Closer look at the president’s role in Libya aftermath
What was he doing during and after attack?
GRETA ASKS WEST:
McCain Presses Hillary for More Information:
…………………………….
@ minute 5:22 on the Greata video… West explains in clear concise language the chain of command when the president gives an Execute Order to the Joint Chiefs. The Generals are saying this Order was never given to them to send help to the distressed Americans in Libya.
Although now, Obama is saying HE GAVE the ORDER to send HELP.
West says the chain of command goes this way : “The president “GIVES THE ORDER”, the ORDER is written down by the National Security Council Adviser”… and the Joint Chiefs follow through deciding what assets from where will be sent to help out Americans in distress.
What Bing West is saying is, He wants to see the written order to execute the president’s directive to send HELP to Benghazi… supposedly, now, what Obama is claiming IS, he did GIVE THE ORDER to send HELP when our Ambassador was pleading for help.
All West is saying is …WHERE IS THAT WRITTEN ORDER? WE WANT TO SEE IT! Mr. President.. produce the ORDER!
West also let the cat out of the bag- @ 4:33 Hillary did send help (in spite of the stand down order) The State Dept did send a plane carrying 6 Americans to help the distressed Ambassador and the 3 former Seals who risked all to protect the Ambassador. (I just knew it..I just did.. I hope this shocker puts all the judgmental naysayers to SHAME!)
NOW THIS VIDEO NEEDS TO GO VIRAL!
anyone reading this… PLEASE, send this video to every blog you know and get this information out there… The military is willing to stand up to OBAMA.. PLEASE HELP THEM DO IT!
……………………………………
MEDIA IGNORE HILLARY’S BOMBSHELL BENGHAZI CLAIM
by Aaron Klein
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio.
JERUSALEM – During the Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. special mission attacked on Sept. 11 was involved in gun-running.
The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks.
Yet Clinton’s answers were largely unreported by U.S. news media.
The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”
Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senator’s earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post.
WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who describe the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.
In September, WND also broke the story that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.
In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.
Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.
According to the 39-page report released last month by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.
“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states. “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”
The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”
During the Libyan revolution against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi acknowledged in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Media cover up?
From the beginning, U.S. media reports on the events in Benghazi have been misleading.
The vast majority of media coverage worldwide refers to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.”
A consulate typically refers to the building that houses a consul, who is the official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.
Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.
On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.
The main role of a “consulate” is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.
Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.
However, according to the State Department investigation, the building was a “U.S. Special Mission” set up without the knowledge of the Libyan government.
Withholding, misleading
Two days before the November presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview in which Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims about the attack.
In the released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden on the day of the attack, he had declared it an act of terror.
Reuters was also implicated by WND for possibly false reporting.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters quoted a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building.
Immediately following the attack, President Obama and other White House officials claimed anti-American sentiment fueled by the obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube sparked civilian protests outside the U.S. mission that devolved into a jihadist onslaught.
However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, officials said.
………………………………
……………………………….
UPDATE: China Will Trade Debt for US Land…
CHINA POISED TO PLAY DEBT CARD – FOR U.S. LAND
Communist nation could control American land as ‘development zones’
by JEROME R. CORSI
EDITOR’S NOTE: Barack Obama’s involvement in the DeMar Second Amendment case was previously reported in Chapter 7 of Jerome R. Corsi’s “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty.”
NEW YORK – Could real estate on American soil owned by China be set up as “development zones” in which the communist nation could establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work?
That’s part of an evolving proposal Beijing has been developing quietly since 2009 to convert more than $1 trillion of U.S debt it owns into equity.
Under the plan, China would own U.S. businesses, U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss.
Yu Qiao, a professor of economics in the School of Public Policy and Management at Tsighua University in Beijing, proposed in 2009 a plan for the U.S. government to guarantee foreign investments in the United States.
WND has reliable information that the Bank of China, China’s central bank, has continued to advance the plan to convert China’s holdings of U.S. debt into equity owned by China in the U.S.
The Obama administration, under the plan, would grant a financial guarantee as an inducement for China to convert U.S. debt into Chinese direct equity investment. China would take ownership of successful U.S. corporations, potentially profitable infrastructure projects and high-value U.S. real estate.
Jerome Corsi exposes the globalists’ plan to put America on the chopping block in “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty,” available at WND’s Superstore.
The plan would be designed to induce China to resume lending to the U.S. on a nearly zero-interest basis.
However, converting Chinese debt to equity investments in the United States could easily add another $1 trillion to outstanding Obama administration guarantees issued in the current economic crisis.
As of November 2012, China owned $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, according to U.S. Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board calculations published Jan. 16.
Concerned about the unrestrained growth in U.S. debt under the Obama administration, China has reduced by 97 percent its holdings in short-term U.S. Treasury bills. China’s holding of $573.7 billion in August 2008, prior to the massive bank bailouts and stimulus programs triggered by the collapse in the U.S. mortgage market, dwindled to $5.96 billion by March 2011.
Treasury bills are short-term debt that matures in one year or less, sold to finance U.S. debt. Holdings of Treasury bills are included in the $1.17 trillion of total Treasury securities owned by China as of November 2012.
In addition to a national debt in excess of $16 trillion, the U.S. government in 2010 faced over $70 trillion in unfunded obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits scheduled to be paid retiring baby boomer retirees in the coming decades, with unfunded obligations showing no sign of being reduced with Congress at a deadlock over reducing federal government spending.
Yu Qiao observed that if the U.S. dollar collapsed under the weight of proposed Obama administration trillion-dollar budget deficits into the foreseeable future, holders of U.S. debt would face substantial losses that the Financial Times estimated “would devastate Asians’ hard-earned wealth and terminate economic globalization.”
“The basic idea is to turn Asian savings, China’s in particular, into real business interests rather than let them be used to support U.S. over-consumption,” Yu Qiao wrote, reflecting themes commonly suggested by Chinese government officials. “While fixed-income securities are vulnerable to any fall in the value of the dollar, equity claims on sound corporations and infrastructure projects are at less risk from a currency default,” he continued.
The problem is that, in a struggling U.S. economy, China does not want to trade its investment in U.S. Treasury debt securities, with their inherent risk of dollar devaluation, for equally risky investments in U.S. corporations and infrastructure projects.
“But Asians do not want to bear the risk of this investment because of market turbulence and a lack of knowledge of cultural, legal and regulatory issues in U.S. businesses,” he stressed. “However if a guarantee scheme were created, Asian savers could be willing to invest directly in capital-hungry U.S. industries.”
Yu Qiao’s plan included four components:
China would negotiate with the U.S. government to create a “crisis relief facility,” or CRF. The CRF “would be used alongside U.S. federal efforts to stabilize the banking system and to invest in capital-intensive infrastructure projects such as high-speed railroad from Boston to Washington, D.C.
China would pool a portion of its holdings of Treasury bonds under the CFR umbrella to convert sovereign debt into equity. Any CFR funds that were designated for investment in U.S. corporations would still be owned and managed by U.S. equity holders, with the Asians holding minority equity shares “that would, like preferred stock, be convertible.”
The U.S. government would act as a guarantor, “providing a sovereign guarantee scheme to assure the investment principal of the CRF against possible default of targeted companies or projects”.
The Federal Reserve would set up a special account to supply the liquidity the CRF would require to swap sovereign debt into industrial investment in the United States.
“The CRF would lessen Asians’ concern about implicit default of sovereign debts caused by a collapsing dollar,” Yu Qiao concluded. “It would cost little and help the U.S. by channeling funds to business investment.”
Read more at:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/01/china-poised-to-play-debt-card-for-u-s-land/#5iOitOcSUEubZkEX.99
……………………………
World View: Discussion of China’s Directive to ‘Get Ready for War’
This morning’s key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- China’s strategy
- How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?
- China’s military strength
- The Chinese threat
My recent article “China’s directive to the People’s Liberation Army: Get Ready for War” was posted in several places and drew hundreds of questions and comments. In this article, I’m going to provide some responses.
I quoted Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, as advocating a short decisive war against one of China’s neighbors:
Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real.
This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia. We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel.”
One web site reader wrote:
“China might alternatively pick Vietnam as the dog to be killed. Vietnam does not have a defense pact with the United States and the U.S. might seek to provide only indirect assistance to Vietnam. Vietnam might also refuse to surrender and be impossible to pacify in a “quick war”.China could find itself at war with a minor power and not with any major power for a number of years.”
Another wrote:
“If China was going to war with anyone (and I do not wish war on anyone) I’d prefer they attack Vietnam. This wouldn’t suck the Western Allies in and it could teach China a good lesson of being bled dry by a tenacious enemy. This would be best case IMO outside of peace of course.”
This discussion highlighted something that hadn’t occurred to me before: That an attack on Vietnam is the “logical” choice for China. From China’s point of view, there would be several advantages:
- It would raise far less nationalism in the United States than would attacks on Japan or the Philippines.
- China has a score to settle with Vietnam, following the 1979 China-Vietnam war.
- The motive would be “kill a chicken to scare the monkeys,” as the old Chinese saying goes.
- It would assert complete control over the South China Sea.
- China claims that America has been a troublemaker in the South and East China Seas, because these countries have been confronting China in the confident belief that they would be defended by the U.S. If the U.S. does not defend Vietnam, then the other countries would no longer feel confident, and would no longer challenge China.
- It would scare Japan, so that China could take control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and Japan would retreat.
(The last reason, of course, is sheer fantasy, but it’s possible that Chinese hawks believe it.)
China invaded Vietnam in 1979 in a war where China was repulsed quickly. China made some serious mistakes in that war. Those mistakes would not be repeated in this crisis era.
It’s possible that a Chinese invasion of Vietnam would lead to President Obama’s “Neville Chamberlain moment.” But, as in that case, any later aggressive action by China would lead to full-scale war. Time Magazine
How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?
Some Chinese military planners believe that Americans will “run like rabbits” and not honor its mutual defense treaties, if China invaded one of its neighbors. A lot of commenters believe the same thing:
“The only reason the Chinese might think “Americans will run like rabbits” is because of this administration’s recent weak performance in the Middle East, and because of the tenuous U.S. (and Western) economy (both White House admins are to blame here).
Whatever one thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear to all foreign entities that America shows neither a principled and goal oriented interaction nor a policy engaged from a position of confidence (exerted quietly or visibly).”
I expressed the opinion that “President Obama would not have any choice if Congress declared war, which might happen within hours of any Chinese attack.” One reader responded:
“First, yes he would. He could dither on the deployments the way France and the U.K. did after Hitler seized Bohemia and Moravia and declared Slovakia a Protectorate, then dithered some more when Hitler declared war on Poland, launching a mighty Sitzkrieg offensive in the Pacific while saving the Blitzkrieg for the media and stump circuit.In the face of that, all Congress could do is impeach him, even while an attempt is made to repeal the 22nd Amendment so he can do nothing for even more [years].
Second, what if a declaration of war passes the House but not the Senate? Never mind the Chamberlain in the White House, Harry Reid could play his own version of Neville, and no war resolution would ever reach the floor of the Senate.
What exactly would happen if Congress “couldn’t” decide?”
Dithering would be a high-risk political strategy for the President and a Democratic Senate. When Neville Chamberlain promised “Peace in our time” after meeting with Hitler, he was doing something that seemed perfectly reasonable on that day. And yet, Chamberlain has been damned by history as the man who appeased Adolf Hitler. President Obama would risk being damned as a modern day Neville Chamberlain who appeased the Chinese.
China’s military strength
There were widely varied opinions about China’s military strength:
“A nuclear holocaust might be a tad bit premature. We’re not really sure what China’s nuclear capability is, specifically their ability to hit the US. Couple of points:Until the 1990s, their primary nuclear target was the Soviet Union. China is notorious for stockpiling archaic military equipment, even if it doesn’t work.
Even if Obama’s military and nuclear cuts hit before any war with China, our nuclear capability far exceeds theirs. The Chinese government knows this.
China probably has around 500 – 600 nuclear weapons and enough materials to build another 400 over a few years. But the US is not China’s only target. Some of those weapons have to be kept aimed at India and Russia, both nuclear powers. Many of China’s warheads are mounted on train-track based launchers that are pointed north, northwest. China would be risking a Russian retaliatory strike by launching those warheads.
Many, as high as 20%, of China’s warheads are gravity bombs designed to be dropped by late WWII style bombers.
China does not have force projection capabilities. They have one carrier in partial service and with a small air wing. They have no long range amphibious assault ships. They cannot establish a perimeter line, like the Japanese, that could keep US forces away from mainland China. And China does not have the nuclear ability to knock the US out of any fight. They can position diesel electric subs at choke points in an attempt to ambush US carrier groups. That does nothing about the USAF and China would be gambling their entire sub force.
A far more realistic scenario would be a Chinese invasion of easier targets in the region. Picture The Philippines, Okinawa, and/or Taiwan. If the US intervened, China would use a limited number of nuclear weapons on nations that could provide the US with military bases, specifically Japan. Hitting Japan would have the bonus of hitting the US economy. China will be betting on the US not retaliating with nuclear weapons if the US is not the target. China would then fortify their gains and simply wait for the US to go bankrupt. Once that happens, China would be free to begin expanding its control throughout the remainder of South East Asia and the Pacific unopposed.”
Another reader pointed out:
“Based on what we know, the DF21 “carrier killer” missile shown in the photo has never been tested on seaborne targets.”
However, one more reader said that China’s military capabilities are far more advanced than we realize:
“What most people don’t realize is that most of China’s infrastructure is dual-use civilian/military. That is, every train, plane, truck, railway, road, you name it, is designed for military use, as well as civilian use. For example, in a matter of weeks, all of China’s shipping -ALL of it- can literally be plugged into the military command and control system and converted for military use. This incluse ‘plug and play’ cargo, missile and weapons systems for their cargo ships and civilian aircraft.In short, they held an arms race…and no one else showed up.
What set them off was America’s victory in the first gulf war. They paid attention and began to redesign their entire military and civilian infrastructure. They also reworked their military philosophy. For over twenty years, they’ve been preparing to fight America in a war.
A probable naval scenario: Imagine a cargo ship loaded with disposable anti-ship missile platforms. Precision guided missiles. Thousands of them. Imagine a US navy task force on the receiving end of five thousand precision guided missiles.”
China is known to be planning “asymmetric warfare,” attacking America’s weak points by unconventional means. According to one reader:
“Our key vulnerability is cyberattack. We’re still not doing as much as we should to protect ourselves, but we’re finally taking action and it looks like some of our leaders are realizing how dangerous it is. That’ll be the primary method to take down our capabilities. I would say it would set us back at least a couple months, probably longer than that. Their optimum time to strike in that theater would be in the near future.Our satellites will be the next mode of crippling us. I read in the 2007 about their anti-satellite and I’d bet that by now they’ve got hundreds of anti-satellite missiles ready for use. It won’t take more than a day or two.”
See also “14-Oct-12 World View — Huawei scandal exposes potential ‘Cyberwar Pearl Harbor’ from China” from last year.
The Chinese threat
There were some skeptical remarks, like:
“With the coming soft or hard landing in China’s economy, using war with a small neighbor, is a sure fire way to divert the attention of the common person. Look at Argentina did during the Falkland Island war and ready to do it again. Only a mistake or believing their own public relations spin will start a war between the US and PRC.”
However, the most skeptical remark of all was simply:
“This is a completely uninformed and ridiculous article.”
I knew I would get this kind of criticism, and that’s why I put in links to several Chinese and American sources, so that readers could verify the information for themselves. However, I would add that comments like this usually come from someone who couldn’t even find China on a map, let alone have a clue what’s going on in the world.
When I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers mocked and ridiculed two sets of people in the 1930s: The ones who, like Herbert Hoover, believed that “prosperity was just around the corner,” even though the Depression kept worsening, and the ones who ignored the dangers in Europe and simply took “Peace in our time” for granted. When I was in school, I never understood how so many people could be so obviously wrong. Now that the same thing is happening today, I realize that there are many people who simply can’t deal with the anxiety, and are willing to believe almost anything.
I’ve been writing about the coming war with China for almost ten years now. What has been apparent all along is that China isn’t even bothering to hide their intentions. It’s not like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin may bash and scorn the West, but the days of “We will bury you” are long gone.
But the Chinese vocally threaten war somewhere almost on a daily basis. They have a very different world view that we have. In 2007, I quoted Sha Zukang, the Chinese U.N. ambassador, who said, “one INCH of the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people.” With 1.5 billion people, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost has no choice but to view people as interchangeable and expendable cogs in a massive wheel of agriculture and industry. China has made this clear repeatedly. I believe that it was Lao Tzu in “The Art of War” who said that in a war the side with the advantage is the side that isn’t afraid to die, and the Chinese aren’t afraid to allow millions of their people die if that’s the way to achieve victory.
Permanent web link to this article
breitbart.com
SHOWDOWN at the OK Corral?
CONGRESSMAN STOCKMAN (R) THREATENS IMPEACHMENT IF OBAMA USES EXECUTIVE ACTION FOR GUN CONTROL.
IS THIS MORE LIP SERVICE OR TRUE GRIT?
Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.
Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”
(RELATED: Levin: If Obama sidesteps Congress on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment)
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.
At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.
The freshman congressman, who served one term in Congress in the mid-1990s, further labeled the possibility “an existential threat to this nation” because, he said, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from tyranny.
“Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”
He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans.”
“If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.
Daily Caller
STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES:
…………………………
Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 08:58 AM EST
Obama reportedly considering 19 executive actions on gun control
The President is making other plans as Harry Reid says an assault weapons won’t pass the Senate
As things begin to look more dire for potential gun control legislation passing through Congress, Obama is reportedly weighing 19 different executive actions he can take to implement new gun laws.
Congressional Republicans have signalled that passing certain types of legislation won’t be easy, and the president of the NRA said over the weekend that it doesn’t think an assault weapons ban will make it through Congress. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has his doubts, though added that there may be other laws that can pass. “Is it something that can pass the Senate? Maybe. Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it,” Reid said in an interview. “So I think there are things that we know we can do.”
Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said Joe Biden told lawmakers in a briefing on Monday that there are “19 independent steps that the president can take by executive order.”
From the AP:
Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
And from the New York Times:
Lawmakers and other officials said that the president could use a public event as soon as Wednesday to signal his intention to engage in the biggest Congressional fight over guns in nearly two decades, focusing on the heightened background checks and including efforts to ban assault weapons and their high-capacity clips. But given the difficulty of pushing new rules through a bitterly divided Congress, Mr. Obama will also promise to act on his own to reduce gun violence wherever possible.
Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.
But even the use of executive orders won’t go down without a fight from the right: A Republican Congressman from Texas, Steve Stockman, said Monday that if the President opts for that path, he could file impeachment papers against him. Another GOPer, Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, has said that “The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights. We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.”
New York state, on the other hand, seems to be pushing through a broad expansion of gun control without much brouhaha, including an expansion of the ban on assault weapons and new ways of preventing mentally ill people from obtaining guns. “People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., told reporters. “They could hurt themselves, they could hurt other people.”
From the Times:
The state Senate, controlled by a coalition of Republicans and a handful of Democrats, approved the legislative package just after 11 p.m. by a lopsided vote of 43 to 18. The Assembly, where Democrats who have been strongly supportive of gun control have an overwhelming majority, planned to vote on the measure Tuesday.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/obama_reportedly_considering_19_executive_actions_on_gun_control/
………………………………………………..
Supreme Court to hear case on Obama’s alleged forged documents
On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.
As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.
On Feb. 15, all nine justices will hear arguments on whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.
The Supreme Court’s website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz’s application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.
Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama’s passport records.
It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama’s.
passport records.
On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:
The case . . . provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS.
Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.
The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 petitions annually in regular conferences. About 100 are selected for further judicial consideration. In this filtering process, the votes of four justices are needed to advance a case. On her website, Dr. Taitz argues that Obama has used false identification, an alias, a fake Social Security number, forged birth certificates and Selective Service applications. [ See a comparison of a regular birth certificate versus one submitted by Barack Obama in this photo. ]
Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama’s claimed Social Security number (042-68-4425) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.
This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery.
The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as “unworthy of further discussion”. Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama’s first inauguration as the nation’s 44th chief executive.
A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama’s birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team’s conclusion that Obama’s birth certification is “definitely fraudulent”. After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.
In April 2011, the White House retracted the Hawaii certificate and replaced it with a long form version. Around the same time, business tycoon Donald Trump sent a team of investigators to the state of Hawaii to question Obama’s real place of birth.
Said Trump:
He [Obama] spent $2 million in legal fees trying on to get away from this issue, and if it weren’t an issue, why wouldn’t he just solve it? I wish he would because if he doesn’t, it’s one of the greatest scams in the history of politics and in the history, period. You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country. Right now, I have real doubts.
The issue gained steam in the midst of a highly contentious election year as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gained favor among the voting public. In May 2012, the president’s former literary agent Acton & Dystel produced a previously unpublished leaflet stating that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. The promotional booklet was written in 1991 when Obama was at Harvard Law School. It was intended to be part of an Obama autobiography but the project was cancelled.
In Oct. 2012, just days before November presidential elections, Mr. Trump offered to donate $5 million to Obama’s chosen charity if the commander-in-chief would disclose his college and passport records. Trump had hoped that the disclosures would shed light on where Barack Obama was born, his citizenship status, and whether or not he was admitted to college and law school as a foreign exchange student. President Obama ignored Trump’s challenge in media interviews and refused to release the requested records.
However, comedian Bill Maher did issue a challenge to Mr. Trump to produce his birth certificate in exchange for $5 million donated to the latter’s favorite charity. Maher made the offer on Jan. 7 on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno”. On Tuesday, the real estate tycoon produced a birth certificate showing that he was born in New York City. Trump’s lawyer then issued a letter asking the HBO host to make good on his $5 million offer.
Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump’s birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. Please remit the $5 million to Mr. Trump immediately and he will ensure that the money be donated to the following five charities in equal amounts: Hurricane Sandy Victims, The Police Athletic League, The American Cancer Society, The March of Dimes, and The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Obama Returns to Hawaii at an Added Cost of Over $ 7Million
LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES!
BEFORE THE ELECTION, OBAMA VOWED HELPING SANDY HOOK VICTIMS WITH FEDERAL AIDE… The Bill crafted by Republicans became so top heavy with “pork” it died before it came up for a vote. Not even attempt from Obama at a special Executive Order to help these poor people out. He got their vote… nothing in it for him at this point in time…
IT’s VACATION TIME!… Yahoo!
Barack Obama proves once again he has absolutely no shame. Puffing his chest out and claiming a fiscal cliff victory and a “balanced” approach that raises taxes without reducing the size of government, Barack Obama then zoomed away aboard Air Force One to return to Hawaii and the golf course – at an estimated cost of $3 million dollars just for the flight to the American taxpayer.
Air Force One is known to cost about $180,000 an hour to fly. Based on an estimated 18 hours roundtrip flying time for the jet between Washington and Honolulu, the travel cost alone of Obama’s decision to return to Hawaii amounts to around $3.24 million. And that doesn’t include the price tag for the massive security operation required to move the president or the cost of the cargo plane that follows Air Force One around.
…The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million. LINK
LIE #2
“More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said.
LIE #3 A WHOPPER!
Senate Report Confirms Obama Lied When He Linked Benghazi To Mohammed Film On September 18th…
(CNSNews.com) – Three days after CIA and State Department eyewitnesses reported on Sept. 15 that there had been no protest in Benghazi, Libya, before terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA facility there on Sept. 11, President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney both publicly linked the attacks, which killed four Americans, to protests against an anti-Muslim video that had been posted on YouTube.
Carney did it at the White House press briefing on Tuesday, Sept. 18, and Obama did it later that same day in a taped interview with David Letterman.
However, according to a new report by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, personnel working at the CIA “Annex” in Benghazi on Sept. 11 reported on Sept. 15 that there had been no protest in Benghazi that day, and State Department security personnel who survived the Benghazi attacks told FBI interviewers on Sept. 15 and Sept. 16 that they, too, had seen no evidence of any protest before the attacks.
At the White House briefing on Sept. 18, Carney said that there was a protest in Benghazi on Sept. 11 against the anti-Muslim YouTube video and that the attacks there were “sparked” by protests. Obama, appearing on David Letterman’s show that same day, instantly referred to the video and called its maker a “shadowy character” when Letterman asked him what had happened in Benghazi . . .
……………………….
HERE’S an idea: Pres Clinton requested $60M to put Security in Schools…
Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can’t stop howling ridicule at the NRA’s idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA’s idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media’s going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch.
This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn’t care about securing our schools; they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win.
The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look.
In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking:
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.
The media is not only so driven to ensure Sandy Hook is used to win this round on gun control that they’ve become morally blinded to what really needs to be done to immediately secure our schools; they’ve lost their grip historically and politically.
Think about it: The media is entering a new year attempting to convince parents that their children will be less safe with a policeman in their school.
Off the rails doesn’t even begin to describe it.
breitbart.com
…………………………….
Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools
Violence: President also earmarks money for child-counseling programs. GOP critics say youth problems should be addressed at home.
April 16, 2000 | LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON | AP
WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.
“In our national struggle against youth violence we must not fail our children; our future depends on it,” the president said in his weekly radio address.
Clinton announced that he and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will host a White House conference on teenagers on May 2 to “talk through the challenges of raising responsible children.”
Parents, teens, teachers, youth workers and others will discuss research that indicates the preteen years set patterns for behavior and success in adulthood. Other subjects will include the risks, challenges and anxieties faced by young people today and what can be done to avoid dangerous or risky behavior.
“We need to talk about safety and security in every house in America,” Clinton said.
Republican critics said the federal government is a clumsy middleman in trying to cope with problems that should be addressed locally. They cast doubt on whether the teen conference would accomplish anything, accused Clinton of ignoring media violence and said he should support stiff jail sentences for anyone carrying a firearm in a violent or drug-related crime.
Clinton announced $40 million in grants for 23 school districts that he said have found successful, comprehensive approaches to help troubled young people.
“These districts are bringing school nurses and counselors together to respond to warning signs like depression or bullying,” Clinton said. “They are improving classroom security and expanding after-school and mentoring programs.”
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.
Finally, Clinton said the Education Department has earmarked $20 million for local proposals to create or expand counseling programs for elementary school children. “We have seen all too clearly that even our youngest children need our help,” he said.
“As we prepare next week to mark the one-year anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine High School, our thoughts turn to the safety of our communities, schools and children,” Clinton said. “All of us–parents, schools, communities and government–share responsibility to keep kids safe.”
On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., fatally shot 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.
Clinton’s proposals drew instant comment from Republicans.
“The White House conference on teenagers is sure to draw national headlines and attention, but unlikely to add new light to these troubling questions,” said Rep. J.C. Watts Jr. (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Republican Conference. He said the solutions will be found around America’s kitchen tables, “not from Washington or from posturing politicians.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson accused Clinton of having “shamelessly politicized and taken advantage of national tragedies” while ignoring the films, television programs and music videos Nicholson said are responsible for creating “a culture of death” among youthful Americans. Instead of using his office to combat the entertainment industry, Clinton has chosen to use the industry as a source of campaign cash, he said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
…………………………
VIEW INTERACTIVE MAP-
You will be astonished at the number of school shootings.
A New Assault Coming on 2nd Amendment Rights?
As we grieve with the parents of lost children there is nothing more tragic than what is becoming all too familiar to us- “School Shootings.” We all can identify with the senseless killings of INNOCENTS.
What can be more heartbreaking than seeing children killed as the reason for killing by someone with mental problems thinking their deaths will comfort their tortured souls.
Brace yourself for the next assault! The politicization of the school shootings. Mayor Bloomberg, an Obama water bearer, is already touting gun control from his municipal pulpit demanding Obama take immediate action.
“In a statement released Friday afternoon, Bloomberg noted that Obama rightly sent his condolences to the families in Newtown, but urged the president to immediately introduce reforms that would create more restrictions around gun control. He is the co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of more than 600 mayors who support gun control initiatives, through which he issued the statement.”
“The country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem,” Bloomberg wrote. “Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response.”
Gun control should begin at the most basic level. OUTLAW the VIOLENCE in movies, tv and video games! Kids spend their time at home time playing video games using their free time learning about weapon use and pretend killing. Bad role model for latch-key kids.
It is almost an impossibility to find a movie on cable that it’s central theme isn’t about FEAR and VIOLENCE. If the government wants to curb gun violence, begin with what our children are watching on tv and at the movies. Prevent the video games available out there from falling into their hands as a babysitting tool passing the time away while the parents are away at work.
It is being reported, the 20 yr old Adam Lanza, was a mentally disturbed boy possibly autistic, who took out his rage and despair on the innocent students attending the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown CT.
Rather than working to disarm a country of citizens, perhaps addressing people diagnosed with mental problems need to be handled differently than they are now. To date, every single instance of mass shootings has been by people who have mental problems. From the Food Hood Massacre to Gabby Giffords.. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, the common thread among the shooters has been their mental instability as responsible for their deranged thinking and the killing of innocent people.
News just in- saying Lanza’s Mom was NOT a teacher at the school. School officials saying her name does not appear on any school roles in any capacity saying she may have been a school volunteer or an infrequent substitute teacher.
At any rate, this tragedy will be Obama’s springboard for another attempt at disarming ALL of America. Thereby allowing government officials to be the sole bearers of GUNS leaving Americans completely defenseless in the face of a potential totalitarian government takeover.
