Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “insidious problem”

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

POLL: MAJORITY WANT BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:MATTHEW BOYLE


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

WHY is he stopping it ?

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

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

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

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

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

The Wrath of Michelle O Strikes Again


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

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

Michelle and Desiree in happier White House times

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

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

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

The president is going.

The first lady is going.

First daughters Sasha and Malia will be there.

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

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

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

Sneed explains the depth of the diss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

strikes_again.html#ixzz2pml5GHhf

Paul Ryan vs. the Military


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Elise Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton will run on repealing Obamacare


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Alan Joel

Author

 

 

 

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

 

What would Hillary gain from a repeal-ObamaCare platform?

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

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

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

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

One in three lawmakers wants to repeal cuts to military pensions


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

Posted by:Jeremy Herb

Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOHICA the military takes it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Erik Wasson contributed.

http://thehill.com/blogs

The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Steve Baldwin

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talah

Pictured: Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

713 Hart Senate Office Building

713 Hart Senate Office Building

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

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

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

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

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

Ann, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham

Ann, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham

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

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

Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis

Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis

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

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

obama-7-barrack-obama-and-his-granmother-madeline-dunham

Barrack Obama and his Grandmother, Madelyn Dunham.

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

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

 

 

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


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Emily Hulsey

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

 

Many of us can identify with the frustrating experience that Karri Kinder, a mother of two from Auburn, Alabama, has had with Obamacare. She penned this open letter to share her story. Shout-out to Yellowhammer News for the article:
An Open Letter to the Obama Administration and American Citizens:
My family’s journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013. I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us. We are a family of four, with two little boys’ ages seven years old and three years old. My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively. We have been with the same two companies for those years. We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us. We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.
On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband. So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us. This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month. I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this. Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly. I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kid’s college, our retirement, etc. I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month – how in the world could this help the economy too?
Throughout the month of October we read everything we could on what our plan would cover, and tried to get the information we needed about the ACA. I was also blown away when I realized that my son’s medical care, he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), would cost us so much more out of pocket than it was currently costing us. My son has to go to his doctor every other month for his care. If we need to see a therapist we do that monthly, so you see on top of the premiums there are other out of pocket cost we have to factor in. He is also on medication that he takes daily. His medicine is a life saver for him and helps him function like a normal seven year old, without it he can’t focus, his grades slip and his mind literally goes back to the mind of a three or four year old. When he was first put on his medicine his reading went up 20 points and he went from writing one to two sentences to paragraphs, all in the course of a week. He is a straight A student and very bright, but without the proper medical care that could slip away from him. Under our new plan for 2014 we would need to pay a $55.00 co-pay, and then it would be covered at 80 percent once we reached his deductible, which would be $2,000 individual $4,000 family. Out of pocket max numbers are $6,350 individual and $12,700 family. All of this is enough to make anyone’s head spin. We were then forced to look at other options as none of this was affordable for our family.
I started to dig deeper into healthcare.gov. I was hearing all the horror stories through the news about the subpar website. I was reading right off their healthcare.gov Facebook page about other people’s terrible experiences trying to get coverage. Then the government announces that they are going to be working on the site and making it a better experience as well as making it more secure. They had already had three years to make this happen but they said would need the month of November to get it running right. So I waited patiently for them to get the site running so I could see if we would qualify for the subsidy and continue our health insurance through that route.
December 6, 2013 I went to healthcare.gov and started our application. The process took me over two hours to complete. Once it was completed it came back with our results. The results were that my husband and I qualified. That my three year old qualified for All Kids and that my seven year old did not qualify for anything through the exchange (ACA). I was so confused, how could a seven year old not qualify for a subsidy? I was also confused on why they wanted me to enroll one of my children in All Kids? So, I called the number they provided to speak to a representative. I was on hold for 20 minutes when a woman answered and offered to help me with the results. She told me that it is coming back that my seven year old son did not qualify and the only thing I could do was to file an appeal. I asked her a few more questions about how this could have happened, and I was told “she does not know and that all I can do is file an appeal”. She was reading her responses to me right off of a chart that I am sure they are given. So, I ended my conversation with her and proceeded to try to wrap my head around what was happening.
I decided to call back, this time I waited 15 minutes and spoke to a very nice gentleman who seemed to have an understanding for how the system was working. He looked up the results and said “this can’t be right, let’s start over and do an application over the phone”. So again I went through the application process. The results came back the exact same, we all qualified for something except my seven year old son. The gentleman could not understand how this could be happening and assured me it had to be a “glitch” in the system. He placed me on hold so he could speak with his supervisor on how to fix this error. I waited several minutes and when he came back he said “there was nothing more they could do tonight”. He said “we are sending your application to two different departments and that one of the departments would get back to me through a phone call with a fix to this problem”. He also told me “it could take 2-5 days but that I would receive a phone call when they had closed my case”.
So I waited until Tuesday December 10, 2013, which was day four and called them back. I was then told it would be 2-5 business days and if I had not heard from them at that time to call back. So that is what I did, I waited till 9:00 pm on that Friday December 13, 2013 with no phone call. I called Sunday December 15th, 2013 and spoke with my 3rd supervisor who told me “they were very sorry that I had not received a phone call and they were messaging the two departments to give me a call the following day”. He also said to go ahead and file with All Kids in my state because even though they send that information to them, they have no idea when they will receive it. So Monday I went and applied for All Kids for my children, it was a similar application to the healthcare.gov site. I called them to verify that they received my application and was told they cannot access it till sometime in January. They said once they could access it that they would be in touch and if the kids qualified the coverage would retro act to January 1, 2014. So that was a little bit of good news.
So here we are December 22, 2013, the day before the December 23rd deadline to sign up through the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. I decide I will call one last time to see what they can tell me about coverage, since I never received a phone call after my last conversation with a supervisor. I waited on hold for 1 hour and 15 minutes. I asked to speak with a supervisor and I was transferred. The supervisor pulled my file and was talking to me when she must have accidentally pressed a button and we got disconnected. I thought for sure she would call me back. That is one of the first things they ask for is your phone number. I did not receive a call back, so I call back and have to be placed on hold again to speak to someone. I waited another hour and a half before I get connected with a supervisor. She pulls up my file and tells me “there is nothing they can do and I have to wait the 90 days they have to contact me through the appeals process”. The supervisor tells me “that this whole time I have been told wrong by numerous people and that I should have been called back but that the two departments could do nothing for me”. I just have to wait the 90 days. I asked her, “so yet again an error, due to no fault of my own, has occurred all these times I have been calling and speaking with people and no one can really do anything”? She said “yes that is correct, I am sorry you have been told something different but that is all I can tell you”.
I have never been treated so poorly by any insurance company in my whole life. I have never experienced such terrible customer service in all my years on this earth. I can’t imagine how long a company would last in this country if they followed the same protocol as the ACA/Health Insurance Marketplace does. Most companies can fix a glitch in their systems pretty easily, or can connect you to someone who can. Not the ACA/ Health Insurance Marketplace, you spend all that time on hold to just be told, so sorry but you have to wait for someone to get back to you in a 90 day time span.
What is the most sickening thing to me is that we have been forced into the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. We wanted to continue our coverage through BSBC and pay as we always had been. But, we found out that option would not be affordable under the new Act, which is how we were forced into the Exchange. Furthermore, not only were we forced into the Exchange, but then forced again to submit an application to ALL Kids for our children. I just don’t understand how we go from being hard working middle class family who provides everything for our family to where we are today. I feel like everything that my husband and I have worked hard for is for nothing. I pray each night that we will get something resolved with our “glitch” in the system so our children will have health insurance coverage in January and by the time I have to purchase my son’s $400 a month ADHD medicine.
I really don’t know how our government can allow this to be taking place. What if something happens and one of my boys breaks an arm, or God forbid something worse? They don’t have insurance, so I guess we will then be paying the hospital monthly if that happens. We are almost completely debt free currently and now all I see is very large medical bills in our future until the government can fix the issues with the ACA/Exchange. I would really like them to rename the Affordable Care Act, because from where I am sitting it is anything but affordable or caring for my family.
Sincerely,
Karri Kinder

OBAMA TOPS ‘CORRUPT’ LIST FOR ACTING ‘AS A 1-MAN CONGRESS’


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

2013 Washington malefactors also include Clinton, Holder, Boehner

author-image

President Obama leads the “Top Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politiciansfor 2013, named by the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch.

This year the “honor” is for acting “as a one-man Congress, rewriting entire sections of federal law on his own.”

Judicial Watch annually releases a list of the top politicians who misbehave while purportedly representing taxpayers in Washington. The 2013 “honors” go to, in alphabetical order, House Speaker John Boehner, CIA Director John Brennan, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, former IRS commissioner Steve T. Miller and former IRS official Lois Lerner, ex-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Several are perennial selections, including Obama, who has been on the list for seven years already, and Holder.

Obama, the organization contends, “is a master at catch-me-if-you can, corrupt politics.”

“Not only is his administration secretive and dishonest; its callous disregard for the rule of law undermines our constitutional republic,” the report said.

“Perhaps Obama’s most outrageous actions over the past year were his continual lies about the ability of Americans to keep their own health insurance under Obamacare. According the Free Beacon, Obama misled the American people a total of 36 times between 2008 and 2013 with his promise, ‘If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.’ And according to NBC News, Obama knew, even as he repeated his lie, that ‘more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.’

“According to the Galen Institute, Obama has now unilaterally rewritten the Obamacare law as passed by Congress 14 times by executive fiat, with the majority of those changes coming in 2013. Those changes include such major overhauls as the congressional opt-out, eviscerating the individual mandate, and delaying the employer mandate. The latest Obama fix came on December 20, when he suddenly moved to allow hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their insurance due to Obamacare to sign up for bare-bone ‘catastrophic’ plans,” it said.

The list also said that throughout 2013, the Obama family “continued to use the White House as its own personal travel bureau and the taxpayers as their personal expense account.”

While Obama, the report said, “quickly disavowed any knowledge of the IRS assault on tea party and other conservative groups leading up to the 2012 presidential election, the fact is that it was the president himself who fingered the groups for what might be called ‘special handling.’”

Obama had blasted conservative groups with attacks such as “We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them,”  “You don’t know if it’s a foreign controlled corporation” and “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Boehner

Judicial Watch charged that House Speaker John Boehner has become a master at what Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer calls the “Tollbooth Strategy.”

That’s when donations are accepted to move legislation down the road toward law, the report explained.

Among the actions cited were the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, which was brought up for a vote the day after Boehner’s campaign collected “33 checks from wireless industry executives, totaling almost $40,000.”

Brennan

Judicial Watch cites Brennan’s decision to reveal the extent of U.S. penetration into al-Qaida, which  forced a successful spy operation to be shut down. He also apparently orchestrated the administration’s attempt to influence the storyline of the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Chambliss

The Georgia Republican was cited because the New York Times reported his abuses of loopholes through which campaign cash was converted into a lavish lifestyle.

The expenses included $10,000 on golf at Pebble Beach, nearly $27,000 at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and $107,752 at the exclusive Breakers resort in Palm Beach, Fla., the report said.

Clinton

Judicial Watch said Hillary Clinton’s downfall was Benghazi.

“On Jan. 23, 2013, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to congressional committees regarding the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which led to the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American citizens. At times evasive, at other times defensive and aggressive, Clinton delivered her version of events in the days before and after the murders in Benghazi. And, in the end, the Secretary of State pretended to take ‘responsibility,’ but gave a predictable response regarding who is to blame: ‘…the level of responsibility for the failures…was set at the Assistant Secretary of State level and below,’ Clinton said, referring to an investigation of the incident. In other words, this was not my fault,” Judicial Watch reported.

Holder

He’s a “regular” on the list, Judicial Watch said.

“In May 2013, Holder may well have committed perjury when he was involved in a back-and-forth with Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., about whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act for publishing classified material. In response to Johnson’s interrogatories Holder made the following statement: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

However, Holder previously had approved a search warrant for the email account and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, Judicial Watch said.

Miller and Lerner

The trouble for Miller and Lerner was that the IRS admitted to targeting anti-Obama tea party organizations and other conservatives during the 2012 election. The IRS “purposely stonewalled the approval of nonprofit applications from ‘tea party’ and other conservative groups that were seeking tax exempt status.”

“According to a report by the agency’s inspector general released in May 2013, for more than 18 months beginning in early 2010: ‘The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review tea party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.’”

Lerner headed the department that was involved.

Napolitano

Judicial Watch explained she “played a major role in doing an end-run around existing immigration law by helping President Obama implement his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) directive in lieu of DREAM Act passage.”

Sebelius

“The Obama administration’s own lawyers determined Sebelius could be fired for violating federal law when reports surfaced that she had campaigned for Obama while acting in her official capacity as an executive branch official during the last presidential campaign. This made Kathleen Sebelius the first member ever of a president’s cabinet to be found guilty of violating the Hatch Act,” Judicial Watch said, among other issues.

Dishonorable mentions went to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, outgoing Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and incoming Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, former Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Last year’s list included Obama, GOP Rep. Vern Buchanan, Holder, Clinton, Rice, Steven Chu, Illinois Democrat Jesse Jackson Jr., New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, Reid, Florida Republican David Rivera and Sebelius.

The entire 2011 list: Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.; former Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.; Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla.; Holder; Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.; Obama; Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif.; Rep. David Rivera, R-Fla.; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-tops-corrupt-list-for-acting-as-a-1-man-congress/#DoV4bCCucXjl2lel.99

‘UNIVERSE-SHATTERING’ TWIST IN OBAMA BIRTH PROBE


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

 

Arpaio investigator: ‘This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine’

author-image

Lead Investigator

The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate says the case has taken a startling turn, and sheriff’s investigators now are assisting the Cold Case volunteers.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”

Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.

But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March.

The issue arose once again because of the death Wednesday in Hawaii of state Health Department chief Loretta Fuddy in a plane crash. She was the official who waived state prohibitions and provided to the White House a copy of a document that Obama presented to the public as his birth certificate.

It’s the document that Arpaio’s investigators have concluded is fraudulent.

Amid conspiracy theories circulating the Internet, Zullo told WND Friday that Fuddy’s death – she was the only fatality among nine people aboard a small airplane that crashed off the coast of Molokai – appears to be a tragic accident, not foul play.

He said his investigation does not depend on any information from Fuddy.

In an interview today with author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of PPSimmons News and Ministry Network and the author of “The Magic Man in the Sky,” and the new “The Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy.”

“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.

“Again, I want to emphasize,” Zullo said, “Sheriff Arpaio and I do not, at this time, believe her death was connected to any nefarious circumstances.”

The birth certificate dispute dates back to before the 2008 election. Critics, including Hillary Clinton, raised the issue about Obama’s status as a “natural-born citizen.” Not defined in the Constitution, it probably was thought at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be someone born of two citizen parents.

Obama fails that test because his father was a Kenyan student visiting the U.S.

Arpaio assigned his Cold Case Posse to look into the issue before the 2012 election, when constituents approached him and asked him to check whether Obama would be an ineligible candidate on the presidential election ballot.

In a recent radio interview with Gallups, Zullo affirmed the investigation had been expanded to the county sheriff’s office and was “moving in a direction that was not anticipated by us.”

“The whole [issue] is more nefarious than you can imagine,” Zullo said, crediting Arpaio for ordering the investigation and sticking with it.

“He knows in his gut that something is wrong,” Zullo said.

AIRLINE CRASH

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed without success. One case is pending before the Alabama Supreme Court for which Zullo provided evidence.

See a report of Fuddy’s death:

Still a live issue

Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”

Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

See some of Zullo’s evidence:

Zullo’s evidence

More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.

“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.

“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.

Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.

Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported this month that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.

He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.

Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.

“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.

“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.”

Grounds for impeachment

Last month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”

“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.

“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.

He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”

“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.

“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”

‘You tell me about eligibility’

Donald Trump

One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t, either.

Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.

Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.”

Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.

“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”

Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was born in the United States, do you?”

“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”

When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.

“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”

Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Monckton, citing Zullo’s sworn affidavit in a court case, published a sworn mathematical analysis demonstrating the near-zero probability that the White House “birth certificate” is genuine.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/universe-shattering-twist-in-obama-birth-probe/#Jij0dp7mQbbC14xA.99

Not Only Are Conservatives Fed Up With Obama, New Report Indicates Michelle Wants 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:http://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:Joseph R. Carducci 

 

Obama Selfi

Have you noticed all the times that our amazing community organizer in chief  ignored or even publicly humiliated his wife, Michelle? Have you also noticed how the president surrounds himself with a number of women? This includes “relevant” and “necessary” women like Vera Baker and Kerry Washington. Poor little Michelle has not been able to hold her famous husband’s attention for some time.

There is a lot of talk that the marriage bond between the two Obama’s is not as strong as they make it seem when together in public. It looks like they are putting on a facade for the sake of appearances. There are always a lot of eyes on the President, so this was bound to be noticed sooner or later. Now it look as if they are headed for splits-ville (after the second term is finished, of course.)

Remember at the Mandela funeral and memorial how President Obama took a ‘selfie’ and goofed around with the Danish Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt? If not, go back and look at some of the pictures with Michelle. Boy, was she looking mad. After that incident, she made her husband switch seats to stop his flirting with the foreign dignitary.

This was apparently the last straw for Michelle. Reportedly when the two returned home, she was furious and told Barrack in no uncertain terms of her decision to seek a divorce. According to a White House insider, she feels violated and embarrassed  after her husband’s obvious flirting with another woman.  Michelle Obama has been embarrassed by the president before, but this time it was on the world stage and for all to see. Now we see that not only does Barrack have little respect for his promises to the American people, but he also has little to no respect for his wife.

According to the same source, Michelle has already met with divorce lawyers and is preparing for a life apart. This includes moving into one of the White House’s private living quarters. She is also preparing to move his clothes and personal things out of their million-dollar Chicago home. Obama’s advisers are reported to have chewed him out, telling him that the photos of his games at the Mandela memorial can never be lived down. Female advisers and friends such as Valerie Jarrett were also very disappointed with Obama and his behavior.

This comes as the White House is bombarded by letters, phone calls, and emails from women voters. Many are expressing sympathy for the first lady and anger at the president. Recent polls showing Obama losing support among women voters were assumed to be due to the poor roll out of ObamaCare, but could there be a darker side to this? Perhaps it is because female voters now realize Obama is a ‘player’ or a flirt who takes perverse pleasure in humiliating his wife?

As for future plans, Michelle is going to be asking for a big chunk of Obama’s net worth. She plans on remaining in Washington after the term is up while her daughters finish school. Her youngest is 12, so this means staying put until about 2018. Barrack intends to move back to his ‘native’ Hawaii.

Is this really terribly surprising to anyone? Someone as obviously arrogant as Barrack Obama, who cannot keep simple promises to the American people and changes the law at will, cannot respect anyone. He is going to do exactly what he wants to do and does not care if it hurts his wife or anyone else.

What do YOU think? Will the Obama’s divorce after the second term is up? Do you think the Mandela incident was the key turning point for Michelle? Does this ‘presidential’ break-up really surprise you?

A Letter to Michelle 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:

http://www.westernjournalism.com

 

Posted by:BECKY SMITH

 

Dear Michelle,

On the day that your husband was elected, you said that you had never been proud of the United States until that day. For the last three and a half years, I have been observing your husband and you, and I feel that it is time I share my thoughts with you. The day your husband was elected was the first time I was ever ashamed of this country, and today I am even more ashamed.

I was ashamed then because your husband was not elected because he was the best qualified to do the job, or because he was the most intelligent, or even because anyone really thought he could get anything worthwhile done. The reason your husband was elected, the only reason, is because of the color of his skin. Your husband was chosen by the Democratic Party to be their “token black”, and that is the shame of the American public. We deserve better than a community organizer who seems to look down on his fellow Americans while bowing to an Arab leader. We deserve a president who was thoroughly vetted by his party and the media, not someone whom the DNC now admits was never even eligible for the job. There are many other men, Black, Hispanic, of Asian descent, Native American, and even Caucasian who are many times more qualified and eligible to be the president. If he had even a shred of self respect, Barack would resign and convince Joe Biden to do so as well, so that someone with a backbone could fix the mess your husband (NOT George Bush) has made much worse.

Your husband said he would bring unity to the country; instead, he has brought class warfare and fanned the flames of racism by saying that his son would look like Travon Martin. When the Pharisees asked Jesus what the greatest commandment was, he replied, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’” “This is the greatest foremost commandment.” “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”(Matt.22:37-40 NAS). Notice that there is no modifying clause in the second commandment “You shall love thy neighbor as yourself.” NOT “You shall love your neighbor as yourself, so long as his skin is the same color as yours or he does not make more money than you.” In our home, race is not an issue; everyone is welcome and treated respectfully. My mother raised me right; she taught me these verses and the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I have lived this way all my life and never judge others; it is God’s job to judge, not mine. There is a big difference between loving the person and accepting the sin; I can love the person and still hate the things they do. The media was quick to condemn Sarah Palin’s daughter for getting pregnant (or was it because she chose to have the baby?), but at least she owned up and took responsibility for her actions, which is something your husband has said publicly he would not make his daughters do in that same situation. No, he would rather have them murder their baby should they be so shortsighted as to get pregnant before they were ready.

Make no mistake here, please; through Christ, I love you and your family, but I hate what Barack has done to this wonderful country of ours. He has no need to apologize for an accidental burning of the Quran anymore than they would apologize for a deliberate burning of the Bible or our Constitution. In fact, as a nation, there is nothing he needs to apologize for on our behalf, but instead much he needs to apologize to us for. He needs to apologize to us for his blatant disregard for the Constitution, the very foundation of our government, and the freedoms guaranteed to us by that document. I have family members who fought to protect that document and what it stands for; yet you and your husband treat it like toilet paper for all the respect you show.

You are fond of quoting the Scripture in Luke that tells us that “To those to whom much has been given, from them much shall also be expected”, but then you take it out of context and tell us that means that the federal government has the right to take what one man earns and give it to the man who sits on his butt all day doing nothing. Sorry, but I do not think that is what Christ meant when he said “take care of the widows and orphans.” He also told us that God loves a cheerful (or willing) giver. He did not want to force us to do what we so willingly do out of love. In case you had not noticed, when there is a crisis (i.e. Katrina) the American people pull together to help each other faster and better than the government (i.e. FEMA) could.

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate of the “Affordable” Care Act was equally shameful and has added one hundred-fold to the stress of my daily life. Stress that was not a part of my life until Barack took the office that by rights does not belong to him. My husband has non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the treatments are expensive, and how long now before the committee decides that because he is not a “productive citizen” he cannot access the treatments he needs to stay alive? I clench my teeth at night wondering if he will be here when our daughter (now fifteen) walks down the aisle on her wedding day. When I had a heart attack last year, it was a Catholic-run hospital that picked up the greatest portion of the cost, allowing us to make payments on the rest when we could, not the government. Through the contraception mandate, Obamacare will shut down that hospital and hundreds like it, leaving people like me to fall between the cracks of your “perfect healthcare”.

I am also ashamed that the first family sees the Presidency as a lottery they won (how many vacations do you need in a year, really?) I have not had a job in two years, and our family would love to have a vacation in Europe, just one, someday. Yet your family has taken over seventeen vacations, at my last count, on the taxes people like me have paid. So, in effect, the middle class of America has been paying for you and your entourage of secretaries and secret service personnel to run around the world, shopping and sightseeing, when we cannot afford to go visit relatives who live in another state. Your husband’s policies have not created any jobs worth talking about, but they have kept businesses from creating jobs. Even a low-paying job would allow us the luxury of going to visit family.

So tell me Michelle, just what are you proud of? Are you proud of the fact that you are living in the White House because people did not want to be called racist? Or perhaps you are proud that your husband has chipped away at the civil liberties of the American taxpayers? Or perhaps you are proud of the race riots your husband instigated when he said that if he had a son he would look like Travon Martin, instead of keeping his mouth shut and letting the police handle the situation? The truth (whatever it is) will come out. I do not think there is anything that your husband has “accomplished” while in office that you should be proud of. Oh wait, I forgot all that golfing he has done that must have improved his game; I guess you can be proud of that.

In Christ Always,

Becky Smith

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-letter-to-michelle-obama/#Dpb2JDVKg2Uc82w7.99

Obama Administration Hits New Low, Threatens 1st Amendment Rights Of Military Personnel


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

ChaplainsPraying

The Obama administration has just reached a new low. Sure, we all know that the left is naturally antagonistic towards religion even in the best of times. And certainly now with the government shut down the administration has an excuse to do basically whatever they want…but how does threatening to arrest military chaplains for simply doing what they have promised to do?

You see, in Obama’s eyes, when certain military chaplains try to pray during the government shut down or minister to their flock (even on a volunteer basis), that is an arrestable offense. They are not only preventing the chaplains from doing their job but they are also violating those who are serving as far as their 1st Amendment rights are concerned.

This is the situation: during the government shut down, Obama has announced that all contract military chaplains are prohibited from ministering to their flock. They are not allowed to say Mass, perform any type of religious ceremony (baptism, wedding, funeral, etc…), or really do anything related to their normal duties. There are several problems with this, but the main thing is that the military does not have enough chaplains to serve the needs of their troops without having to reach to the civilian sector and hire contract chaplains.

Another problem, of course, is that the actual members of the military are also, in essence, being prohibited from the free exercise of their religious faith. This is in direct violation to the first Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Interesting, but it just goes to show you what Obama really thinks about religion and the Constitution. Of course, he has a certain amount of freedom in what he chooses to shut down and what is chosen to remain open or operational. Just as an example, consider the fact that a contract chaplain right now could literally be arrested for walking onto a military base and praying, yet the website of Michele Obama called ‘Let’s Move,’ is considered more important than taking care of military people. Simply amazing.

For all practical purposes, Obama has served to literally block all types of religious services and activity on many military bases, especially those on foreign soil. So, all those military men and women who had been planning on having a baptism, a confirmation, or a wedding will likely find those services to be canceled. Not to mention the fact that they will probably be denied the chance to go to mass as well.

I suppose we already knew that Obama would do anything he can to attack our religious freedoms. Now, he is using the government shut down as an excuse…and not even a very good one. This is par for the course from our amazing community organizer in chief. I hope that all this military men and women remember this move and then vote for the appropriate party in November 2014…especially considering that now there are several GOP representatives looking into exactly what can be done to help improve this situation.

What do YOU think? Do our servicemen and women deserve better than this type of treatment at the hands of the Obama Regime? What should be done about it?

 

25 wacky Joe Biden moments from 2013


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://washingtonexaminer.com

 

Posted by:CHARLIE SPIERING

Although he wasn’t on the campaign trail much this year, Vice President Joe Biden still managed to put his foot in his mouth and entertain the world with his bloopers.

Here are 23 of the most wacky and spectacular moments of Biden being Biden in 2013.

1. When he took the oath of office on his massive family bible

That’s an oath you had better keep.

2. When he asked a Senator’s husband to spread his legs

“Spread your legs. You’re going to be frisked,” Biden said to Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s husband as he was being asked to put his hands at his side for the mock swearing-in.

3. When he made fun of a woman for taking too long to take a picture

“It’s not hard work.”

4. When he got frisky with a Senator’s wife

Biden got a little frisky with the wife of Sen. Angus King during a swearing-in at the Capitol. Watch it there.

5. When he thought he was the President

“I’m proud to be President of the United States.”

6. When he made fun of the ‘black helicopter’ crowd on gun control

“Kinda scary man, the black helicopter crowd is really upset.”

7. When he gave self-defense advice to his wife

“I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.”

8. When he said gun owners might accidentally shoot their kids if they owned a AR-15

“You know, they make fun of my saying about use a shotgun if someone’s invading your home — guess what, use a shotgun someone invading your home and you don’t kill your kids — use an AR-15, it goes through your wall and it can kill your kid in the bedroom.”

9. When he compared gun owners to people who drive Ferraris

“There is a whole new sort of group of individuals now who — I don’t know what the numbers are — that never hunt at all,” Biden said. “But they own guns for one of two reasons, self-protection or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range. They like the way it feels.”

Biden imitated holding a weapon and added, “You know, it’s like like driving a Ferrari, Do you know what I mean?”

10. When he called for a new world order
New World Order
11. When he insisted Al Gore was really elected president instead of Bush

“This man was elected president of the United States of America,” Biden said according to the pool report. “No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation.”

12. When he told people to shoot their door with a shotgun

“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

13. When he took a picture with a camel

“Guess what day it is?”

14. When he referred to Republicans as the ‘Neanderthal crowd’

I’m going to say something outrageous.”

15. When he entertained the notion of being a co-president with Obama

“I kind of like that notion of co-presidents. But I couldn’t talk Barack into it,” he said. “That’s a good idea, I’ll have to bring this up with Barack at lunch.”

16. When he told reporters he was not running for Pope

I’m not running.”

17. When he denied being a geek

“Neither he or I are technology geeks and we assumed it was up and ready to run” for the Oct. 1 rollout.

18. When he bought so many subs, he had to borrow money from an aide to pay for it

“Fran, you got ten bucks?

19. When he suggested he might run for office in India

I might run here in India for office.”

20. When he embarrassed himself while meeting with Japanese professional businessmen

“[Do] your husbands like you working full-time?”

21. When he told everyone that ‘malarkey’ was a Spanish word
Malarkey’ was a Spanish word

22. When he backed a park ranger after she got yelled at by a Republican for closing the World War II memorial

I’m proud of you.”

23. When he got too cozy with a reporter during his Christmas party

Hmm.

24. When the White House launched a online show about ‘being Biden’

Listen to all 12 episodes FOR FREE.

25. When he tried to get funny with Veep star Julia Louis-Dreyfus

“Hey, does your husband like to sleep with the Vice President, because I’m trying to convince Jill it’s a good idea!”

 

Report: Healthcare.gov couldn’t verify Barack Obama’s identity


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.examiner.com

 

Posted by:Joe Newby

Healthcare.gov could not verify Barack Obama's identity.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

December 24, 2013

President Obamanot exactly leading by example — was finally signed up for Obamacare in a symbolic move showing support for his own law. But, Fox News’ Ed Henry reported Monday, the healthcare.gov system couldn’t verify his identity, so his staff had to sign him up in person.

The reason, Henry said, is that Obama’s personal information is not in particular government data bases.

“So healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough,” Henry said.

I would think that, Social Security database would be used?

If so why wasn’t his SSN# showing up?

So Obama himself did not sign up for healthcare. Instead, an official told Politico that his staff went to the D.C. exchange in person to sign him up.

“Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

“Granted, he waited until the very last second to do it despite pleading with people for months not to wait,” a post at the conservative blog Hot Air said. “And sure, okay, his special status allowed him to bypass the website and delegate to his subordinates the aggravation of enrollment, unlike the millions of poor saps who had to be patient and keep trying during the Great 404 Meltdown of 2013.”

Nevertheless, Obama will now be paying hundreds of dollars per month for a plan he’ll quite likely never use just like millions of others. And, Hot Air observed, Obama also purchased a plan that appeals to many others — a “bronze” plan that is cheaper but carries such a high deductible one might as well not have insurance.

According to the White House, Obama’s plan will cost less than $400 per month, and does not cover the First Lady or his children.

“The president’s wife and daughters, who already have health care, did not enroll,” NPRsaid.

Of course, Obama will still get his health care from the military, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, so the move was symbolic in nature and had no real meaning.

Disposable: Paul Ryan’s Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans


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.businessinsider.com

 

Posted by:TONY CARR

, Paul Ryan budget

AP

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues.  In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”  

In doing so, he created a painful irony;  Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years  – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country.  In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.

The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation.  He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning. 

If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of  promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.

Ryan presents a classic false dilemma.  He wants us to believe the nation must choose between keeping promises to veterans and remaining secure. He admonishes us that “since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.” 

What he doesn’t mention is that when the $6T eventual price tag of those wars is counted, personnel costs will define a tiny percentage of their total price tag, despite the fact that any success we register from those conflicts will have been wholly earned not by machines, but by the people who fought and died to carry out the nation’s will.  Paying people isn’t something we do instead of staying secure as a nation . . . it’s the very way we stay secure.  People win wars, not machines, bureaucracies, or defense contractors.

What Ryan also doesn’t mention is that part of the reason money is running short these days is that he voted to authorize and expand the two wars whose costs have now finally become so inescapable that he and others can no longer deny them. 

As these costs fall due, the search is growing frantic for the most politically expedient way to ameliorate them, and politicians like Ryan are finding it easier to target troop pensions than to engage DoD in genuine reform. Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.

But notwithstanding that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force claims DoD wasn’t even consulted before the Ryan-Murray provision was inserted, what Ryan doesn’t advertise is that Hagel and the generals are struggling to make ends meet because Congress and the President have underresourced the department without granting it  mission relief, leaving them with a problem they can’t legally solve and have a solemn duty not to abandon. 

Hagel, Dempsey and the service chiefs desperately want reform, and are entitled to the presumption they’d rather not achieve reform in the predatory manner thus far undertaken.  But this isn’t reform.  This is the opposite — it’s the avoidance of reform. This is cheating . . . by saving money without having to engage in reform. This is back-door budgeteering. Nothing more.

Reform is deliberate, methodical, and transparent.  This is an attempted legal heist. Mr. Ryan clearly hoped it wouldn’t be noticed. He now laments being caught red-handed by veterans and their representatives, who now rightly wonder whether Congress has already forgotten what it promised in exchange for a dozen years (and counting) of voluntary misery. 

The unease now sensed from among the veteran population should be taken as a dire warning: haphazardly breached promises that send the wrong kinds of signals to current and past service members will fundamentally disrupt the eagerness of Americans to serve in the future.  Abraham Lincoln said this during the Civil War and it holds true still, especially  given the dozen years of abusive management practices that have already ground down our all-volunteer force.

Ryan wants to have an economic discussion masquerading as a moral one, but the veil he constructs is as thin as the paper upon which he scribbles down new promises certain to be broken when it becomes politically expedient.  Ryan admits he seeks to take $100,000 dollars out of the retirement accounts of veterans who earned that money by risking their lives in combat.

This is morally repugnant, but clearly Ryan and his colleagues are more compelled by economic convenience. He thinks veteran pensions are just another lavish government handout to be squeezed in the name of fiscal conservatism.  Incredulous, veterans find themselves on the wrong side of socialist impulses undertaken by an avowed counter-socialist; Ryan seems to be saying working age retirees don’t need  all that money, so it should be taken from them and given to some other budgetary recipient who needs it more.  Ryan has made a career railing against this very thing, saving his lone exception for a most unfortunate notion.

Paul Ryan says of military members, “[w]e owe them a benefit structure they can count on.”  This is the most revealing sentence in his editorial, because he uses the word benefit.  No, Mr. Ryan doesn’t owe them a benefit.  Military retirement isn’t a social benefit. He owes them the compensation promised by their country.  It’s not a benefit.  It’s a vested pension.  It’s earnings they already paid for.  That they earned those benefits in ways Paul Ryan doesn’t understand because he’s never served doesn’t change that fact.

He and his colleagues owe those who already acted in reliance on their promised pensions exactly what they were warranted, and not a penny less. Two million retired veterans (and hundreds of thousands currently serving) made career decisions based on this reliance, and cannot now go back and change those decisions.  Ryan understands the irrevocable nature of these decisions on some level, given that he now wants to make sure disabled retirees don’t lose any pension money. 

His theory is that they made decisions that ended up limiting their horizons.  What he seems to be missing is that most military retirees did the same thing.  Perhaps what he’s really saying is you only really earned your pension if you bled for it enough to be disabled.   Those who bled less, and merely risked life and limb for 20+ years, deserve something less. Again we find ourselves talking about who needs or deserves to be paid a pension, rather than starting by viewing an inflation-adjusted pension as the inviolate obligation we all understood it to be at the time it was offered in exchange for service in combat in time of war.

Mr. Ryan, speaking directly to you now, if you’re truly going to engage with veterans, you’ll have to learn to knock off the nonsense and talk straight.  Stop playing pretend, admit what you’re doing, and either stand by it or don’t.  You were part of the movement that imposed sequestration on the DoD, over the objections of everyone who knows anything about national defense.

Now that the generals are telling you they can’t maintain readiness without more funding or fewer missions, you’re looking to avoid tough decisions by grabbing for some easy cash, and have chosen the place where resistance is least likely – a constituency that isn’t allowed to speak out on its own behalf and has been socialized to refrain from complaining even when abused.

Well, you miscalculated.  We noticed.  We noticed you didn’t bother forcing DoD to reform itself (or even pass an audit based on current practices) before you allowed it to prop up a false narrative of runaway personnel costs – notwithstanding you and others voted for the current levels of compensation in order to carry out the wars you advocated without having to advertise their true costs to the American people.

We noticed you didn’t ask the President to shut down the war in Afghanistan any faster, even though doing so just one month earlier than planned would completely finance the  savings you instead chose to take from  pensions we earned with mortal risk and one kick in the gut after another over the last dozen years.  We noticed that you didn’t bother dialing up the uber rich – those who extract the most from the free-market system guarded by veterans – and asking them to contribute a little more in exchange for their freedom to earn riches insulated from threats to national security. To do so has long been an honorable American tradition.  You chose a different path, and we noticed.

Most of all, we noticed you didn’t acknowledge you were breaking a promise.  You, the President (as recently as September of this year), previous generals, and two previous Defense Secretaries reassured veterans time and again that any reform of the pension system would not touch the compensation of those who already paid their dues.

You haven’t acknowledged that by slipping this back-door provision into the budget, you spearheaded a successful effort to break those promises, which we consider sacred and fundamental.  But you underestimated the American veteran, who is typically an unselfish team player averse to complaint, but never stupid.  We have families who rely on us to fight for them, so we have no intention of going quietly while you pass off  quasi-larceny as “reform.”

Paul Ryan is a futurist.  He’s concerned with what runaway compensation costs might do to the national debt over the course of the next ten years.  Not so concerned that he wants to look at reducing Congressional pay or the pay of generals, admirals, and senior executives. Just concerned enough to cut the pensions of the military’s middle class.

Those who do the hard fighting for twenty years or so and exhaust themselves and their families in the process before heading out onto the open job market . . . where they find, at a disproportionately high rate, that learning to conduct organized violence isn’t always a boon in the private sector.  But before we trust his credentials as a futurist, we should consider what he foretold ten years ago.  He was then busy voting to send America’s sons and daughters into Iraq without a clear objective, a proper declaration, or even a legitimate cause.   He now wants to keep the benefits of his decision while disowning the obligations.  That is not only an impeachment of his futurist bona fides, but the textbook definition of doing the wrong thing.

The war Ryan supported in 2002 and doubled down upon in 2007 broke the spine of the all-volunteer force, and we’ve spent the subsequent years concealing that fact with personnel abuses and a heavy reliance on the sense of duty of our volunteers.  In that time, they’ve stayed because they believed in their teammates and knew someone had to help get this country out of the mess it had gotten into.

But they relied heavily on the fact they’d be able to take care of their families when the time came to re-purpose themselves, and in doing so came to depend on the pensions they earned. The Ryan-Murray provision has many of them feeling like they’ve been made fools for trusting their country’s word as a bond. If Ryan and his colleagues are allowed to proceed with taking the easy way out, Americans will regret ten years from now (or  sooner) that they allowed such casual promise-breaking to inflict a slow-bleeding but mortal wound upon the all-volunteer force . . . which depends fundamentally on the reliability of promises to function.

Paul Ryan wants us to do the right thing.  I agree with him.  Accordingly, I encourage Mr. Ryan and his colleagues to move swiftly in reversing course and grandfathering all currently-serving career military personnel and their predecessors who’ve already retired in any reforms. Anything less might save some money, but will do so at the cost of moral bankruptcy.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-budget-veterans-pensions-2013-12#ixzz2oZ61mMes

 

Noah’s Ark Has Been Found. Why Are They Keeping Us In The Dark?


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://joeforamerica.com

 

Posted by:Mark Martineau

  I’m often amazed at our lack of knowledge about history. Ordinary people are hungry for this information, yet the organizations responsible to disseminate these facts seem to have an agenda to keep us in the dark. This is especially true when it comes to our ancient human history.

I won’t hold you in suspense with this article: The Ark of Noah has been found. It’s real. I’ll describe the evidence in some detail and end with the historical and religious implications.

How It Was Discovered

In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country. The smooth shape, larger than a football field, stood out from the rough and rocky terrain at an altitude of 6,300 feet near the Turkish border with Iran.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Capt. Durupinar was familiar with the biblical accounts of the Ark and its association with Mount Ararat in Turkey, but he was reluctant to jump to any conclusions. The region was very remote, yet it was inhabited with small villages. No previous reports of an object this odd had been made before. So he forwarded the photographic negative to a famous aerial photography expert named Dr. Brandenburger, at Ohio State University.

Brandenburger was responsible for discovering the Cuban missile bases during the Kennedy era from reconnaissance photos, and after carefully studying the photo, he concluded: “I have no doubt at all, that this object is a ship. In my entire career, I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo.”

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

In 1960 the picture [above] was published in LIFE magazine under the heading of Noahs Ark? That same year a group of Americans accompanied Capt. Durupinar to the site for a day and a half. They were expecting to find artifacts on the surface or something that would be unquestionably related to a ship of some kind. They did some digging in the area but found nothing conclusive and announced to the anxiously waiting world that it appeared to be a natural formation.

Most of the global media turned away from the find and it became a non-story.

In 1977 Ron Wyatt visited the site. Obtaining official permission, Ron and others conducted more thorough research over a period of several years. They used metal detection surveys, subsurface radar scans, and chemical analysis — real science — and their findings were startling. The evidence was undeniable. This was the Ark of Noah.

The Visual Evidence

The first part of the survey was to examine the object and take its measurements. The shape looked like hull of a ship. One end was pointed as you would expect from bow [below: D] and the opposite end was blunt like a stern. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

On the starboard side (right) near the stern there were four vertical bulges protruding from the mud [B], at regular intervals, that were determined to be the “ribs” of the hull [see below]. Opposite to these, on the port side, a single rib [A] protrudes from the mud. You can see its curved shape very clearly. Surrounding it are more ribs, still largely buried in the mud, but visible upon close examination.

Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

From the position of the object in the middle of an obvious mud flow, it is obvious that the object slid down more than a mile from its original location. Geologists believe it was originally over 1000 feet higher in the mountain and encased in a shell of hardened mud. They think that an earthquake in 1948 cracked the mud shell and revealed the structure. This is confirmed by stories from the surrounding villagers who tell of its “sudden appearance” around that time.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Biblical accounts of the Ark describe it as having as many as six levels. The assumed shape of the Ark seems consistent with the bulge [C] in the middle of the object. In fact, as we will soon learn, radar scans of the structure suggest that this bulge is the collapsed debris of these levels.

Although most people think of the Ark as being rectangular, that only applies to the top decks. The sleek shape of the hull is necessary to enable the huge ship to remain stable in the water and survive tremendous waves.

Ground Penetrating Radar

The human eye needs to see reflected light to recognize an object. To visualize what remains below the earth, scientists use microwaves which can penetrate the ground and bounce back when they hit something solid. This technique is commonly used to locate oil and other minerals. Called Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), the apparatus us made from an antenna that transmits, then listens to receive the “echo” and prints the result on a piece of paper. The delay and strength of this echo tell the geologists how solid and at what depth the objects are under the earth.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

The team of geologists didn’t scan the entire object. Instead, they marked out lines that crossed the object with yellow tape. Then they dragged the antenna (about the size of a lawnmower) over the lines and watched the output on the paper recorder. When they got a strong “hit” — meaning there was something solid underneath — they would record the position on the tape [above]. Later, when they made a map of the object, the tape and the location of the “hits” they realized that there was indeed a structure underneath the mud.

“This data does not represent natural geology. These are man made structures. These reflections are appearing too periodic… too periodic to be random in that type of natural pace.” – Ron Wyatt of SIR Imaging team

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

The radar cans revealed this structure [above] under the mud. The symmetry and logical placement of these objects shows that this is unmistakably a man made structure, most likely the Ark of Noah.

Artifacts Retrieved From The Ark

Using the GPR, Ron Wyatt discovered an open cavity on the starboard side. He used an improvised drill to make core sample inside this cavity and retrieved several very interesting objects. Below you can see the artifacts which were sent for laboratory analysis. On the left is the bore hole [see below], followed by what turned out to be petrified animal dung, then a petrified antler and lastly a piece of cat hair.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Perhaps the most significant find from the Ark itself is a piece of petrified wood. When this was first found it appeared to be a large beam. But upon closer examination it is actually three pieces of plank that have been laminated together with some kind of organic glue! This is the same technology used in modern plywood. Lamination makes the total strength of the wood much greater than the combined strength of the pieces. This suggests a knowledge of construction far beyond anything we knew existed in the ancient world.

noahs ark found
Tests by Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee, showed the sample to contain over 0.7% organic carbon, consistent with fossilized wood. The specimen was once living matter. Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Examination reveals the glue oozed from the layers. The outside of the wood appears to have been coated with bitumen.

Even more surprising were laboratory analyses which not only revealed that the petrified wood contained carbon (proving it was once wood) but there were iron nails [above right] embedded in the wood!

We like to imagine that humanity evolved in a neat sequence of eras, each named after the technology that was discovered. We have the Stone Age (where man developed arrows and stone tools), the Bronze Age (where metals were combined and heated to make tools and household items) and lastly the Iron Age (where iron and steel objects were made by heating iron ore and adding other material — like charcoal — to strengthen it). The Iron Age is usually placed at 1200-1000 BC, yet we have iron nails being used in this extremely old construction

But Wait… There’s More!

The most surprising find was discovered with sensitive metal detectors. The team located several strong “hits” that, when dug up, revealed large disc shaped rivets. From simple observation of the metal it was possible to see where the rivet had been hammered after being inserted through a hole [below].

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

If rivets being used in ancient construction doesn’t impress you, this surely will.

An analysis of the metal used to make the rivets revealed that they were a combination of iron (8.38%), aluminum (8.35%) and titanium (1.59%). Remember these trace metals have survived petrification and so do not indicate the exact content in the original material. (see Report from Galbraith Labs)

We know the aluminum was incorporated in the metallic mixture because it does not exist in metallic form in nature. This implies an extremely advanced knowledge of metallurgy and engineering. Characteristics of an iron-aluminum alloy have been investigated in The Russian Chemical Bulletin (2005) and reveal that this alloy forms a thin film of aluminum oxide which protects the material from rust and corrosion. The addition of titanium would provide added strength. This seems to have worked. The rivets have survived from antiquity!

The Surrounding Areas

Several miles from the location of the Ark, huge stones were discovered, some standing upright while others lying on the ground. These stones, weighing many tons, have holes carved in them. Scientists have determined that they were anchors and the holes would have been their attachment to a ship with hemp rope.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Often these stones will have crosses carved in them, from centuries ago when pilgrims made the journey to visit the Ark. Yes, the Ark was well known in the Middle Ages and even before. And its location was recorded in many historical documents.

“And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.” – Genesis 8:4-5

The Gilgamesh Epic (650 BC) gives Mt. Nisir as the landing place of the Ark. The local name for the town where the Ark was found is Nasar.

The annals of Ashurnasurpal II of Assyria (833-859 BC) places it south of the Zab river (correct).

Theophilus of Antioch (115-185 AD) said the Ark could be seen in his day in the Arabian mountains. Later Church Fathers also mention the Ark as late as the mid 7th century.

In the 13th century, Willam, a traveler, stated for the first time that Mt. Masis was the Ark location (present-day Mt. Ararat).

Ptolemy’s Geographia (1548) mentions the mountains of Armenia as the place of landing. So does the traveler Nicolas de Nicolay (1558).

Pilgrims to the site would gather bits and pieces of the petrified wood which would be used as charms to ward off evil. When they encountered the anchors, they had no doubt about their association with the Ark. They often carved one big cross to represent Noah and smaller crosses representing his family.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

The huge anchors would have been suspended from the keel of the ship. This was a common practice among ancient mariners to stabilize a heavy ship and ensure that the bow is always facing the on-coming waves. A “top heavy” ship, such as the Ark, could easily be capsized by a wave approaching from the side. This is yet further proof that Noah’s Ark was a reality and that it has indeed been found in Turkey.

Source / By Dan Eden

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/12/noahs-ark-found-keeping-us-dark/#ttXvWsQkrog8FCue.99

 

Harry Reid: Government Needs to Steal More from the Middle Class


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.infowars.com

 

Posted by:Kurt Nimmo

If Reid really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, he would help us get rid of the Federal Reserve

dees-bank

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Illustration: David Dees

Senate Majority Leader, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, wants the government to steal more money from the middle class and dole it out to the victims of the Federal Reserve created economic depression.

“Even as the economy creates jobs, too many Americans find themselves on the sidelines watching as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are getting squeezed and squeezed,” Reid said on Thursday.

“There is no greater challenge this country has than income inequality. And we must do something about it.”

Reid’s solution to income inequality is to tax and borrow more and give money to the unemployed. Democrats like to tell you this money will come from the super rich. But they know the super rich don’t pay taxes. From offshore tax havens to shell games, foundations and equity swaps, the rich rarely if ever pay taxes. Large multinational corporations with teams of lawyers don’t pay taxes either. GE, for instance, avoided paying taxes by socking $108 billion overseas.

So when Harry Reid talks about redistributing more money to the unemployed, he’s talking about taxing the middle class. He’s also talking about taxing the small businessman who can’t afford fancy tax lawyers and does not have the option to move money to the Cayman Islands or Lichtenstein.

According to recent Small Business Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, around 85 percent of all new jobs are created by small business. If Harry Reid and the Democrats raise taxes on small business, the net result will be less capital for business and less jobs created. Higher taxation leads to business cutting expenditures and laying off people. Harry Reid and the Democrats will create even more unemployment and misery.

There is, however, an upside to Reid’s demand, at least for Democrat career politicians. It will create more Democrat voters. Many of them will not have jobs. But they will vote for Democrats in order to continue receiving unemployment insurance and food stamps. Amnesty is basically the same thing. It will create millions of new Democrat voters.

If Reid and the Democrats really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, they would get rid of the Federal Reserve, throw out the bankers who designed the last so-called recession, and restore honest money instead of fiat currency based on nothing and exploited by fractional reserve criminals.

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Harry Reid knows this. His top election donors include JP Morgan Chase, AT&T, MGM, Comcast and big gambling casinos.

That’s who he answers to. Not the American people.

 

If You Use Facebook You Need to Read & Share This! They Are Killing Free Information


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.theminorityreportblog.com

 

Posted by:Steve Foley

FB-300x300

Recent changes made to Facebook’s algorithm now limits the amount of reach a single page has to 1%, if you are really lucky, 2%. What this means is, the freedom to share quality information is being limited to those who have money to pay Facebook to share their content. This is bad news for people who want to have an influential voice in the world.

The need for people to band together and work together is becoming greater with changes like this.

According to Facebook themselves:

“Your brand can fully benefit from having fans when most of your ads show social context, which increases advertising effectiveness and efficiency.”

“We expect organic distribution of an individual page’s posts to gradually decline over time as we continually work to make sure people have a meaningful experience on the site.”

“We’re getting to a place where because more people are sharing more things, the best way to get your stuff seen if you’re a business is to pay for it.”

What this means is if you have a meaningful message and you want to freely and organically share it across Facebook, you can’t anymore unless you want to pay for it. Perhaps it was FB realizing that anyone could reach a lot of people easily that made them see the potential for profit should those people still want to reach people, or maybe this is their way of trying to clean up Facebook. Either way, this is going to do nothing but cripple pages ability to reach their audience who they worked a long time to build.

What Does This Mean For Meaningful Content?

It means the days of using Facebook to create larger movements against corporations like Monsanto are going to be greatly limited. Protests, marches, awareness campaigns and the spread of life changing and meaningful content across Facebook is now going to be limited to a tiny portion of networks unless they are willing to pay a pretty coin to have it seen. It is likely now that businesses with big bucks are going to be appearing in news feeds more as they are going to be the few with enough advertising capital to handle Facebook’s new methods.

The Need For Backlash

Since this happened, bloggers and page admins all over the world have been creating a backlash about it and this needs to continue. Facebook needs its users to participate with the platform for FB to have any value, if they keep doing things like this it is going to force people to other social platforms, so if backlash is created, Facebook will have no choice but to adjust their numbers back to what they were.

Here’s what you can do:

1. When you find good content you want to see shared, ‘Like’ it, comment on it and share it. This helps get it out there and push it the extra mile.

2. Share this meme which speaks out about this problem. This way, we can all have a voice about the issue and work towards getting it changed.

If we want to continue to make an impact and join together easily as people in sharing a message to the world, we have to work together. Whether this means working around these adjustments or creating a new social media platform that a large part of the world uses, something needs to be done.

AUTHOR

Steve Foley

A former U.S.Marine, he is the Creator of The Minority Report Network. He is also the Founder and Managing Editor of the Network’s flagship site,http://www.theminorityreportblog.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty First PAC, and the Former Chief Managing Editor of 73Wire.com. Steve is a well respected national conservative blogger who’s dedicated the past several years of his life advancing conservatism online. Recently Steve was instrumental in the development of Liberty.com, Liberty First PAC, The Patriot Caucus, the national campaign trail and grassroots news site73wire.com.

 

MYSTERY GROWS: JOURNALIST DIED PREPPING OBAMA EXPOSÉ


English: November 2008 U.S. Presidential Elect...

English: November 2008 U.S. Presidential Election map, winner county by county Red = McCain, Blue = Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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:JEROME R. CORSI

Major probe tied to agent suspected of sanitizing president’s passport records

author-imageJEROME R. CORSI

hastings-crash

NEW YORK – Before his death in a fiery car crash, Michael Hastings was preparing to publish a major investigative piece tied to the undercover agent who is suspected of sanitizing President Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.

The mystery has only deepened since the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office ruled that drugs in his system at the time of the June 18 crash, including amphetamines and marijuana, likely did not contribute to the crash.

Hastings, 33 years old at the time of his death, wrote for Gentleman’s Quarterly, Rolling Stone and Buzzfeed, reporting on national security issues.

His June 2010 article in Rolling Stone featuring remarks highly critical of the Obama administration made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal — then the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan — led to President Obama relieving McChrystal of command.

Reported drug use

The autopsy two months after Hastings’ death found small amounts of amphetamine in his blood, suggesting he may have taken methamphetamine several hours before his death. Traces of marijuana also suggested Hastings had smoked the drug hours before he had taken the methamphetamine.

Hastings died when his Mercedes, traveling at a high rate of speed, crossed into the median on a deserted Highland Avenue at 4:20 a.m. and struck a tree. The automobile burst into flames, charring Hastings’ body so badly that it took several days to make a positive identification.

Los Angeles newspapers have suggested Hastings had become obsessed with Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive domestic surveillance capabilities and with disclosures the Department of Justice had obtained of the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

His neighbor and close friend, Jordanna Thigpen, told the LA Weekly that just before his death, Hastings’ behavior had become erratic because of his increasing concerned that helicopters commonly seen in the Hollywood Hills were spying on him and that his Mercedes had been tampered with.

“He was scared, and he wanted to leave town,”          Thigpen told the newspaper.

She recalled that the night before his death, Hastings asked Thigpen if he could borrow her Volvo because he was afraid to drive his own car.

Fox News reported family members told investigators that Hastings, who supposedly had been “sober” for 14 years, had begun using drugs the month before his death. The drugs included the hallucinogenic DMT, although it was not detected in a blood report conducted after the crash.

Fox News further reported a family member told investigators Hastings was seen passed out at home about three hours before the crash and that he had been smoking marijuana the night of the crash.

Investigators told Fox News that Hastings was found after the crash with a medicinal marijuana identity card in his wallet and that he apparently was using the drug to ease post-traumatic stress disorder experienced after his assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A security video that captured Hastings’ car crash showed a flash of light before the car hit the tree, raising suspicions Hastings’ death may have been caused by an explosion.

San Diego 6 News has reported that a witness in a nearby business is claiming the explosion occurred before Hastings’ car hit the tree. An explosion before impact, which would slow down the vehicle, would explain the minimal damage observed on the palm tree. Other physical evidence at the crash site also is not consistent with a high-speed, out-of-control impact.

Security Video of crash

 

Brennan and the CIA

On Aug. 12, Kimberly Dvorak reported for San Diego 6 News that Hastings at the time of his death was working on an exposé on CIA director John Brennan.

In July, a source provided the station with an email hacked from “super secret CIA contractor” Stratfor’s President Fred Burton and subsequently posted on WikiLeaks that suggested Brennan was in charge of the Obama administration’s surveillance of investigative journalists.

Michael Hastings and Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett at President Obama’s election-night victory party in 2012 (Photo: John V. Santore)

Though rumors persist that Hastings was near completion of a new exposè on Brennan to be published shortly in Rolling Stone, the magazine so far has not published any such piece.

Obama’s passport records sanitized

WND has previously reported that Brennan played a controversial role in what many suspect was an effort to sanitize Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.

On March 21, 2008, during the 2008 presidential campaign, two unnamed contract employees for the State Department were fired and a third unnamed State Department contract employee was disciplined for breaching the passport file of Democratic presidential candidate and then-senator Barack Obama.

The Washington Times on March 20, 2008, noted that all three had used their authorized computer network access to look up and read Obama’s records within the State Department’s consular affairs section that “possesses and stores passport information.”

Contacted by the newspaper, State Department spokesman Sean McCormick attributed the violations to non-political motivations, stressing that the three individuals involved “did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party.”

“As far as we can tell, in each of the three cases, it was imprudent curiosity,” McCormick told the Washington Times.

Exactly how the State Department came to that conclusion, McCormick did not disclose.

By the next day, the story had changed.

The New York Times reported March 21, 2008, that the security breach had involved unauthorized searches of the passport records not just of Obama, but also of then-presidential contenders Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Again, the New York Times attributed the breaches to “garden-variety snooping by idle employees” that was “not politically motivated.”

Like the Washington Times, the New York Times gave no explanation to back up its assertion that the breaches were attributable to non-political malfeasance.

Still, the New York Times report said then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spent Friday morning calling all three presidential candidates. Rice had told Obama that she was sorry for the violation. She said she “told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file.”

The newspaper quoted Obama saying he appreciated the apology but that he expected the passport situation “to be investigated diligently and openly.”

According to the New York Times report, Obama’s tone of concern was obvious.

“One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that is going to stay personal and stay private,” Obama told reporters. “And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people’s personal records, that’s a problem, not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.”

The New York Times noted that the files examined were likely to contain sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, addresses and dates of birth as well as passport applications and other biographical information that would pertain to U.S. citizenship. Only at the end of the article did the paper note that State Department spokesman McCormick had emphasized the most egregious violation appeared to have been made against Obama.

Obama was the only one of the three presidential candidates involved who had his passport file breached on three separate occasions. The first occurred Jan. 9, 2008, followed by separate violations Feb. 21 and March 14. Moreover, all three of the offending employees had breached Obama’s files, while the passport files of McCain and Clinton had been breached each only once.

The Brennan connection

The New York Times noted the two offending State Department contract employees who were fired had worked for Stanley Inc., a company based in Arlington, Va., while the reprimanded worker continued to be employed by the Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va.

The newspaper gave no background on either corporation other than to note that Stanley Inc. did “computer work for the government.”

John Brennan was sworn in as CIA director in March

At that time, Stanley Inc. was a 3,500-person technology firm that had just won a $570 million contract to provide computer-related passport services to the State Department, while Brennan, who then headed Analysis Corp., was serving as an adviser on intelligence and foreign policy to Obama’s presidential campaign.

By Saturday, March 22, 2008, the Washington Times reported that the State Department investigation had focused on the contract worker for the Analysis Corporation, because he was the only one of the three involved in breaching the passport records of both Sens. Obama and McCain, the two presidential candidates whose eligibility as “natural born” citizens under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution were in question.

Consistent with the claim that the motive for the passport breach merely was mischief, the three State Department contract employees received relatively light penalties. Two were fired and one was reprimanded.

Although at the time the State Department promised a full-scale investigation, the public was kept in the dark.

In July 2008, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a 104-page investigative report on the passport breach incidents, stamped “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The document was so heavily redacted, it was nearly worthless to the public. Scores of passages were blacked out entirely, including one sequence of 29 consecutive pages that were each obliterated by a solid black box that made impossible the determination even of paragraph structures.

One investigative reporter, Kenneth Timmerman, said a well-placed but unnamed source told him that the real point of the passport breaches was to cauterize the Obama file, removing from it any information that could prove damaging to his presidential eligibility.

According to this theory, the breaches of McCain’s and Clinton’s files were done for misdirection purposes, to create confusion and to suggest the motives of the perpetrators were attributable entirely to innocent curiosity.

Brennan tilts toward Islam

WND has reported that in a speech delivered Aug. 9, 2009, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies that is archived on the White House website, Brennan commented that using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” to describe terrorists “risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”

Brennan advised that U.S. foreign policy should encourage greater assimilation of the Hezbollah terrorist organization into the Lebanese government.

WND further reported that in a July 2008 article in The Annals, a publication of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Brennan argued it “would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.”

Continued Brennan: “Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah’s interest in shaping Lebanon’s political future from within government institutions. This involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah’s genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping and violence.”

At the August 2009 press conference for the CSIS, Brennan declared: “Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ‘80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.”

Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah frequently maintain civilian units of doctors and lawyers to emphasize their outreach with local politicians and to increase their political acceptance in the international arena.

Conceivably, the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, better known by the Turkish acronym IHH, would fit into Brennan’s definition of the charitable side of organizations such as Hezbollah, despite IHH’s ties to al-Qaida. The links to the terror organization have been amply documented by experts such as former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who led the French judiciary’s counter-terrorism unit for nearly two decades before retiring in 1977.

Despite this history, IHH is not included on the State Department’s current list of 45 groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, which names both Hezbollah and Hamas.

In his speech to the New York University law school students posted on YouTube by the White House, Brennan included a lengthy statement in Arabic that he did not translate for his English-speaking audience.

Noting that he was as an undergraduate with the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, Brennan proceeded to use only the Arabic name, “Al Quds,” when referring to Jerusalem. He said that during his 25 years in government, he spent considerable time in the Middle East, as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

“In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina,” he said. “I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims of making that pilgrimage.”

WND previously reported Brennan participated in a meeting with Muslim law students facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America, a group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the founders of the Holy Land Foundation of Texas. The founders were given life sentences “for funneling $12 million” to Hamas, the group currently in political control of the Gaza.

WND further reported that at the meeting with Muslim law students, Brennan declared himself a “citizen of the world” who believed the U.S. government should never engage in “profiling” in pursuit of national security.

    Read more at

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/mystery-grows-in-journalists-death-prepping-obama-expose/#fczrUjvR8tf8cOTI.99

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

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

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

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

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

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

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

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

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

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

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

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

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

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

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

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing

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: