West closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week’s alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a ‘serious response.’” But it’s a lie, a magic show, to keep people’s attention away from something much bigger on the horizon.

Syria through the lens of the Arab Spring & Benghazi

“The entire scenario we are seeing is one big magic act that began long ago, and Syria is just the ‘flash-bang’ diversion of the act, albeit a vital one. To understand how we got here is critically important, as it identifies the larger agenda or the big picture too few are seeing and too many are attempting to hide.

Consider the blatant continuity of agenda that has spanned several American presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Progressive and Conservative. This transcends political parties and the ‘political theater’ that has been designed to keep Americans occupied. Both political parties, however, are unified under a much larger globalist agenda, which explains why the policies of the Bush ‘dynasty’ have been exponentially increased under the Obama ‘regime.’

“Think about it. The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for awhile. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were getting in position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat? It makes no sense, unless you understand the larger objective and the ‘big picture.’”

“Okay, so explain the big picture,” I asked my source. “And please do it in a way that I can explain it to my neighbor, or my family, so they too can understand what we’re seeing.” What follows is an uninterrupted monologue from my intelligence insider.

The big picture explained

“Here’s the global picture. When you see it, it will make sense. This is about reshaping the entire power structure of not just the Middle East, but of the world.”

“Remember that the 2001 attacks against the U.S. was the catalyst for our military operations in Afghanistan, and then ostensibly Iraq under George W. Bush, a so-called ‘conservative republican.’ We could have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned up what we needed to, and come home. Instead, while still in Afghanistan, we went into Iraq after convincing the world they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember that George H. W. Bush, also a ‘conservative republican,’ engaged Iraq in ‘Gulf War I’ in 1990. Essentially, we’ve been in Iraq for the last quarter of a century! Why? Think about that.”

“And, we’ve been in Afghanistan for the last dozen years or so. Why? Oil and opium. It’s an ‘international bankers war.’ [Note that a recent report from ‘The Guerrilla Economist lays this out here, excerpted as follows]: “…[L]arge US military bases are on the very path of the purposed [Caspian Sea oil] pipeline. This as well as that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find its way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.”

“Oh, and by the way, if you mention Iran’s nuclear ambitions, why did we wait so long to really address this and keep Israel from doing so before any action would require a very protracted military campaign? Keep that in the back of your mind.”

“Now here’s another important part of the magic act. After eight years of George Bush, Americans were weary of war. So, a little known man named Barack Hussein Obama was selected to run against John McCain in 2008. Why Obama and not Hillary? Because the real power players needed a man with Muslim Brotherhood connections to accomplish what was needed in the Middle East. Think back to his Cairo speech. Consider that all of his campaign promises to end the wars were not only broken, but the wars and unrest were expanded by his policies, or the policies of those who put him into power.”

“So we’ve stayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq.” Then comes the Arab Spring, which was planned years in advance. It was not some serendipitously spontaneous movement by oppressed people longing for democracy, but a Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood plan to regain control of what was once the Ottoman Empire, this time on steroids. People must think bigger, outside of the confines of the Middle East.”

“As much as I don’t like the thought of saying this, Putin was correct in asking what sense it makes to destabilize the entire Middle East, especially Syria, a client state of Russia. In the context of regional affairs, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now, we are going to send cruise missiles into Syria… to hit what? Chemical weapons stockpiles stored in densely populated areas? How is this going to help the Syrians? The refugees fleeing from Syria?”

“I’ve told you, and you have written that we are implementing the Saudi agenda across the Middle East. But who is behind the Saudis? It is the international banking cartel, those ‘too big to jail,’ who are behind the Saudis. It’s their war and they’re funding all sides of the conflict. No matter what, they win. But what do they win?”

“Admittedly it’s difficult if not nearly impossible to tell all the players without a scorecard, and even then, the players will change their uniforms to keep everyone confused. But here’s the important part. Syria is a proxy state for Russia, as is Iran. China has interests in Iran as well. If you look at all of the major powers, they all have interests in the Middle East. So who will we, the U.S. ultimately be fighting when Syria explodes? Russia. And what will be the blowback? That’s important to understand, for it is also the objective.”

Blowback

“None of what you are seeing is about fighting terrorism, or about helping the people of Syria. It’s about oil, energy and the global economic system. Conflict exists for the globalists to achieve their objective, and their objective is the implementation of a new economic system that will be a basket of currencies, or SDR (Special Drawing Rights). If you don’t know about SDRs, just equate it to the euro, but on a global scale.”

They will usher this in by striking at the United States much like the U.S. took down the old Soviet Union. They will target our economy through oil, cheap oil, from Saudi Arabia. Remember, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil, neck and neck with the Saudis. But, the Saudis’ oil wells have been damaged and their ‘lift costs’ are increasing.”

“So, what we are about to see and experience in a most painful way is the destruction of the U.S. economy, the intentional killing of the U.S. dollar, by having it replaced as the world’s reserve currency, and replaced with a basket of currencies (SDR) that is much easier to control.”

“This is all about the conversion of world’s economic trading mechanism from a U.S. dollar based system to a SDR. The Middle East and Syria is merely the catalyst for is implementation. The ‘flash-bang’ of the magic act. And once this catalytic action is started, we cannot go back. War in the Middle East and particularly Syria is the catalyst that will disrupt transactions and commerce all over the world. And few will see it coming, or know what hit them.”

 

New revelation explains why no Benghazi air support?


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

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Aaron Klein 

 

Attorney for whistleblowers speaks out

author-image 

Aaron Klein is WND‘s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.

 

JERUSALEM – Does a new claim from an attorney representing Benghazi whistleblowers explain why air support was never sent to the doomed Benghazi facility the night of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack?

The claim may also help to explain why it took hours for an American-provided C-130 cargo plane to take off from Tripoli for the short flight to Benghazi to help evacuate survivors.

Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney who represents Benghazi whistleblowers, stated 400 surface-to-air missiles were “taken from Libya” during the attacks and that the U.S. fears the missiles can be used to down aircraft.

DiGenova told WMAL radio in Washington, D.C., he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles.”

WND was first to report that in a largely unnoticed speech to a think tank seven months before the Benghazi attack, a top State Department official described an unprecedented multi-million-dollar U.S. effort to secure anti-aircraft weapons in Libya after the fall of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime.

The official, Andrew J. Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, explained that U.S. experts were fully coordinating the collection efforts with the Libyan opposition.

He said the efforts were taking place in Benghazi, where a leading U.S. expert was deployed.

Now diGenova is connecting the missiles to the Benghazi attack

He said his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community.”

He stated the Obama administration is worried the missile can target airliners.

“They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he claimed.

He continued: “And it’s pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten in the hands of some very ugly people.”

Anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of the Libyan rebels or other jihadists would have served as a major threat to any incoming U.S. aircraft sent to aid the American targets during the Benghazi attack.

Such missiles also may have threatened the cargo plane that sat on the tarmac for hours in Tripoli before finally being dispatched in the early morning hours.

The State Department had stated the plane took off only after securing it from the Libyan transitional government.

MANPADS prompted Benghazi attacks?

Shapiro conceded that the Western-backed rebels did not want to give up the weapons, particularly Man-Portable-Air-Defense-Systems, or MANPADS, which were the focus of the weapons collection efforts.

The information may shed light on why the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was attacked Sept. 11, 2012.

According to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND, the Benghazi mission was a planning headquarters for coordinating aid, including weapons distribution, to the jihadist-led rebels.

After the fall of Gadhafi, the arming efforts shifted focus to aiding the insurgency targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in arming rebels and recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Speaking to WND, Middle Eastern security officials further stated that after Gadhafi’s downfall, Stevens was heavily involved in the State Department effort to collect weapons from the Libyan rebels.

The weapons were then transferred in part to the rebels fighting in Syria, the officials stated.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., last March disclosed in an interview with Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches, particularly MANPADS, from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Fox News host Bret Baier asked Graham why Stevens was in the Benghazi mission amid the many known security threats to the facility.

Graham replied, “Because that’s where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that are flowing freely in Libya.”

The senator stated, “We were desperately trying to control the anti-aircraft missiles, the MANPADS that were all over Libya, that are now all over the Mideast.”

‘Biggest MANPADS collection effort in U.S. history’

Now, Shapiro’s largely unnoticed remarks Feb. 2, 2012, may shed further light on the activities taking place inside the attacked Benghazi facility.

Of note is that the U.S. facility itself was protected by the February 17 Brigades, which is part of the al-Qaida-allied Ansar Al-Sharia group. That group also was in possession of a significant quantity of MANPADS and was reluctant to give them up, Middle Eastern security officials told WND.

In his speech seven months before the Benghazi attack, Shapiro stated that “currently in Libya we are engaged in the most extensive effort to combat the proliferation of MANPADS in U.S. history.”

Shapiro was addressing a forum at the Stimson Center, a non-profit think tank that describes itself as seeking “pragmatic solutions for some of the most important peace and security challenges around the world.”

Shapiro explained Libya had “accumulated the largest stockpile of MANPADS of any non-MANPADS producing country in the world.”

Shapiro related how then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed to providing $40 million dollars to assist Libya’s efforts to secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.

Of that funding, $3 million went to unspecified nongovernmental organizations that specialize in conventional weapons destruction and stockpile security.

Inside Benghazi facility

The NGOs and a U.S. team coordinated all efforts with Libya’s Transitional National Council, or TNC, said Shapiro. The U.S. team was led by Mark Adams, a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force.

Tellingly, Shapiro stated Adams was deployed in August 2011, not to Tripoli where the U.S. maintained an embassy, but to Benghazi.

The only U.S. diplomatic presence in Benghazi consisted of the CIA annex and nearby facility that were the targets of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

Shapiro expounded on the coordination with the TNC.

“A fact often overlooked in our response to events in Libya, is that – unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan – we did not have tens of thousands of U.S. forces on the ground, nor did we control movement and access,” he said. “This meant we did not have complete freedom of movement around the country. Our efforts on the ground therefore had to be carefully coordinated and fully supported by the TNC.”

He said the rebels were reluctant to relinquish their weapons.

“Many of these weapons were taken by militias and anti-Gadhafi forces during the fighting,” he said. “Furthermore, because many militias believe MANPADS have some utility in ground combat, many militia groups remain reluctant to relinquish them.”

Shapiro said the U.S. efforts consisted of three phases.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure and disable loose MANPADS across the country.

“To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists,” he said.

Phase 2 efforts were to help aid the Libyan government to integrate militias and veterans of the fighting, including consolidating weapons into secure facilities and assisting in the destruction of items that the Libyans deemed in excess of their security requirements.

Such actions were likely not supported by the jihadist rebels.

The third phase would have seen the U.S. help ensure the Libyans met modern standards, including updating storage facilities, improving security and implementing safety management practices.

The U.S. efforts clearly failed.

In April, the United Nations released a report revealing that weapons from Libya to extremists were proliferating at an “alarming rate,” fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza and elsewhere.

 

Benghazi attorney: What Obama just did absolutely illegal, impeachable


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

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael Dorstewitz 

 

August 13, 2013 by 30 Comments

Former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova, who currently represents several of the so-called “Benghazi whistleblowers,” affirmed that when President Obama told the White House Press Corps at his Friday news conference that “a sealed indictment” exists relative to the Benghazi attack, he committed an impeachable offense.

When the issue of the indictment was raised on WMAL’s Mornings On The Mall Monday during the DiGenova interview, he said the indictment “is indeed” supposed to remain under seal.

“We are now getting close to a series of statements by the president that puts him on the wrong road to impeachable offenses,” he said.

“At that news conference, the President of the United States violated a court order of the United States District Court for either the Eastern District of Virginia or the District of Columbia where this sealed indictment apparently exists,” DiGenova noted.

“He is not allowed to say that. A president can declassify a document, but he cannot unseal an indictment. Only a federal court can do that,” he explained. “Whoever is the chief judge of either one of those districts should issue a show cause order for the United States attorney for that district as to why the United States attorney or the president should not be held in contempt.”

The statement DiGenova is referring to is one Obama threw out to the press Friday.

‘‘There’s a sealed indictment,’’ Obama said at the White House news conference according to ABC News. ‘‘It’s sealed for a reason, but we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack. And we’re going to stay on it until we get them.’’

DiGenova described that statement as “unbelievable,” and added, “This was from our professor-president — our so-called “constitutional scholar.” There’s just no doubt about it — it was illegal,” he emphasized.

“But the AP reporter, Julie Pace, who was on ‘Fox News Sunday’ said, ‘It was kind of unusual for the president to talk about a sealed indictment in a public setting.’ It wasn’t unusual; it was illegal.”

Listen to the full interview, courtesy of WMAL.

Full Interview!,

 

Brennan Sent Letter to Benghazi ‘Survivors’


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

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by STEPHEN F. HAYES 

 John Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, sent a letter to each of the CIA employees who were on the ground during the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, inviting them to share information with Congress, according to three sources familiar with the missive. Brennan sent the letter in late May at the behest congressional intelligence committees, whose members remain interested in hearing from the survivors of those attacks.

brennan

The letter from Brennan, which remains classified, conveyed a message the CIA leadership was willing to support and facilitate communications between the CIA employees involved in the Benghazi attacks and congressional oversight committees. The letter did not generate additional responses from CIA employees in Benghazi.

The disclosure of the existence of Brennan’s letter comes amidst renewed interest in the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath triggered in part by a CNN report last week that “dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night” and “the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing remains a secret.” According to that report, “some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations,” part of “an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.”

A statement from CIA spokesman Dean Boyd provided to THE WEEKLY STANDARD and other media outlets strongly disputes any suggestion of a cover-up. “The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on US facilities in Benghazi. Furthermore, CIA leadership has informed officers who may want to speak with the oversight committees on this matter that it will support and facilitate such contact.  CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want to and there is an established process to facilitate such communication on a confidential basis.  The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.”

Members of the House Intelligence Committee received a copy of the letter on Tuesday, two days before the CNN report aired.

The congressional inquiries into the Benghazi attacks have been conducted almost entirely without input from those who participated in the fighting or witnessed it firsthand. Congressional intelligence committees have heard directly from just one CIA official who was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. This official, who has spoken twice with members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee, provided an account that included some new details about the night but largely tracked with the official storyline on the attacks.

Republicans have long alleged that the CIA officials in Benghazi that night–often described as “survivors”–have been silenced. The CNN story offers support for those claims. On Friday, James Rosen of Fox News reported that five CIA personnel in Benghazi were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, requiring them not to discuss the attack with reporters.

Others point out that the CIA has procedures in place for officials who wish to communicate with oversight committees and that CIA employees are trained on how to reach out. The Brennan letter, they say, was intended as a reminder of those procedures and an invitation from Agency leadership to go to Congress with any concerns. More than two months after it was sent, sources tell TWS, the letter has not persuaded any additional Benghazi survivors to come forward.

The CNN report has triggered renewed scrutiny of the purpose of the still-obscure CIA mission in Benghazi. A State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government was involved in helping the young Libyan government destroy old and damaged weapons and ruled out State Department participation in any effort to transfer weapons out of Libya. According to the CNN story, the spokesman “clearly told CNN they ‘can’t speak for any other agencies.”

Officials from the intelligence community and its oversight committees on Capitol Hill have consistently downplayed to TWS reports and rumors about weapons transfers as part of the CIA mission in Libya.

But in interviews with TWS this week, several more skeptical U.S. officials pointed to an exchange between Senator Rand Paul and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a possible explanation for the CIA sensitivity about the mission. Paul asked Clinton about the possibility that the U.S. was involved in sending weapons from Libya to Syria.

“What I’d like to know is – the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying or selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries – Turkey included,” Paul said, referring to the “annex” operated by the CIA in Benghazi.

Clinton told Paul that his question would be better directed to “the agency that ran the annex.”

“You are saying you don’t know,” Paul said.

Said Clinton: “I don’t know.”

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

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

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

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

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

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

LeatherneckM31

Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: