Citizens revolt, refuse to register guns

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Greg Corombos

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Tim Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Shrimpton dropped a bombshell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America’s expanding police state

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUN

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Wrong hands’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting veterans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A front

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

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

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

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

And be banned from having a firearm.

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

Why is there no Benghazi Special Committee?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the truth be known.

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

POLL: MAJORITY WANT BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:MATTHEW BOYLE

---

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

WHY is he stopping it ?

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

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

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

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

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

The VA Corruption Scandal You Haven’t Heard Of

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:MIKE SUHOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the video in question:

Vet Burial

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wrath of Michelle O Strikes Again

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

The coming weekend will be a painful one for Desiree Rogers, the beautiful former White House Social Secretary  who discovered that outshining Michelle Obama is a very, very bad idea. After following the Obamas from Chicago to DC and entering the history books as the first African-American White House Social Secretary, Ms. Rogers appeared to revel in her status as Michelle’s Chicago buddy, and demonstrated a fashion sense that took advantage of her naturally slender frame and role as social gatekeeper to become (however briefly) possibly the most glamorous African American woman in  the country.

Michelle and Desiree in happier White House times

If Oprah was too fat to remain Michelle’s buddy, Desiree’s problem may have been being too slender.

That gig did not last very long, of course. Desiree was given her walking papers after 14 months, though allowed to “step down” so as to retain a shred of dignity in the wake of her termination.  Claiming a role as booster of the Obama brand and letting it be known that she  holds the key to Brand Obama was probably not all that smart, especially for a woman who holds a Harvard MBA, where they do teach about managing personal relationships.  Rogers also claimed a major role in the failed Obama initiative to bring the Olympics to Chicago, an embarrassing rejection that absolutely could not be blamed on Barack Obama, even though he traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the honor only to not even make second place.

The pain of exile from the White House must have been eased by the next job she assumed, CEO of Johnson Publications, the black media empire that includes Ebony and Jet, and, most importantly, the BET Cable television empire. But for all her status in Chicago as head of the largest black-owned enterprise in the city and the country, Desiree is being frozen out this weekend at the wedding of the decade, as far as the Chicago black social scene is concerned. Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times reports:

The president is going.

The first lady is going.

First daughters Sasha and Malia will be there.

But Desiree Rogers, the first African-American to become the White House Social Secretary, has been dissed.

Translation: Rogers has not been invited to the backyard Kenwood wedding this weekend for the daughter of the ultimate White House insider/Rogers’ former “closer-than-glue” best friend, White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett.

For those who do not follow the ins-and-outs of Versailles-on-the-Potomac, Valerie Jarrett is widely regarded as THE most powerful White House advisor of all. Former Obama chiefs of staff Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley crossed her, and both are back in Chicago. Incidentally, they aren’t invited to the wedding either.

Sneed explains the depth of the diss:

“Valerie and Desiree were once very close; Sunday dinner mates; part of a powerful clique of African-American Chicago women, which also included Johnson Publishing chairman Linda Johnson Rice,” said a top source familiar with the group. “Michelle Obama was not part of that elite Chicago clique.”

The wedding snub is more than social; Rogers watched Jarrett’s daughter grow up.

The snub contains salt; Rogers’ ex-husband and close friend, financial guru John Rogers, has been invited.

The former social diva is also not on the list of African-American royalty – and members of the new Obama social order – gathering Friday night before the wedding for a backyard barbecue at the Kenwood home of attorney/developer Allison Davis; and the get-together at the president’s Kenwood home, where he will stay while entertaining pals Marty Nesbitt and Eric Whitaker.

Allison Davis, by the way, gave Barack Obama his only job as a lawyer, where he worked for such prize clients as Tony Rezko, now a guest of the federal prison system. Davis’s home, where the barbecue will be held, is just blocks from the mansion purchased by Barack and Michelle with considerable financial assistance from Rezko, a move the president now calls “bone-headed.”

Does this all matter? Is it merely catty, trivial, gossipy trash unworthy of a serious political website? In a more serious administration, where cabinet secretaries actually met with the president more than once or twice and exercised substantive responsibilities instead of “czars” personally beholden to the first family, where well defined roles and responsibilities marked the White House bureaucracy, and where the first lady confined her role to symbolic activities and advocacy, the answer would be yes.

But the Obama White House is a different sort of animal entirely. Like a decadent  monarchy, the favor of the potentate and the potentate’s wife count for much too much in the Obama administration, and the social life, celebrity, and glamour of life at the top seem to eat up far more time than convening cabinet meetings.

We are reduced to reading tea leaves in the social calendar to understand the power dynamics of our national leadership. Another sign of an incipient banana republic.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/the_wrath_of_michelle_o_

strikes_again.html#ixzz2pml5GHhf

Paul Ryan vs. the Military

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Elise Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Administration’s Benghazi Bombshell

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:THOMAS JOSCELYN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton will run on repealing Obamacare

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Alan Joel

 

 

 

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

 

What would Hillary gain from a repeal-ObamaCare platform?

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

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

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

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

GENERAL CEMENTS PLAN TO END OBAMA’S REIGN

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:DREW ZAHN

What to do about the alleged unconstitutional and unlawful actions of President Barack Obama?

Some have proposed marches. Others hearings. Some have demanded the president’s resignation. Some have called for impeachment, even though a Democrat-controlled Senate would be unlikely to oust their party’s leader.

Polls show Americans of all parties are upset with the direction of the country, but what can they actually do to make a difference?

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, as chairman of Stand Up America, has been at the forefront of many of these rallying cries, encouraging Americans to take action in a number of ways.

But now the former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army in the Pacific has settled upon a battle plan he believes could actually work: a House-led, parliamentary style vote of “no confidence” in Obama’s administration.

“I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept,” Vallely wrote in an email to supporters obtained by WND. “If you agree with me that all confidence is lost, I urge you to then ask yourself what is in the realm of the possible. I implore you to push aside the urge to try and fix everything in one fell swoop.

“Now is the time for something a dear friend calls ‘conviction without eviction,’ an end that can be brought on through a vote of no confidence, locally, statewide and nationally,” Vallely claims. “This is just a first step in what can only be repaired over time, but it is achievable in the short term and starts to remove Obama’s ability to continue his ruinous ways now.”

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (ret.)

In a blog post on the battle plan posted Dec. 15, the general explained he already has a man on the ground in Washington working to make it happen.

Vallely quotes “a prominent Washington, D.C., insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating –and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of no confidence” as offering the following justification for this novel course of action:

“First, in most of the world’s so-called ‘democracies’ – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of ‘no confidence’ by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the party in power and, in a ‘recall’ of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days,” the insider reportedly reasons. “Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all of the reasons stated in such a resolution.

“Second,” he reasons, “it would be much easier to cosponsor [than impeachment articles], to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s ‘conviction without eviction’ – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.

“We know there is no legal standing in a vote of ‘no confidence’ that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur: We take back the power of discourse,” the insider contends. “What do we do? We conduct a national ‘vote of no confidence.’”

“We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign,” Vallely adds, “but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in [Obama].”

Vellely contends the vote also would defuse some of the partisan finger-pointing that infects not only D.C. but the entire country.

“You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event,” he explains. “Rather, what you are doing is telling the world that ‘I have no confidence in him or his team anymore.’ They cannot take that away from you or attack you for it.

“A vote of ‘no confidence,’ albeit symbolic, at least focuses the discussion on something you can own as I own. This ownership is in your opinion; one based in fact and close analysis, not in emotion, ‘talking points’ or ulterior motives,” Vallely continued. “If asked or challenged tomorrow by his supporters that my lack of confidence is a political ploy, I will say, ‘No, I own my conclusions, I own my opinions and I have a deep sense of no confidence in Obama.’

“The House of Representatives must follow our lead and take up a resolution of no confidence,” the general contends.

Vallely’s calls to action have been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other examples they cite as evidence of disregard for law and the Constitution are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

“What else is our nation to do now that the rule of law has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration?” Vallely asks. “How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?”

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

• His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)

• His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)

• To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)

• To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)

• And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)

• His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)

• To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)

• His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)

• To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)

• To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)

• To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)

• His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).

• Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)

• To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)

• To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)

• To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)

• That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)

• And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)

• And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)

• Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)

• And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus, which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns in December.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

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

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

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

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

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/general-cements-plan-to-end-obamas-reign/#CvgJovFGHSdZUi4R.99

Do Democrat lawmakers anticipate treason trials?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:Erik Rush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHOCKING EVIDENCE HITLER ESCAPED GERMANY

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:Jerome R. Corsi’s

Newly declassified FBI, U.S. intel files raise startling questions

Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun

WASHINGTON – Everyone knows Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot in his underground bunker on April 30, 1945.

At least, that has been the conventional wisdom.

Now comes WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi’s new book, “Hunting Hitler: New Scientific Evidence That Hitler Escaped Germany.”

Examining declassified FBI and U.S. military intelligence files, Corsi makes a compelling case that U.S. investigators suspected from the beginning Hitler had escaped. For political purposes, the evidence indicates, they were willing to go along with the cover story that in the final days of World War II, Hitler married his mistress Eva Braun, and the two took their lives in a joint-suicide ritual just before the Soviet Army entered Berlin.

But the truth is, no one actually saw Hitler commit suicide. There are no photographs documenting a joint suicide of Hitler and Eva Braun, and the bodies of the two were never recovered or preserved for positive identification.

In 2009, Corsi pointed out, Nicholas Bellatoni, the Connecticut state archaeologist, was allowed by the Russian Federation State Archive in Moscow to examine skull fragments the Russians have claimed for decades are proof Hitler committed suicide.

Bellatoni’s startling findings prompted Corsi to investigate further.

“What caused me to question Hitler’s suicide was Bellatoni’s DNA analysis that proved conclusively the skull fragments belonged not to Hitler, but to a 40-year-old woman unrelated to Eva Braun,” Corsi said.

In “Hunting Hitler,” Corsi posits Hitler made his way to Argentina with the help of U.S. intelligence agents that had been secretly working with the Nazis since 1943. Allen Dulles, then an agent of the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS, the predecessor agency to the CIA, was communicating secretly with top Nazis from his office in Bern, Switzerland, Corsi said.

Corsi brings to light many troubling questions, including:

• Why were the Americans unable to obtain physical evidence of Hitler’s remains after the Russians absconded with his body?
• Why did both Stalin and Eisenhower doubt Hitler’s demise?
• Why did nobody in Hitler’s bunker hear any shots fired?
• Did U.S. intelligence agents in Europe, including the OSS and Allen Dulles (who later headed the CIA under President Eisenhower), aid Hitler’s escape, as they did with so many other Nazis?
• Argentinean media reported Hitler arrived in the country and it continued to report his presence. Why have the findings not made it to the US?

Corsi relies on autopsy reports, interrogation transcripts, documents from Soviet archives, CIA reports, extensive research in the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C., and in College Park, Md., and more to back up his case.

Did U.S. intelligence help Hitler get away?

His evidence is shockingly abundant, and his clear argument lends credence to a new theory that disembowels the double-suicide narrative.

“The story Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide was a cover story, designed by U.S. intelligence agents at the end of World War II to facilitate the escape not only of Hitler and Eva Braun, but also of top Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann who was discovered in 1960 hiding in Argentina,” Corsi argued.

He presents documentary evidence Allen Dulles’ wartime mission in Switzerland included helping Martin Bormann, Hitler’s secretary, to funnel billions of dollars of Nazi ill-gotten financial gain out of Germany and invest in the U.S. and Argentinian stock markets to provide a financial cushion to survive in hiding after the war.

In the National Archives at College Park, Corsi discovered a clipping from the U.S. military newspaper “The Stars and Stripes” published Oct. 8, 1945, reporting a shocking statement made by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then the supreme commander of the Allied Forces.

The short piece read: “There is ‘reason to believe’ that Hitler may still be alive, according to a remark made by Gen. Eisenhower to Dutch newspapermen. The general’s statement reversed his previous opinion that Hitler was dead.”

Corsi asks why Eisenhower’s shocking claim has gone largely unreported in U.S. newspapers and history books even until today.

Was Hitler on the U-530?

Tracing Hitler’s escape route, Corsi found in the National Archives documentary evidence Hitler got to Argentina in a German submarine, the U-530 that mysteriously surfaced outside the harbor at Mar del Plata under the command of Otto Wermuth and his executive officer, Karl Felix Schuller, after having spent weeks making surreptitious drops of passengers along Argentina’s Atlantic shore.

Hidden away in the National Archives, Corsi found a U.S. naval intelligence report written July 18, 1945, by the Naval Attaché in Buenos Aires who notified Washington there was reason to believe U-530 had landed Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun in the south of Argentina before the submarine journeyed on to surrender at Mar del Plata.

Corsi had newspaper reports translated of Hitler and Braun being welcomed by wealthy Nazi sympathizers among Argentina’s large German community. The Germans there had constructed a mansion hidden away in the dense mountain forests of Bariloche to provide the Nazi führer with comfort and security in his elder years.

Argentine newspaper report

Corsi writes: In 1943, architect Alejandro Bustillo, at the request of German supporters of Hitler then living in Argentina, designed and constructed an elaborate resort residence for Hitler and Eva Braun, Residencia Inalco, located in a remote area between San Carlos de Bariloce Villa La Angostura, bordering the Nahuel Haupi Lake, outside the city of Bariloche, in the province of Río Negro, Argentina.”

In southern Argentina in the region of the Andes adjoining Chile, he writes, “the surroundings and the Hitler residence were selected and designed to have a distinct feel of Hitler’s Obersalzberg retreat above the town of Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps. Hitler moved into the residence in June 1947.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/shocking-evidence-hitler-escaped-germany/#IMS7lfwoJYpXjGQv.99

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

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:Canada Free Press.Com

 

Posted by:Herman Cain

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making your life better through government!

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

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

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

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

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

‘Decimated’ Al-Qaeda Captures Fallujah!

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:John Lillpop 

While Barack Obama vacationed in comfort and luxury in Hawaii, his foreign policy disasters continued to wreak havoc throughout the world.

This time it is the city of Fallujah, Iraq, scene of one of the bloodiest battles that US Marines fought in 2004.

As reported, that city has been captured by Al-Qaeda, the ‘decimated’ enemy:

BEIRUT — A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.

The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.”

To those American families who lost brave warriors in Fallujah, this news is particularly distressing, since Obama’s policy is akin to spitting on the graves of those brave Americans who gave their all in the name of freedom and good.

To Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who unquestioningly support Obama: Is the latest from Fallujah yet another smashing foreign-policy VICTORY for The One?

 

3 Unbelievable Food Stamp Statistics in America

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Food stamps cover steak, lobster, and caviar.

Yesterday, I made an image to post on Facebook explaining this, and it went viral. As of right now, almost 2,000 people have shared it, and plenty of people have reacted in anger, explaining that I hate the poor. I’ve deleted several comments telling me to go to Hell, telling me I’m a Nazi, and telling me I hate babies.

This is, of course, absurd. But let’s ignore the angry rhetoric and look at what’s actually going on when it comes to food stamps. People are horrified to talk about this, because they’ll instantly be labeled bad words, and theft has become a way of life in a post-bailout America.

But this is Capitalism Institute — the goal is to speak the truth no matter whose toes are stepped on.

Unbelievable Statistics About Food Stamps

This isn’t just a fringe problem. Food stamps are becoming an inherent part of American life as almost every grocery line has someone using a debit card filled with other peoples’ money to spend on whatever they choose. In fact:

• Over 45,000,000 Americans are on food stamps. That means 1 in 7. To visualize this, that means every pew in every church is filled with someone who is living — literally — off the money of everyone else sitting on that pew. Not family members, not kids living off parents — adults living off of other adults.

• Food stamps cover luxury items like lobster and filet mignon. An image circulated a few days ago of a receipt in which someone had $200+ worth of lobster tail and Mountain Dew and paid for it with a food stamp card. The grocery store confirmed it was true. When I was poor, I ate rice and beans and worried about paying my bills on time. For those on food stamps, eating cheaply isn’t necessary. This is disgusting, and is a backwards incentive. When I was poor I had a friend who began smoking pot an living off of welfare, bragging at how easy it was. Lives are ruined when you have broken policy.

• A family of five gets $700+ for food alone. However, people who are on food stamps get at least $100 per person, on average alone. That means people who are actually poor receive well over this per person. From the federal government alone, a family of five can receive $793 per month, not including the 180 free meals also offered at public school for the school-aged kids.

This is just food stamps alone. This isn’t about housing welfare, free college payments, infant assistance, free public schooling, or actual cash from the government. This is the food program alone. For many people, it makes far more sense to eat salmon on food stamps than to accept a part time job and risk losing the “free” money.

People on welfare eat better than many people in the middle class who don’t qualify. That is wrong. And no, this isn’t just an occasional bit of fraud. This is what the system is supposed to do. Someone told me yesterday that he worked in a grocery store, told a lady that food stamps didn’t cover the dog food she picked, so she went back and got t-bones.

That should upset you.

If you support welfare existing to stop starvation from being possible, then that’s one thing. I get it. Babies dying of malnutrition isn’t exactly what the goal is. But there’s no way around the fact that welfare should be reformed, cut, and that we should focus on giving tax cuts to the middle class to make it easier to leave poverty in the first place.

Why Welfare Reform Matters

Why does this matter? Because 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Average it out, and almost every house in America has a welfare recipient in food stamps alone — not counting Social Security, disability, or the billions in other programs.

This is insane. And to the libertarians reading this — this should upset you just as much as corporate welfare, if not more, because these people are voters. At some point, that number is going to be so high that it won’t matter anymore, because defeating a socialist when half the voters are getting checks will be impossible.

This isn’t about being anti-poor. This is about saving the republic and saving capitalism. Poor people not getting free lobsters at the cost of the middle class is just basic common sense — but if you dare say this in public, you’ll be demonized.

This isn’t a theoretical risk in the future. This is right now. The system is working as it’s planned to work — to create a dependent class of people who will vote for any socialist because they want cash and all the food they can eat. This is wrong. And that’s why welfare reform matters.

One in three lawmakers wants to repeal cuts to military pensions

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

Posted by:Jeremy Herb

Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOHICA the military takes it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Erik Wasson contributed.

http://thehill.com/blogs

The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Steve Baldwin

Most Americans don’t realize we have elected a president whom we know very little about.

Researchers have discovered that Obama’s autobiographical books are little more than PR stunts, as they have little to do with the actual events of his life. The fact is we know less about President Obama than perhaps any other president in American history and much of this is due to actual efforts to hide his record. This should concern all Americans.

A nation-wide network of researchers has sprung up to attempt to fill in the blanks, but at every opportunity Obama’s high-priced lawyers have built walls around various records or simply made them disappear. It is estimated that Obama’s legal team has now spent well over $1.4 million dollars blocking access to documents every American should have access to. The question is why would he spend so much money to do this?

The president who campaigned for a more “open government” and “full disclosure” will not unseal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records. He will not release his Harvard records, his Columbia College records, or his Occidental College records—he will not even release his Columbia College thesis. All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and he claims his scheduling records during those State Senate years are lost as well. In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii.

What is he hiding? Well, for starters, some of these records will shed light on his citizenship and birth.

For example, Obama’s application to Punahou School – now mysteriously missing – would likely contain a birth certificate.                     

And, according to attorney Gary Kreep, “his Occidental College records are important as they may show he attended there as a foreign exchange student.” Indeed, Obama used his Indonesian name “Barry Soetoro” while attending Occidental. Kreep has filed lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president and as part of his lawsuit he requested Obama’s records from Occidental. However, Obama’s lawyers quickly moved to stop Occidental from honoring this request.

Furthermore, now that at least three document authentication experts have declared the scanned “Certificate of Live Birth” Obama’s campaign team gave to a pro-Obama website to be an obvious phony; we know that he is hiding something here as well.

Over 49 separate law suits have been filed on the eligibility/birth certificate issue alone, with several of the suits making it all the way the United States Supreme Court, only to be denied a full hearing.

Pictured: Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talah

What’s more, there are questions about how he paid for his Harvard Law School education since, despite a claim by Michele Obama, no one has produced any evidence that he received student loans. The Obamas will not release any student loan details despite repeated requests from the Chicago Tribune. However, it appears that his Harvard education may have been paid for by a foreign source. Khalid Al-Mansour, an advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talah, told Manhattan Borough president, Percy Sutton, that he was raising money for Obama’s Harvard tuition. Incidentally, Prince Tala is the largest donor to CAIR, a Muslim group declared by the U.S. Government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing trial. At least three of CAIR’s leaders have been indicted for terrorist activities. Al-Mansour’s admission opens up speculation as to whether Muslim interests have assisted Obama’s career in the hope he would eventually be in a position someday to promote their interests.

More recently, it was discovered that Obama’s Selective Service card may have been doctored. Federal law requires all American males to register for the Selective Service (the draft) in case a major war broke out. Blogger Debbie Schlussel has discovered solid evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was submitted not when he was younger as required, but rather in 2008 and then altered to look older. Indeed, the forgers forgot to alter the “Document Location Number” which shows that it is clearly a 2008 form. This is fraud and it’s a felony and Schlussel’s allegations are backed up by Stephen Coffman, a former high-ranking Federal agent. Moreover, the document shows a September 4th, 1980 date and the location of the transaction as Hawaii, but at that time Obama was thousands of miles away attending Occidental College in Los Angeles.

The real reason why Obama probably did not submit this form as a teenager is that he assumed his Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship exempted him from this requirement. But clearly, as he grew older and entered politics, he saw that any documents revealing a foreign birth – Selective Service registration, birth certificate, school applications, etc – would be problematic if he ran for the presidency. Thus, it is not a coincidence that every document which contains information about his birth or citizenship is either missing, sealed, or has been altered.

Indeed, everywhere one looks into Obama’s background, we find sealed records, scrubbed websites, altered documents, deception and unanswered questions. Can anyone imagine for a second if John McCain or George Bush had blocked access to his school, medical, and birth records? It would have been headlines in their case,  but as with everything else concerning Obama, the media has given him a pass on this.

Of all these marvels, the latest mystery and probably most perplexing is that of Obama’s social security number. It appears that Obama has multiple identities in term of possessing numerous social security numbers. Orly Taitz, an attorney who has filed numerous suits against Obama regarding his eligibility to serve as president, appears to have been the first to discover this. In her suit, representing a number of military officers who are refusing to serve under an ineligible commander in chief, she hired private investigator Neil Sankey to conduct research on Obama’s prior addresses and Social Society numbers. Using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, Sankey found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Obama’s name.

However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: “Barak Obama,” “Batock Obama,” “Barok Obama,” and “Barrack Obama.” There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name. Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.

In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364.

In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999.

There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485.

713 Hart Senate Office Building

In Massachusetts – where Obama attended Harvard Law School – we find three addresses, all using the 042 Social Security number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008.

This mystery grows even stranger as other addresses and Social Security numbers for Barack Obama appear in a dozen other states not known to be connected to him. Again, I am excluding those records names not spelled exactly like his name.

• Tennessee, one address with a Social Security number beginning with 427
• Colorado, one address, with a Social Security number beginning with 456.
• Utah, two addresses, with two Social Security numbers beginning with 901 and 799.
• Missouri has one address and one Social Security number beginning with 999.
• Florida has two addresses listed for his him, three if you count one listed as “Barry Obama.” One is connected to a Social Security number beginning with 762.
• In Georgia there are three addresses listed for him, all with different Social Security numbers: 579, 420, and 423.
• In Texas there are four different addresses listed for him, one is connected to Social Security number 675.
• There are two addresses listed for Barack Obama in Oregon and one address listed for him in  the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled “Barack Obama.” In some cases, the middle initial “H” is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: “Barac,” “Barak,” and “Barrack” Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.

Finally, the one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.

Ann, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham

Nevertheless, all this mystery surrounding Obama appears to be a generational thing. Researchers have discovered nearly a dozen aliases, at least two different Social Security numbers, and upwards of over 99 separate addresses for Ann Dunham, his mother. We do know she worked for the ultra liberal Ford Foundation but we also know she may have earned some income from pornographic poses, as evidenced by photos recently discovered by some researchers—how embarrassing. The only thing researchers are able to find out about Obama’s mother is the fact she made porn. I’m sure that’s a first for presidential mothers.

But we also know that Obama’s mother and grandparents associated with Communist Party leaders such as Frank Marshall Davis, a man who, according to Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father, was his main mentor during much of his Hawaiian boyhood (although Obama tried to disguise his identity in his book). During the Cold War, Davis was named by congressional investigators as a key member of a secretive pro-Soviet networked that existed in Hawaii at that time.

Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis

The lack of documents regarding Obama also extends to his mother and to his grandparents. Indeed, researchers have been unable to find marriage licenses for his mother’s two marriages, assuming she was ever legally married. Ditto goes for the marriage license for Ann’s parents. They cannot find birth certificates for her, her parents, or for even for her grandparents. Even more so, despite Obama’s boast of his grandfather’s military service, there’s no record of that either. For reasons no one knows, much of Obama’s life, his mother’s life and his grandparent’s life has been erased from the records as if they never existed.

But why would someone obtain so many Social Security numbers? According to investigators, those who create additional Social Society numbers are typically engaged in criminal activities such as Social Security fraud, tax fraud, real estate fraud, campaign contributions fraud, voter fraud and so on. While the private investigator who compiled this list says multiple social security numbers does not automatically prove there’s criminal activity involved, he states that “having said that, I have personally experienced many, many cases where such information has led to subsequent exposure of fraud, deception, money laundering and other crimes.“What is interesting to note is that Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court probate department and had access to the Social Security numbers of deceased people.

Barrack Obama and his Grandmother, Madelyn Dunham.

It is clear that more research needs to be done on this issue. The Western Center for Journalism

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/#OKBS7u11mKgYgqOz.99

 

 

Alabama Mom’s ObamaCare Horror Story Gives America a Glimpse of Government-Run Healthcare

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.ijreview.com/

 

Posted by:Emily Hulsey

 

Many of us can identify with the frustrating experience that Karri Kinder, a mother of two from Auburn, Alabama, has had with Obamacare. She penned this open letter to share her story. Shout-out to Yellowhammer News for the article:

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration and American Citizens:

My family’s journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013. I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us. We are a family of four, with two little boys’ ages seven years old and three years old. My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively. We have been with the same two companies for those years. We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us. We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.

On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband. So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us. This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month. I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this. Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly. I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kid’s college, our retirement, etc. I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month – how in the world could this help the economy too?

Throughout the month of October we read everything we could on what our plan would cover, and tried to get the information we needed about the ACA. I was also blown away when I realized that my son’s medical care, he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), would cost us so much more out of pocket than it was currently costing us. My son has to go to his doctor every other month for his care. If we need to see a therapist we do that monthly, so you see on top of the premiums there are other out of pocket cost we have to factor in. He is also on medication that he takes daily. His medicine is a life saver for him and helps him function like a normal seven year old, without it he can’t focus, his grades slip and his mind literally goes back to the mind of a three or four year old. When he was first put on his medicine his reading went up 20 points and he went from writing one to two sentences to paragraphs, all in the course of a week. He is a straight A student and very bright, but without the proper medical care that could slip away from him. Under our new plan for 2014 we would need to pay a $55.00 co-pay, and then it would be covered at 80 percent once we reached his deductible, which would be $2,000 individual $4,000 family. Out of pocket max numbers are $6,350 individual and $12,700 family. All of this is enough to make anyone’s head spin. We were then forced to look at other options as none of this was affordable for our family.

I started to dig deeper into healthcare.gov. I was hearing all the horror stories through the news about the subpar website. I was reading right off their healthcare.gov Facebook page about other people’s terrible experiences trying to get coverage. Then the government announces that they are going to be working on the site and making it a better experience as well as making it more secure. They had already had three years to make this happen but they said would need the month of November to get it running right. So I waited patiently for them to get the site running so I could see if we would qualify for the subsidy and continue our health insurance through that route.

December 6, 2013 I went to healthcare.gov and started our application. The process took me over two hours to complete. Once it was completed it came back with our results. The results were that my husband and I qualified. That my three year old qualified for All Kids and that my seven year old did not qualify for anything through the exchange (ACA). I was so confused, how could a seven year old not qualify for a subsidy? I was also confused on why they wanted me to enroll one of my children in All Kids? So, I called the number they provided to speak to a representative. I was on hold for 20 minutes when a woman answered and offered to help me with the results. She told me that it is coming back that my seven year old son did not qualify and the only thing I could do was to file an appeal. I asked her a few more questions about how this could have happened, and I was told “she does not know and that all I can do is file an appeal”. She was reading her responses to me right off of a chart that I am sure they are given. So, I ended my conversation with her and proceeded to try to wrap my head around what was happening.

I decided to call back, this time I waited 15 minutes and spoke to a very nice gentleman who seemed to have an understanding for how the system was working. He looked up the results and said “this can’t be right, let’s start over and do an application over the phone”. So again I went through the application process. The results came back the exact same, we all qualified for something except my seven year old son. The gentleman could not understand how this could be happening and assured me it had to be a “glitch” in the system. He placed me on hold so he could speak with his supervisor on how to fix this error. I waited several minutes and when he came back he said “there was nothing more they could do tonight”. He said “we are sending your application to two different departments and that one of the departments would get back to me through a phone call with a fix to this problem”. He also told me “it could take 2-5 days but that I would receive a phone call when they had closed my case”.

So I waited until Tuesday December 10, 2013, which was day four and called them back. I was then told it would be 2-5 business days and if I had not heard from them at that time to call back. So that is what I did, I waited till 9:00 pm on that Friday December 13, 2013 with no phone call. I called Sunday December 15th, 2013 and spoke with my 3rd supervisor who told me “they were very sorry that I had not received a phone call and they were messaging the two departments to give me a call the following day”. He also said to go ahead and file with All Kids in my state because even though they send that information to them, they have no idea when they will receive it. So Monday I went and applied for All Kids for my children, it was a similar application to the healthcare.gov site. I called them to verify that they received my application and was told they cannot access it till sometime in January. They said once they could access it that they would be in touch and if the kids qualified the coverage would retro act to January 1, 2014. So that was a little bit of good news.

So here we are December 22, 2013, the day before the December 23rd deadline to sign up through the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. I decide I will call one last time to see what they can tell me about coverage, since I never received a phone call after my last conversation with a supervisor. I waited on hold for 1 hour and 15 minutes. I asked to speak with a supervisor and I was transferred. The supervisor pulled my file and was talking to me when she must have accidentally pressed a button and we got disconnected. I thought for sure she would call me back. That is one of the first things they ask for is your phone number. I did not receive a call back, so I call back and have to be placed on hold again to speak to someone. I waited another hour and a half before I get connected with a supervisor. She pulls up my file and tells me “there is nothing they can do and I have to wait the 90 days they have to contact me through the appeals process”. The supervisor tells me “that this whole time I have been told wrong by numerous people and that I should have been called back but that the two departments could do nothing for me”. I just have to wait the 90 days. I asked her, “so yet again an error, due to no fault of my own, has occurred all these times I have been calling and speaking with people and no one can really do anything”? She said “yes that is correct, I am sorry you have been told something different but that is all I can tell you”.

I have never been treated so poorly by any insurance company in my whole life. I have never experienced such terrible customer service in all my years on this earth. I can’t imagine how long a company would last in this country if they followed the same protocol as the ACA/Health Insurance Marketplace does. Most companies can fix a glitch in their systems pretty easily, or can connect you to someone who can. Not the ACA/ Health Insurance Marketplace, you spend all that time on hold to just be told, so sorry but you have to wait for someone to get back to you in a 90 day time span.

What is the most sickening thing to me is that we have been forced into the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. We wanted to continue our coverage through BSBC and pay as we always had been. But, we found out that option would not be affordable under the new Act, which is how we were forced into the Exchange. Furthermore, not only were we forced into the Exchange, but then forced again to submit an application to ALL Kids for our children. I just don’t understand how we go from being hard working middle class family who provides everything for our family to where we are today. I feel like everything that my husband and I have worked hard for is for nothing. I pray each night that we will get something resolved with our “glitch” in the system so our children will have health insurance coverage in January and by the time I have to purchase my son’s $400 a month ADHD medicine.

I really don’t know how our government can allow this to be taking place. What if something happens and one of my boys breaks an arm, or God forbid something worse? They don’t have insurance, so I guess we will then be paying the hospital monthly if that happens. We are almost completely debt free currently and now all I see is very large medical bills in our future until the government can fix the issues with the ACA/Exchange. I would really like them to rename the Affordable Care Act, because from where I am sitting it is anything but affordable or caring for my family.

Sincerely,
Karri Kinder