Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “impeachment proceedings”

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

Why is there no Benghazi Special Committee?


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

Dear GOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the truth be known.

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

2013 the Year of Hypocrisy and Really Big Lies


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:

Rev. Michael Bresciani

 

Cover of "Change We Can Believe In: Barac...

Gold Medalist Barack Obama in 2013

Hands down the number one lie of 2013 has to be Barack Obama’s promise that Americans can keep their healthcare plans if they like them. It was a promise made years prior to the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, but it slid into home plate as the biggest lie of the year just in time for the New Year.

The full complement of Obama lies has reached a peak this year 2013 and confidence in the President is now at an all-time low. For those of us who never believed him from the start there are no new surprises.

Black is Not a Political Party – This is no Little White Lie

Some of the biggest lies and worst hypocrisy didn’t originate this year, but like Obama’s lies they may have peaked out and their dubious refinements have effervesced to the surface in 2013.

Hypocrisy has made history in 2013, in what might be called the biggest setback to the civil rights movement in over half a century. Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream has taken its biggest hit, not from white racists who want to see more segregation, but from blacks who segregated themselves in a full rally for Barack Obama regardless of his broken promises, attacks on tradition, religion and morality and a whole lot of false promise about a nanny state utopia for the poor.

The best way to describe the collective lie being accepted and promulgated by the black community is to understand that since the candidacy of Barack Obama was announced Blacks have ceased to be a people with two party affiliations. With rare exceptions there are no more democrats or republicans among the blacks – there are only Obama followers.

Over a half century of civil rights advances has been stymied by the candidacy of one black man. White people have spent the last five decades laboring against the idea that skin color means much of anything. Integrity, character, contribution, talent, service and servant hood were all that mattered until 2008. What a shock to discover that most of our black citizens never saw it that way after all!

Educators and Academics Still Trying to Sell Us the Big Bang

If you don’t believe in God, you will have to do with the big bang theory to explain the origin of all things. Sadly, 2013 saw no new proof of the big bang theory, but only glitches and setbacks. The preponderance of big bang being taught in our schools along with atheist’s mis-use of “separation” doctrines has all but destroyed the careers and livelihoods of creationists. The theory of evolution has spawned the theory of educational discrimination against anyone who doesn’t buy the idea that everything came from nothing.

In 2013 the big bang looks more like a big lie when considering we have no more of the amazing missing links to bolster the idea of inter-species evolution than before, and the second law of thermodynamics has all but been dismissed even though it cries against the big bang expostulation.

In less scientific language, what right has the big bang crowd to dismiss those who believe in a young earth, created in only seven days, when they believe in the much larger universe being created in only a few seconds. Duh!

In ten years of reading and writing on the subject of creationism versus the idea that some vast sea of gasses came together to form the universe, not one scientist, or academic has even tried to explain where those gases originated in the absence of a creator.

Even in 2013 the only answer for the big bang theorists is that their god – must be a real gas.

The big bang and the theory of evolution are the norm of the day, but reason and logic along with what attempts to look like intelligence are making it ever more obvious that while science has an ample supply of confidence and curiosity, it has no mechanism for containment.

Science is contained or limited by its own definition. Empiricism is the gaining of knowledge by means of repeatable and observable phenomena. Can science repeat the big bang? Was anyone there to observe it? Is the big bang scientific – at all?

In 2013 it may be that by comparison to the old scientific mistake of bloodletting to relieve illness; the big bang and sister evolutionary theory are merely brain letting, fueled by prior philosophic postulation. Big bang qualifies for a big lie award this year as it has for many years to date, not because it can’t be ruled out, but because it has given cause to the indoctrinated to not allow anything else to be ruled in.

That’s not science, that’s not thinking and above all that’s not a truth you can stand on in 2013. It is indoctrination created by wishful thinking. Can you hear the distant refrain of ‘When you wish upon a star?’

Change We Can Believe In– Morphs from a slogan to a lie in 2013

I would be the last person to believe that I might try to mitigate for Barack Obama. After considering what makes our president tick a thousand ways to Sunday, I have theorized that after all he may the victim of his own political theories.

Many have tried to explain Obama doctrine as the result of his attraction to Alinskyism, communism or socialism. In fact; Barack Obama is simply a ‘believer.’ He believes in what he espouses and has no doubt he is right. He may be dead wrong about what he believes, but he is only standing on what he thinks is perfectly right. Sadly it must be noted that many of the worst tyrants in history also believed they were right.

In 2013 pragmatism and practicality finally met with, or crashed against the extravagant promises and wishful thinking of a full blown believer. Does that make him wrong? Indeed it does and it makes the promise of a change we can believe in a complete lie.

The Universality of the Homosexual Message Becomes the Other Biggest Lie of 2013

2013’s greatest collision was when GLAAD and LGBT met Duck Dynasty, but let’s not get pompous because that’s largely an American phenomenon.

The truth is the gay message is failing elsewhere in the world as well. Dozens of Muslim countries will not tolerate the gay lifestyle and have severe penalties in place for dealing with it. Russia, Uganda and now India have re-instituted laws that curtail the spread of the gay agenda.

The idea that it is only those who adhere to the bibles message about homosexuality that are resisting the gays is simply – not true.

I have warned for over 40 years that if you are preaching a gospel message that cannot be universally accepted in every country in the world, it probably is not the true gospel.

The prosperity gospel so loved in America falls like a lead filled dirigible in third world countries where a piece of bread is a premium. Over emphasis on the rapture doctrine also sinks like the Titanic in nations where Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims.

The message of God’s saving grace in its purest and most fundamental form is still accepted completely all over the world, even in these last days.

The gay message is failing for the same reasons twisted versions of the gospel fail. It is not universally acceptable. It presents moral issues, wars against both nature and tradition and in some countries that are struggling with upheavals and economic problems it is an outright nuisance.
It may be time for the LGBT to realize that first amendment rights are there so minorities will not be stifled, but they do not exist as a weapon to club the majority into submission to every nascent pop culture compunction of the day.

A Year of Lies Balanced by a Single Truth

Lots of bad news and barely comprehensible changes have come down the pike in 2013, but we still hope for some good to be announced that might balance or stabilize our retrospective of the year.

In our world, truth may have remained forever relative and open to endless debate. Pontius Pilate’s famous question, “what is truth,” might still be unanswered to this day except that God decided to incarnate or place the truth into one single man for all eternity.

The worst of 2013 with all its lies and social upheaval have done nothing to lessen the radiance that the incarnation of truth has provided. It is a candle in the dark and a city on the hill. In this year of the lie, here is the truth that can balance it all, including your life.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14: 6)

Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by Obama’


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:FoxNews.com

 

Posted by:Richard Miniter

Obama lying more

Arabs don’t trust Obama either.

As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Thanks to the Healthcare.gov debacle, polls find support for the president among women and independents has dropped to the lowest ebb of his presidency. Obama’s words — promising Americans they could keep their doctors under his health care plan — didn’t match his deeds.

Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason.

Too often, Obama’s speeches and actions don’t match.

“We are glad the Americans are here,” said Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia’s royals and officials, when I met with him recently, “but we fear that the president has lost credibility after Syria.”

Astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain.

The Saudi official is referring to Obama’s “red line” vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn’t. Saudi officials were stunned.

Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don’t believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years.

“The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years,” al-Ibrahim said. “We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama.”

“Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies,” he said. “We don’t know what he’s putting in his tea.”

Al-Ibrahim also pointed to Obama’s “dangerous inaction” during violent Iran-backed uprisings in Bahrain, and now his negotiations with Iran, and his separate, secret negotiations with Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Since American officials cannot legally negotiate with terrorist groups and Hezbollah is a State Department-listed terror organization, the administration has been using British diplomats to carry messages to Hezbollah. The Obama administration reportedly favors a “warm up to a direct relationship in the future” with Hezbollah.

Obama is sending conflicting messages. In Washington, the president says negotiations are all we need to meet the Iranian threat. He issued a rare veto threat to try to halt tougher sanctions against Iran.

At the same time, in the Middle East, the president has dispatched more than 40 U.S. Navy vessels (including a carrier-strike group) and sent his secretary of defense to detail America’s vast military assets in the region.

Speaking to Arab defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel itemized America’s military commitment to immediately respond to Iranian aggression:

• More than 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the theater;
• Even after exiting Iraq, the U.S. Army maintains more than 10,000 forward-deployed soldiers as well as tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters;
• America’s most advanced fighter jets, including F-22s, are deployed less than an hour’s flight time from Iran;
• American surveillance aircraft, ground listening stations, satellites, and sea patrols continue to scan for threats across the region;
• America’s missile defense systems–on ground, sea, and air–remain on high alert. That includes the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile defense ships, Patriot missile batteries, and phased-array radars.

“The Department of Defense will work with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on better integration of its members’ missile defense capabilities. The United States continues to believe that a multilateral framework is the best way to develop interoperable and integrated regional missile defense. Such defenses are the best way to deter and, if necessary, defeat coercion and aggression,” Hagel told the Gulf News on Dec.18.

With little fanfare, Obama has also quietly lifted the ban on selling sensitive missile-defense technology to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies living within reach of Iran’s new Shahab-3 missiles. The Shahab-3’s range is 1,242 miles–placing Israel and most of America’s Arab allies within striking distance.

However, Obama’s quiet efforts to provide new missile defenses and renewed security guarantees may be too little, too late.

The Saudis are now seeking their own military arrangements because they no longer trust the U.S. The GCC, a regional alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, recently announced the creation of a joint military force based in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. 

“There will be a unified command of around 100,000 members, God willing,” Prince Miteb bin Abdullah told reporters. This new force represents a massive expansion of the 30,000-strong Peninsula Shield force.

“We no longer believe that America alone can safeguard our freedom from Iranian aggression,” said al-Ibrahim, “that’s why we are expanding our forces and integrating our missile defenses with our neighbors.”

He added, “the world should understand that the GCC will not stay quiet and leave our member-states vulnerable to bad actors and bad deals in the region. It is our duty to protect our region.”

And now, astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions last weekend in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain where thousands of U.S. troops and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet are based.

“The president has shown that he can take action when he chooses to. He chose not to act after the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but as soon as things started to go wrong in South Sudan, Obama jumped on it,” said al-Ibrahim.

On Saturday, Obama dispatched three CV-22 Osprey aircraft, the sort that can fly like an airplane and an helicopter, to South Sudan to evacuate Americans caught in ongoing violence in the city of Bor. The aircraft came under small arms fire and were forced to retreat as they attempted to land. Four U.S. service members were injured in the attempted evacuation. American citizens were rescued successfully on Sunday using civilian and U.N. helicopters.

In his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, the first American president raised in a Muslim land came to offer a bold promise: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Four and a half years later, Arab leaders like al-Ibrahim say that “mutual interest” is sundered and “mutual respect” squandered.
If the Saudi exasperation sounds familiar, it is because it is the same tone you hear in Tel Aviv and in Washington.

Military Mocks Obama Birth Certificate Fraud


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://dcwatchdog.org

 

Posted by:Admin

[H/T Western Journalism] — US military spokesman Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale, blew off a legitimate editor’s query concerning analysis of the “computer generated forgery” posted online by the White House as being mere nonsense.  “We can only assume that your query is not a legitimate question and is some sort of nonsensical joke,” Breasseale commented via Email to Sharon Rondeau, editor of The Post & Email.   He is calling her very reasonable inquiry nothing more than a web “absurdity”.  “We are happy to consider reality-based requests, but do not entertain absurdities from the web,” replied “Todd” in an insulting try at familiarity.

Click here to enlarge:

Obama's Birth Certificate

When Editor Rondeau replied, “It is absolutely not a joke,” the military mouthpiece came back with merely, “noted,” to her follow up question about the military’s possible analysis of the Obama birth certificate image posted online by someone in or representing the White House on April 27, 2011, as well as the Obama Selective Service registration. “Why has that not been done?” Rondeau asked Public Affairs officer Lt. Col. Catherine Wilkinson who evidently passed off this inquiry to Breasseale.  So much for that; our military “has remained silent” says the CT editor of The Post & Email.

Meanwhile, the 69 page affidavit of lead investigator Mike Zullo is filed as evidence in the Alabama Supreme Court’s review of findings by a lower court which also tossed inquiry into authenticity of the WH computer image. The Zullo court document reads, at point # 26: “All in attendance agreed unanimously that the WH computer image, pdf file contained anomalies that were un-explainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document”.  Zullo is presenting the results of months of investigation by the Sheriff Arpaio forensic team into the nine layered computer image put on the official WH website.  The team of long time forensic and law enforcement investigators, retired military members, physicians, and computer CEO’s and attorneys concluded “the certificate of live birth. . .is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate.”

The Zullo affidavit presents to the court this statement: “fabricated forgery-violation of the AZ criminal statue and the federal statues…may have taken place.”  The Arpaio team is calling for a full blown Congressional investigation as the nation awaits the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court.  At point # 35 is this lightening bolt: “It was now demonstrated beyond probable cause that the WH website document was an utter forgery.”  The forensic team suggests that crimes may involve “fraudulent creation of an official document, forgery of a governmental birth record, and deception of voters and state election commissioners across the country.”   In total, 207 points of assertion are contained in the Zullo sworn statement.  In spite of the fact that SEVENTEEN different records never have been released by President Barack Obama, (at point # 207), the military spokesman known as “Todd,” along with the mainstream media, Congress, and nationwide elected officials continue to ignore what is going on in the Alabama Supreme Court proceedings.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the Obama passport records have never been released to the American public, nor have the incoming INS foreign flight passenger cards for the Obama birth week of August 2, 1961, ever been found!  The Zullo investigators say in their court evidentiary document that these flight manifest identifications are “completely missing from the microfilm roll” of the INS.

Web absurdities, anomalies, a nine page computer generated forgery?  Will we every know?

 

Obamacare Restrictions Lead Brooklyn Couple To Consider Divorce


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:CBS

 

‘We Would Save Thousands Of Dollars If We Got Divorced,’ Woman Says

Couple may Divorce to save money

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — From website crashes to long holds on calls, the issues involved with the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act are well documented.

But now, could it be breaking couples up?

CBS 2’s Don Champion spoke to one Brooklyn couple on Wednesday who said they may be forced to get a divorce to get health insurance.

Nona Willis Aronowitz and Aaron Cassara’s love affair began at a party in 2008.

“We kissed on a bean bag chair,” Aronowitz said.

A year later, it grew into a marriage at City Hall in Manhattan.

“It was really sudden,” Aronowitz said. “It was basically because he needed health insurance, and I had a job that would give that to him.”

But four years later, there is now irony in the fact the couple could soon divorce for the same reason.

“After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced,” Aronowitz said.

The issue for Aronowitz and Cassara is that together as family of only two, they make more than the $62,000 level to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But if they lived together unmarried, they would qualify for the subsidies and could literally save hundreds of dollars a month on their health care.

A single person can qualify for subsidies if they make less than $46,000 a year.

“It’s really complicated,” Aronowitz said. “Go on the website, you’ll see what I mean.”

Aronowitz, a freelance writer, and Cassara, who works as a freelancer in the film industry, lost their health coverage recently when Aronowitz was laid off.

Critics of the Affordable Care Act have called the pricey decision couple faces the “marriage penalty.” But the income levels for subsidies were set by Congress.

“I’m an educated, very well plugged-in person and I can’t figure it out,” Aronowitz said.

Aronowitz said she and her husband are deeply in love but together were never the “marrying type.” Still, they said they’re not taking the decision ahead of them lightly.

“In our case, it would be worth it,” Aronowitz said. “In other people’s cases, where marriage is really, really important to them and they had this big wedding and it was this sacred experience, I think it would be a really tough decision for them.”

The couple is looking at other health options before making the divorce decision.

 

Divorce Cheaper Option for Couples Facing Huge Obamacare Premiums


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.newsmax.com

 

Posted by:

Divorce rates may soon be on the rise, but not because of infidelity or irreconcilable differences. The reason? Obamacare.
A Brooklyn, N.Y. couple
tells The Atlantic that parting ways would save them thousands of dollars a year.
As a couple, Nona Willis Aronowitz, a freelance writer, and Aaron Cassara, who works in the film industry, earn more than $62,000 a year, the threshold to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. If they divorce and instead choose to just live together, they would qualify for the subsidies and save hundreds of dollars a month.
Editor’s Note:
ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared?
“I guarantee you that in six months I will either be divorced or I will have a full-time job,” Aronowitz says.
She told CBS,
“After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced.”
The Cassaras are not the only Americans considering splitsville for financial reasons. The Affordable Care Act has already earned descriptive monikers such as a “wedding tax” and “divorce incentive.”
Obamacare’s mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance benefits low-income people while hurting middle and upper-income Americans, especially married couples, whose income is counted jointly.
Naked Capitalism website contributor Michael Olenick says he is weighing the decision of divorce or relocating to Europe, where his company is based, because of Obamacare’s cost-prohibitive price tag.
The cheapest plan under the Obamacare health exchange would cost Olenick’s family $493.68 a month with a maximum out-of-pocket cost of $12,600 per family.
“Of course the Obamacare covers more things, like mental health professionals and residential drug rehab for “free” once you hit that $12,600 level, in case the financial stress this causes drives a person to start needing sedatives,”
Olenick writes.

But the government has provisions for those thinking about circumventing the new law with a divorce. Many states dictate that a couple cannot live together indefinitely and claim to be unmarried. The IRS can fine them for doing so to benefit from healthcare subsidies, Tom Blumer writes in a story posted on PJ Media.
“Those caught and punished by the IRS carrying out its new role as the de facto ‘marriage police’ could get hit with multi-year bills for undeserved ‘tax credits’ running into tens of thousands of dollars,” Blumer said.
To further illustrate his point, Blumer references
a calculator provided by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation showing the premiums for a 40-year-old couple with two children with the spouses’ annual earnings of $70,000 and $23,000, respectively.
“The couple’s annual unsubsidized premium while married is $11,547. But if they divorce and shack up while giving custody of both children to the lower-earning spouse, their combined annual premiums, at $4,317, will be over $7,200 lower. That’s over $600 a month.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/divorce-obamacare-premiums-couple/2013/11/07/id/535383#ixzz2jzCQAFDT

 

Ted Yoho plans push to impeach Eric Holder


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by: JOHN BRESNAHAN

  •  

    Eric Holder is pictured. | AP Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soros-Backed Group Targets GOP Anti-Immigration Reformers


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.newsmax.com

 

Posted by:Elliot Jager

A network of donors that pumped $30 million into President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign is poised to spend up to $20 million in the 2014 midterm elections to defeat House members who oppose immigration reform, The Washington Post reported.

The Latino Victory Project, which has the backing of labor unions and groups associated with billionaire George Soros, says it is prepared to campaign against 10 lawmakers, whose districts include significant Latino populations, and who oppose overhauling laws that could offer a path toward citizenship for individuals who arrived in the country illegally.

Up to $2 million would be spent in each targeted district, first with the aim of persuading the lawmakers to back immigration reform; and if that doesn’t work, the goal would switch to defeating them.
Some House members, such as Republican Jeff Denham of Calif., have already modified their positions to inoculate themselves against the threat, the Post reported.

Cristobal Alex, a former program officer at the Ford Foundation, has been appointed president of the Latino Victory Project. He said the group wanted to “build political power in the Latino community so that the faces of Latinos are reflected not just in every level of government but in the policies that drive the country forward.” 

The Project joins an existing array of pro-immigrant groups, unions, religious leaders, law enforcement officials, and some in the business community that have been pushing — along with the Obama White House — for immigration reform, the Post reported.

These are the House Republicans who could be affected by the Latino campaign in 2014: Reps. Mike Coffman and Scott Tipton of Colorado; Jeff Denham, Gary Miller, David Valadao and Howard “Buck” McKeon of California; Daniel Webster of Florida; Joseph Heck of Nevada; Steve Pearce of New Mexico; and Randy Weber of Texas.

There were an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States as of March 2012, with 60 percent in six states: California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas, according to a Pew Study.

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/immigration-reform-soros-group/2013/10/28/id/533330?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2j5ndn9VA

 

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


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:Joseph R. Carducci

ObamaCareFailure

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

33 Facts Showing How Badly The Economy Has Tanked Since Obama Became President


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

theeconomiccollapseblog.com

 

Posted by:Robert Gehl

SmugObama

 

America’s dire economic situation has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, who pick and choose unimportant, irrelevant or misleading statistics to ensure citizens that things aren’t quite as bad as they seem.

Author Michael Snyder, who wrote the terribly pessimistic (but all-too-telling) “The Beginning of the End” has written a piece for  theeconomiccollapseblog.com titled “33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly The Economy Has Tanked Since Obama Became President.”

In it, and in great detail, Snyder explains irrefutable facts that point to our soured economy since President Obama took office. Here are the first five:

#1 When Barack Obama entered the White House, 60.6 percent of working age Americans had a job.  Today, only 58.7 percent of working age Americans have a job.

#2 Since Obama has been president, seven out of every eight jobs that have been “created” in the U.S. economy have been part-time jobs.

 

#3 The number of full-time workers in the United States is still nearly 6 million below the old record that was set back in 2007.

#4 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers now make less than $30,000 a year.

#5 40 percent of all workers in the United States actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968.

Looking at some of these items – all meticulously sourced – it’s amazing that Obama won re-election. Then again, when you have the lamestream media in your back pocket, nothing is impossible – or improbable.

In 36 months, when the 2016 election is in full steam – if we haven’t pulled ourselves out of this mess, how will the media spin it then? This administration is beginning to make the term of George W. Bush look like a veritable panacea.

 

 

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


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://freepatriot.org

 

Posted by:Michelle Wright

images

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

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

WND’s exclusive reveals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coburn said he agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

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

 

‘Purge surge’: Obama fires another commander


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:F. Michael Maloof

Naval commanding officer alarmed by ‘relentless’ attack on Armed Forces

author-image

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

comparefools

WASHINGTON – After multiple top generals described to WND what they regard as a full-scale “purge” of the U.S. military by the Obama administration, the commander of U.S. Army Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of duty and his civilian deputy reassigned, pending a “misconduct” investigation.

Nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number – and several sources put the total number of senior officers purged during the five years of the Obama administration as close to 200.

In response, prominent retired generals – ranging from Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News senior military analyst, to Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have all gone on the record with WND, characterizing Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

According to U.S. Army Japan, Col. Eric Tilley was suspended from his job by Maj. Gen. James C. Boozer Sr., commander of U.S. Army Japan and I Corps (Forward) for a “lack of confidence” based on the results of an inquiry.

A spokesman for U.S. Army Japan, Maj. Kevin Toner, would not elaborate on what prompted a “lack of confidence,” saying it would be “inappropriate to make public the allegations because the investigation did not lead to findings of criminal misconduct.”

Tilley is to be replaced by Col. Joy Curriera.

Tilley’s dismissal is only the latest in what retired Navy Capt. Joseph John refers to as a “bigger picture” in which some “135 senior officers have been purged.”

“The ‘bigger picture,’” John told WND, “is that the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

A Naval Academy graduate, John had three tours of duty in Vietnam, served as an al-Qaida expert for the FBI, and was a commanding officer with SEALs embedded on special operations. He was awarded the Navy Marine Corps Commendation Medal, five Meritorious Service Medals and 22 medals and unit citations for combat operations in Vietnam, Philippines, Desert Storm and on anti-terrorist operations.

Today, John is chairman of Combat Veterans For Congress PAC (Political Action Committee), which has helped elect 20 combat veterans to Congress.

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” John told WND.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

In an email to WND, John outlined what he termed “a very few of the most egregious” aspects of Obama’s “attack” on the military over the past five years.

He referred specifically to the Rules of Engagement in combat that were put in place after Obama took office, asserting that the changes resulted in very high casualty rates in Afghanistan, including the loss of 17 members of SEAL Team 6 in one incident.

“The Rules of Engagement precluded the use of suppression fire at a landing zone,” John said.

Echoing what other high-ranking officers have told WND, he said the Pentagon policy of repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” resulted in the first openly “gay” “major military force in the world.” The development has brought about “massive” sexual assaults on “thousands of straight military male personnel that have been covered up,” he said.

He also cited military chaplains’ being prohibited from reading letters in the pulpit from their cardinals during Sunday services as a restriction of freedom of religion.

These and other “social experiments,” he said, have constituted “a massive assault to restructure the military mindset, destroyed unit cohesion, unit morale and is negatively affecting combat effectiveness.”

John also referred to major cuts in the military budget that resulted in, for one example, restricting as many as seven aircraft carriers to port, “leaving them open to another Pearl Harbor-type of attack.”

Physical fitness qualifications for “tip of the spear units” such as the Rangers, SEALs, Green Berets and combat infantry are being downgraded, he said, so “women can be placed into those units.” Likewise, he added, “women have been assigned to submarines and ships resulting in relationships at sea that have broken up military families.”

Some senior enlisted personnel and commanding officers in the midst of six-month deployments, he said, have been removed because they got involved with the opposite sex, which degrades the ships’ battle readiness.

John sums up this way: “The net result of the occupant of the Oval Office’s new policies set for the U.S. armed forces changed and enforced by his civilian appointees at DOD continues to degrade the most effective military organization ever created.”

If John’s comments about Obama sound dire, they are no more so than those expressed to WND in recent days by top generals.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Referring to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years, Boykin said the reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues. As Boykin pointed out, a number of them have been relieved of duty for no given reason.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin added, part of which is due to sequestration.

Sequestration has seriously cut back operational readiness for the military to the point where Boykin said that often they have no ammunition and are unable to conduct training because of the planned cuts.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Brady made similar references in a recent article he wrote for WND in which he said “just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does. Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”

The reference was to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS” among others.

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

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

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

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

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

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

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

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

“To understand the insufferable assaults on our military and veterans, who should be exempt from political squabbles but are often at the forefront of Obama threats, we need to understand the psyche of the elite in this country led by Obama,” Brady said.

“It is no accident that the president used the Obama sequester and shutdown to punish the military family,” he said. “It is part of his DNA. In fact it is in the psyche of the entire liberal/progressive establishment – the elite. President Clinton outed himself and this ilk when he declared his loathing of the military. Who could believe progressives/liberals care about veterans and military?”

Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely similarly has been very vocal in his opposition to the Obama administration.

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

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

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

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

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-surge-obama-fires-another-commander/#JGXRa0RSxSbA26Ri.99

4 Things Obama Will Deny Americans…


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Rick Badman

 

Photo Credit: caroline_1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by: Benjamin Bell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

More Gang of Eight Foes


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Andrew Stiles

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

Andrew Stiles

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Exclusive: Benghazi Whistleblower Says He Was Smeared


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by: Eli Lake, Josh Rogin

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

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

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

131102-benghazi-attack-tease

Morgan Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://politicker.com

 

Posted by: Hunter Walker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Rustman

 

Explosive New Report — Obama Knew Benghazi Would Be Attacked


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://eaglerising.com

 

Posted by: Onan Coca

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

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

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

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

Bloodyhands

Lara Logan: And you watched as they–

Andy Wood: As they did each one of those.

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

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

Lara Logan: And Washington was aware of that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

greghicksattacknotdemo

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

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

We must stand up for the Benghazi victims.

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

 

America’s real president wears a skirt


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: Judi McLeod 

Author

Barack Obama is not the Emperor Without Clothes; he’s a president in a skirt.

 

Nor is Obama, in effect the real President of the U.S.  Without even a single vote cast her way, Valerie Jarrett is.

From a well-hidden lair somewhere in the White House, Senior Advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett builds the figurative bombs that Obama later throws at America.

Tied to a Teleprompter and instructed what to say, Obama only ventures out to speak mainly to captive audiences of high school and university students, easily impressed from having been spoon-fed the indoctrination of anti-American Marxism in their classrooms.  Only those who cheer him on in canned applause for later media sound bites are allowed wherever Obama speaks.

Many repeatedly ask why it is that Valerie Jarrett gets to travel, like a modern day Cleopatra,  with her own contingent of secret service agents in tow, and why she is the only known person with 24-7 access to the Obama private living quarters in the White House.

 

The answer is obvious: payback.

Jarrett payback comes from being the first one to give both Barack and Michelle Obama a stab at life in public office.

“But even before Michelle married Barack, she was consulting him about her career decisions. Jarrett was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s deputy chief of staff when she first met Michelle and offered her a job—whereupon Michelle asked Jarrett to meet with her and Barack to discuss his reservations about the offer.” (Vanity Fair, December, 2007).

Barack’s “reservations” were put aside, and the rest,  as they say,  is history. 

In other words, had it not been for Valerie Jarrett, Michelle and Barack would still be what they were before getting Jarrett-power-boosted into the White House:  disgruntled activists sitting around forever fomenting for revolution with the likes of unrepentant domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

For more than four years, almost everything Obama does and is doing is painful to the citizens of the United States of America, and in fact to millions of people around the globe who depend on a strong America to continue with their lives.  On November 11‘s Veterans Day, the man who has almost completed his gutting of the American military will be televised laying wreaths at Arlington Cemetery and his wife will be a keynote speaker at a Veteran gathering.

All of this is taking place in the real pain of some 2 million Americans being thrown off their health insurance by ObamaCare, which Obama blames on “bad apple” insurance companies.

The silence of the insurance companies, who have been White House-ordered to remain silent, is as ominous as it is deafening.

And talk about sitting around fomenting for revolution from the safety of the sidelines:

On October 28, the woman who tells Obama what to do sent this message on Twitter. “FACT:: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.  No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”

From her cover of stealth, Jarrett fights ObamaCare blowback with brazen lies.

But even in the depressing dark of Jarrett’s unsolicited control of America, a light of hope could be coming from Egypt, a nation the Obama administration tried to control through its open backing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Canada Free Press (CFP) Cairo columnist Ali Al Sharnoby tells us that on Monday, November 4, the Mohamed Morsi trial gets underway,  and that even if just to save his neck from the hangman’s knot, Morsi is expected to sing like the proverbial canary spilling the long-suspected links between Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood.

November 4th happens to be Valentine’s Day in Egypt.

Hopefully Egypt will say: ‘Happy Valentine’s Day, Valerie Jarrett’.

 

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

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

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

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

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

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

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

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

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

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

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

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

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

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

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

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: