Skip to content

EX-NAVY SEAL DROPS BOMBSHELL: Says Government Is CREATING Conditions To Impose Martial Law !

October 19, 2013

EX-NAVY SEAL DROPS BOMBSHELL: Says Government Is CREATING Conditions To Impose Martial Law

(Video Report)

Ex-US Navy SEAL Ben Smith joins Fox News and drops a bombshell on the US government by revealing that the government ITSELF is CREATING the conditions necessary to impose martial law here in America. This is a must watch video for those who feel martial law is merely believed by conspiracy theorists. Veterans and US Navy SEALS see the same thing!


Published on Oct 16, 2013


News Articles:

Dem Congresswoman Suggests “Martial Law” to End Government Shutdown…

Sheila Jackson Lee Suggests ‘Martial Law’ to End Government Shutdown…

Obama Is Trying To Provoke A Revolution…

White House targets veterans for political reasons…

Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?…

‘Martial law’ declared by Democrat in Congress…



To anyone that has been paying attention, the insulting behavior of our president and our congress has been an embarrassment not only for the despicable disrespectful treatment of our military but they have spit in the face of every American living and breathing the air in this country. Americans just do not put up with this crap- Just who do these usurpers think they are? Obama with the help of Harry Reid, a soulless coward, a malevolently inspired self-serving troglodyte, favors beating up and bullying our WWII, Vietnam Veterans and all soldiers dead or alive that have served our country? Reid uses his clout as Senate Majority Leader to belittle and ridicule any colleague in the senate with his low brow remarks as a form of punishment for stating their opposition to his and Obama’s reprehensible agenda. I had no idea, Reid as an important member of The Church of the Later Day Saints, a Christian organization, has allied itself with The Islamic Relief Effort which he supports, even though Islam has vowed to either convert Christians to Islam or KILL THEM. Apparently, no one is safe from persecution while Reid and the Democrats hold sway over the political future of our country. We do not need or want arrogant officials (who have been living off the Tax Payer teat (Reid since 1969) for far too long) running at the mouth doling out unconscionable shame on the greatest country in the world debasing our country to the level of a Jerry Springer government.

Americans are tired of living your LIES as you fill your pockets and force Americans to suffer!

Senior Republicans like McCain and Graham are known to the Democrat hierarchy as “their” Republicans. Two Republican senators who are sorely in need of retirement because they will continue supporting Obama and Reid’s agenda instead of doing the job they were elected to do, representing the WILL of the PEOPLE and defending the Constitution they are under oath to protect.

The Federalists have taken over the Constitution which means taking care of Americans is NO LONGER a priority for elected officials. It’s all about protecting the Banks and corporations. Both partys have become the scourge of the American people. It’s time for a Third Party to emerge.. stop supporting altogether the partys demoralizing America. If something isn;t done soon to change the direction of this wayward government, the events happening over the last few months guarantee the US ending in fatal ruin if your voices are not heard. Speak out LOUD- and be heard.



October 9, 2013

So, the IRS has been used by the Obama White House as a strong arm to intimidate and  persecute people making suggestions  that disagree with Obama’s new Health Care law.  Why? Because the good doctor has been in the HC industry forever and knows Obama’s vision of a HC plan for America will hurt the American people?  If the media refuses posing  questions digging at the Truth why your hc plan doesn’t work for US; then it’s up to  the people to ask questions concerning hc premium costs that will have a life long effect on both our physical and financial health.

(watch the video. Obama and Hatch sit as two porcelain fixtures eerily stoic, attempting to think themselves invisible wishing they could be flushed from listening to Carson’s tortuous Truth. That is, until Dr. Carson mentions GOD.  Hatch’s  head almost falls off in a sort of whiplash after the word GOD said out loud over a microphone permeates his cognition.)

Soon thereafter his speech at the WH Breakfast- Dr Carson received a notice from the IRS scheduling an audit- Coincidental?  I think not-

Dr. Benjamin Carson, the famed neurologist, is an expert in the structuring of  health care management. He knows of which he speaks.  He actually knows how the HC industry can be made affordable for the citizens of our country. And for this knowledge, he is being persecuted by the IRS.   WHY?    Shouldn’t his knowledge of how to improve the performance and administration of the health care system be sought out, and discussed openly with the public, where surely his suggestions for simplification of the existing version of the  HC Law,  he perhaps could design  a reasonable hc system fair to both the provider and the insured?

As soon as Dr Carson said the IRS had visited him consecutively for 3 yrs,  it wasn’t a quantum leap accepting the distinct possibility the IRS had singled him for multiple Tax Audits. Heck, they were able to stumble around stalling the Tea Party applications from qualifying for non-profit status,  denying legitimate organizations 501- 3C status under the law, at the very least  denying equal protection under the law, if not, purposeful ‘discrimination’ violating the law?

Dr. Carson,  ‘BETTER CALL SAUL’~ Or someone like him for a consultation.  Mafia lawyers always know where the bodies are buried.  They know where to look- (and how to defend their clients showing cause why a suit against the government should be instituted. )

Here is Dr Carson explaining his adventure with his IRS audits in the O’Reilly interview”…

Dr. Carson’s response hits it out of the park at the conclusion of the interview after O’Reilly extends a future  invitation to Dr Carson inviting him back to his show for a follow up visit, if and when, his encounters with the IRS should turn nasty.

Dr. Carson responds to O’Reilly’s invitation with this retort- :

“If GOD is for US; who, can stand against US?” -Romans, 8:31.


BTW- If you weren’t a ‘Breaking Bad’ fan,  Saul Goodman  was former hs chemistry teacher turned meth-cook. Walter White’s attorney in the much acclaimed series, Breaking Bad.  Saul was Walter White’s slim shady criminal attorney. A very funny likeable guy.. In fact, director, Vince Gilligan’s ‘Better Call Saul’.. character will be a spin off after the close of the final episodes  and reruns of Breaking Bad…

I personally liked Saul’s character on the show.  Why?  Because Saul was a solution/resolution oriented kinda guy imparting hefty doses of double entendre in his dialog  when interacting with difficult clients..

UN Preparing to draw the US in to the NWO… This will BLOW your Mind..

September 18, 2013

We will no longer be a sovereign nation.. READ IT and WEEP!
Friday, 13 September 2013

UN Sec’y Gen.: National Sovereignty Is a Gift of the United Nations

On September 11, the United Nations reasserted that it believes it has the exclusive and undeniable right to determine when a people is worthy of sovereignty and when the UN must step in and rule for them.

At an informal meeting of the General Assembly, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared the international body’s continuing commitment to protecting populations of member states from suffering under regimes that fail to “fulfill their obligations under the rule of law.” This includes Syria, Libya, and anywhere else in the world that isn’t toeing the one-world-government line.

Societies, said Ban, must “embrace diversity” or face the intervention of regional and international bodies that will step in to “protect and empower” the people living under the offending regime.

In order to impose its will and enforce its vision of “diversity,” the UN will prevent the governments of member states from passing laws, programs, and policies that prohibit the establishment of a UN-approved body of law.

Preventing governments from opposing the UN is a significant step toward the achievement of the UN’s ultimate aim: permanent aggregation of all national sovereignty into one global entity under the rule of globalists bureaucrats. Ban addressed this issue in his statement on September 11:

Prevention may sound abstract, but it is very concrete and specific. It means, among many things, that States translate obligations and standards set out in international law, notably international humanitarian and human rights law, into policies, programmes, laws and institutions that protect and empower their people.

This principle underlying this drive to force nations to, as U.S. UN Ambassador Samantha Power (shown) said, give up a “pinch of sovereignty” ( she means, a little pregnant?) in exchange for the United Nation’s version of peace and prosperity is known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Power, it must be noted, played a significant role in the development of R2P. Her influence on President Obama and his nationally televised address on Syria was recognized by National Review Online. “This was a Samantha Power speech,” wrote Stanley Kurtz, referring to President Obama’s call for American intervention in Syria.

Americans committed to the maintaining our Republic, our Constitution, and our right to determine our own laws, regulations, and policies must become familiar with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and the extraordinary lengths the UN will go to to impose its provisions.

In an address given in last September, the UN secretary-general promoted the global shadow government’s ultimate goal of eradicating national sovereignty by way of the R2P policy.

Agreed to by the UN General Assembly at a summit of world leaders in 2005, R2P purports to grant the global government power to decide whether individual nations are properly exercising their sovereignty.

UN literature describes R2P as the concept that holds “states responsible for shielding their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity and requires the international community to step in if this obligation is not met.”

That is to say, if the UN determines that a national government is not voluntarily conforming to the UN’s idea of safety, then the “international community” will impose its will by force, all for the protection of that nation’s citizens.

Lest anyone believe that the globalists at the UN are simply pacifists whose desire is to meekly encourage regimes to treat their people kindly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took a more forceful posture at the conference held at the UN headquarters in New York:

We all agree that sovereignty must not be a shield behind which States commit grave crimes against their people. But achieving prevention and protection can be difficult. In recent years, we have shown how good offices, preventive diplomacy, mediation, commissions of inquiry and other peaceful means can help pull countries back from the brink of mass violence.

However, when non-coercive measures fail or are considered inadequate, enforcement under Chapter VII will need to be considered by the appropriate intergovernmental bodies. This includes carefully crafted sanctions and, in extreme circumstances,

the use of force.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to use force in the face of a threat to peace or aggression, taking “such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” As there is currently no UN military, all such interventions are carried out by the national armed forces of member nations.

Faithfully, the United States, as the chief financial engine of the international body, has not only signed on to promote the Responsibility to Protect scheme, but President Obama has established a federal agency to ensure that it is executed effectively.

The agency is the White House Atrocities Prevention Board (APB), which was headed by Samantha Power until she was confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to the UN.

Exercising the powers he created for himself in Executive Order 13606, President Barack Obama demonstrated his support for the R2P program when he established the Atrocities Prevention Board.

The stated goal of the APB is to first formally recognize that genocide and other mass atrocities committed by foreign powers are a “core national security interest and core moral responsibility.”

Apart from the unconstitutionality of this use of the executive order, there was something sinister in the selection of ***Samantha Power*** to spearhead the search for atrocities.

One source claims that the very existence of the APB is due to Power’s own persistence in convincing the White House that discovering atrocities should be a “core national-security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” The statement released at the time of the signing of the executive order demonstrates Power’s remarkable power of persuasion.

Samantha Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote the Responsibility to Protect scheme.

Responsibility to Protect is predicated on the proposition that sovereignty is a privilege, not a right, and that if any regime in any nation violates the UN-approved code of conduct, then the international community is morally obligated to revoke that nation’s sovereignty and assume command and control of the offending country.

The three pillars of this UN sovereignty grab explain the provenance of this presumed prerogative:

1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities;

2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own; and

3. If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

It is the habitual recourse to this purported “last resort” that has cost countless American lives and has propelled our Republic closer to becoming a mere regional administrative unit of the global government of the United Nations. This has been borne out in Mali, Libya, the Ivory Coast, and now, in Syria.

Using history as a guide, Americans know that the pseudo-pacifists running the United Nations believe that if the social contract fails, there’s always the option of deploying blue-helmeted soldiers to impose “peace” at the point of a gun.

To that end, Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng recommended delegates work in their individual governments to contribute to an armed UN force under the command of the global government. Reciting the third point of R2P, Dieng pushed for more powerful tools to carry out the third pillar. “It is our collective responsibility to study the implications of the use of each of them, and to understand the conditions under which the potential of each tool can be maximized,” Dieng said. “It is also our responsibility to establish and strengthen the structures that will make third-pillar tools actionable and effective.”

No matter the frequency or ferocity of the moral outrage spewed by internationalists, the government of the United States does not have a constitutional responsibility to protect the citizens of the world from atrocities.

And nowhere in the Constitution is the president or Congress authorized to place the armed forces of the United States under the command of international bodies, regardless of treaty obligations or sovereignty-stealing “responsibilities” to the contrary.

At the September 11 meeting of the General Assembly, Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson echoed his boss’s call for intervention in Syria. “Everybody has a role to play. Nobody can do everything; and everybody can do something,” Eliasson said. “We pay an enormous price for waiting for conflicts to get worse,” he added.

Eliasson unwittingly gave Americans sound advice.

We all can do something, and the first thing we should do is immediately demand that our elected representatives support legislation that would get the United States out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

If we fail to do this, we will indeed pay an “enormous price” and the UN’s attacks on our sovereignty will only get worse. How long until the UN decides that the Bill of Rights (principally the freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms) is a violation of humanitarian law and send international forces to demand that those rights be suspended in the name of the responsibility to protect?

We must act now.

The Truth Surfaces… Belgian And Italian Captives Tell World – Rebels Responsible For Chemical Attack

September 10, 2013

ALERT: Belgian And Italian Captives Tell World – Rebels Responsible For Chemical Attack
This is just now being picked up via European media, but largely ignored by American media. Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quiric were both captives of Syrian rebel forces inside Syria. Both men are now indicating having heard first hand proof that Syrian rebels were the ones responsible for the August chemical attack inside Syria – the very attack Barack Obama is using as proof the United States must bomb the Syrian government. How can American citizens, and the world, trust such an incompetent and dangerous Commander in Chief? The answer is simple – we cannot.


Belgian national Pierre Piccinin (L) disembark from the airplane on September 9, 2013 at Ciampino military airport in Rome


Chemical attack was Syria rebel provocation, former hostages say
Two Europeans who were abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria claim they overheard an exchange between their captors which proves that rebels were behind the recent chemical attack.

In a number of interviews to European news outlets, the former hostages – Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quiric – said they overheard an English-language Skype conversation between their captors and other men which suggested it was rebel forces, not the government, that used chemical weapons on Syria’s civilian population in an August 21 attack near Damascus.

“It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus,” Piccinin said during an interview with Belgium’s RTL radio station.

…While stating that the rebels most likely exaggerated the accident’s death toll, the Italian journalist stressed that he could not vouch whether “the conversation was based on real facts.” However, he said that one of the three people in the alleged conversation identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general, La Stampa reported.

Based on what both men have learned, Peccinin told RTL that it would be “insane and suicidal for the West to support these people.”

“It pains me to say it because I’ve been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012,” Piccinin added. Link

Thanks to DW Ulsterman for bringing this news to light….

It’s Getting Harder to Steal the Souls of the American People No Matter the Level of Govt Corruption!

September 2, 2013


Brzezinski: ‘Global Political Awakening’ Making Syrian War Difficult.

During a short interview with Germany’s DW News last Monday, former US National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski commented on the growing inefficiency of war due to the increased political knowledge of the public.

“Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings ‘Global Political Awakening,’ a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual solution to the regional problem,” said Brzezinski, referring to the situation in Syria.

Despite Brzezinski’s noted long-term relationship with Obama which included a top foreign policy adviser position, Brzezinski denied any specific knowledge of his plans regarding Syria, saying that if the administration has a strategy, it’s a “very well-kept secret.”

Obama’s Middle Eastern strategy has been a mere continuation of the policies seen under Bush, exemplified by former four star general and NATO commander Wesley Clark’s admission of the Bush-era Pentagon plan to overthrow several countries including Libya and Syria.

Although Brzezinski at times attempts to appear opposed to military interventionism, President Obama’s actions in Syria, which include the support of admitted Al Qaeda fighters, closely mirrors several of Brzezinski’s previous policies, most notably the opposition to the Soviet Union in 1979, where decisions made by Brzezinski led to the creation of Al Qaeda through the CIA funding of the Afghan Mujaheddin.

Brzezinski’s call of warning to the “global political awakening” has only intensified in recent years. Last year during a speech in Poland, Brzezinski noted that it has become “increasingly difficult to suppress” and control the “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples.”

Brzezinski also blamed the accessibility of “radio, television and the Internet” for the “universal awakening of mass political consciousness.“[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low.

“To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,”

said Brzezinski during a 2010 (video) at a Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal.

Despite attempts by both the Republican and Democratic leadership to gain support for a war in Syria, a new Reuters poll revealed that only 9 percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria. If the United States intervenes, it will be the least popular war in American history.

The massive and growing evidence forced out by the alternative media, which points to a US backed chemical attack by Al Qaeda led rebel forces to be blamed on Assad, has only accelerated the inevitable downfall of the corporate press that is now only trusted by 23 percent of the public.


And if you care to know where and how the Brzezinski Brain Trust plans on taking US; read here for a good piece of information framing the drama:

BLOCKBUSTER: Meet The Man Who Murdered American Ambassador Chris Stevens…

August 19, 2013

His name is Mohsen Al-Azazi, an operative within the Muslim Brotherhood, and according to former top intelligence official with the Egyptian government, is part of an operation that continues to receive aid from the Obama administration.

The murky motivations of the Benghazi Massacre have been prevalent on various alternative media blogs since the tragedy first occurred. This latest report though is from Fox News, which it would seem, has been watching (and learning) from some of those initial alternative media reports.

The primary source for the name Mohsen Al-Azazi comes directly from public statements by Ahmed Moussa, a former high ranking intelligence official with the Egyptian government, and a man who quite accurately predicted the coming downfall of the Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood regime.

From the Fox News report:

In the course of this statement, Moussa announced three facts:

1. Ambassador Chris Stevens’ assassin in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, is named Mohsen Al-Azazi.

2. Azizi associates with Mohammed El-Beltagy, the general secretary of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and with Safwat Hegazy, a leading MB cleric.

3. The police found Azizi’s passport in the house of leading MB strategist Khairat El-Shater, presumbably when Shater was arrested on July 5.

If true, this is sensational news, for it directly ties the MB to anti-American terrorism and repudiates the Obama administration policy of trying to work with the MB. It also further confirms that the MB is a terrorist organization.

It might explain why the Obama administration is mediating in talks with Egypt’s interim government for a “reconciliation process” that would permit a safe exist for Morsi and other MB leaders outside Egypt without a trial that likely would disclose more embarrassing details about Benghazi.

But is the news that Moussa announced true? Several indications point to its veracity.

First, Moussa is a well-regarded source who often interviews intelligence agents and high-ranking military personnel on his show and is renowned for breaking intelligence-related news.

In March, for example, he broke the news that Egyptian intelligence stopped sending Mohammed Morsi written briefings and limited its reports to verbal communication, a reflection of its fear that his affiliation to an international Islamist organization (with over seventy branches worldwide) would compromise the information. As well as revealing some of the details of the meeting that took place on 30 July between Morsi and Catherine Ashton, British Labour politician and diplomat.

Second, as I reported in March, in a video shot during the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Egyptian jihadists approaching the U.S. installations said in Egyptian colloquial Arabic, “Don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”

Moussa further went on to say, still addressing Patterson on this TV show:

Ask the Muslim Brotherhood to hand Azizi to U.S. authorities. — And of course they will not, as he is there to wage terrorist attacks against Egyptian citizens, as he hides there in the protection in Rabia, among killers with massive amounts of weapons … Why doesn’t the MB, which you often praise, hand him to you?

That question has yet to be answered by either Amb. Patterson, President Obama or the U.S. government.
Fox Link

So, according to Ahmed Moussa, the United States has a known terrorist being both protected and supported by the Obama government desperate to keep its links to the Muslim Brotherhood hidden away from public knowledge, including, but not limited to, the Brotherhood’s direct involvement in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Those paying attention also know that the Obama government has hidden away the survivors of the Benghazi, with various reports indicating considerable intimidation, relocation, and refusal to share specific names of survivors with members of Congress.

We know the Obama White House repeated over and over again an outright lie as to why the attacks in Benghazi occurred. We know the administration was quick to support the Morsi-Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, and is now equally unwilling to support Morsi’s departure.

We know that the nation of Turkey is under the rule of Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (The New York Times declared Turkey the “model” for Muslim Brotherhood success in the Middle East) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Erdogan in turn has been very supportive of the Obama administration. Please read this quote from an earlier report on this very blog in May of 2013:So, according to Ahmed Moussa, the United States has a known terrorist being both protected and supported by the Obama government desperate to keep its links to the Muslim Brotherhood hidden away from public knowledge, including, but not limited to, the Brotherhood’s direct involvement in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

“…Which bring us then to the events in Syria. Make no mistake, Syria is no friend of the United States. That said, Barack Obama and his Turkish cohorts are once again pushing to replace a dictator with a Sharia ruler. Libya is now over-run with Islamic radicals. So too is Egypt and Tunisia. The power and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is growing at an alarming pace – a growth in power that extends directly to the Obama White House:

“A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.” Investigative Journalist LINK


Now remember reader, who did Chris Stevens meet with only an hour before the terrorist attack that killed him in Benghazi?

It was with a representative of the Turkish government. An hour after that representative walked out the front door of the Benghazi consulate, it was under an attack led by Mohsen Al-Azazi, the very man it is now said receives support and protection from the Obama government…

In Case You Missed It – The Story Of Valerie Jarrett And Her Muslim Brotherhood
(ht/DW Ulsterman)”

ALERT: Barack Obama’s Forced Integration Plan – Coming Soon To YOUR Neighborhood

July 25, 2013

via/DW Ulsterman

Yet another chilling move by the Obama administration and its bevy of Big Government socialists was put out on display this week.  This time, Dear Leader indicated his intention of punishing American neighborhoods his government deems not “inclusive” enough.  Punishments will be dealt out via withholding federal funding to local and state governments found to be just too darn WHITE.  This isn’t a joke readers – we actually have an American president communicating these very intentions.  It is centralized control of every facet of your lives, and it is being put in place right now.  Please share this one readers – it is a story that is particularly important and one that should alarm even some who remain ardent Obama supporters…


Obama to Force Integration of Neighborhoods

President Obama appears set to move boldly beyond prosecuting discriminatory housing practices into an entirely new arena: holding state and local official responsible for integrating areas that don’t, in the eyes of the administration, have enough minorities.

Get ready folks. We’re moving from a society based on equal opportunity for all to one requiring equal results for all. And you think I’m overdoing when I say Obama is prodding us toward Socialism?

In a speech to the NAACP last week that is only now gaining attention, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan said the administration is letting neighborhoods know if they don’t have enough minorities:

“HUD is enhancing its enforcement techniques by initiating investigations on our own without waiting for individuals to file complaints . . .

For the first time ever, HUD is providing information, data to every single neighborhood in the nation, detailing what access African American families and other members of protected classes have to the community assets that I’m talking about – jobs, schools, transit.”
Here’s some additional reporting from Stirewalt on the Fox website

“The old way was to punish exclusion. The new way is to punish lack of inclusion.
The punishment is also different. Rather than fines and prosecutions for those who sought to keep minorities out, the new penalty would be a withholding of federal funds from local and state government agencies dependent on HUD grants if they fail to push greater diversity. The way those agencies interact with developers, realtors, homeowners associations and others would need to reflect the federal push for diversity.

The report card comes in the form of the new maps, which use Census data to score communities on their racial and ethnic concentrations, as well as income and community services.”

Wow. Officials will now be trying to protect themselves from losing out on federal funding by moving minorities into neighborhoods WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE THERE OR NOT. And – talk about unintended consequences – whether they can afford to be there or not. Unless – yes, my crystal ball, please – the government decides that minorities should be offered a special price for a home.

This type of social engineering has so much potential for abuse, unfairness, and interference in the normal workings of the economy that it’s almost impossible to believe the Obama and his commissars are serious. And yet, it seems they are.

Did you think Obama was going to stop at taking over your health care? It’s just the beginning, baby. Link

As I said in the comments above, please share this one far and wide. The stakes of 2014 are quickly increasing in importance all around us – this current administration is ready and more than willing to make a very strong push to implement all of its transformational plans upon the United States, and at present, as pathetic as they often are, the GOP is the only thing standing in the way of total domination toward that end. Sadly, it appears the world of DOMINATUS and TUMULTUS is appearing with increasing frequency all around us now… -UM

Ah yes, fairness for all, and responsibility from all.

Sound familiar?


Okay, that video is satire. At least, for me it is. No I don’t think Obama is a Communist. But he has fundamental problems with the capitalist philosophy that has guided this country to greatness. Because, you know, it doesn’t spread the wealth around quite enough.

H/T to Gateway Pundit.


Please check in frequently, as I will keep posting updates on our Brave American, Edward Snowden’s journey. One man who has auspiciously demonstrated “WHO WE ARE” and what it means to us to be an American!

Also, do not miss the sequel to Ulsterman’s first in a series of books
beginning with DOMINATUS. And Now TUMULTUS…

View link for previewing a few pages of Tumultus:


I for one, can tell you from what I have read so far, Tumultus is a book every American needs to read. If Edward Snowden has exposed a first look at Obama’s nefarious covert activities transforming America into a police state where we no longer enjoy our inalienable God given right to Privacy, Liberty and Freedom. Ulsterman has taken the time elaborating in his book based on what we already know is Obama’s blueprint for his vision of America. That trust me, after reading Tumultus you will have a true understanding of Obamas plans for America that will horrify you…

Obama signs executive order to allow shut down of all US communications

July 11, 2013

by Tellurian

Here are two stories we’ve heard NOTHNG about… Nothing published in the press or on mainstream media.. especially by the bg three giants of the industry- NBC-CBS-ABC… thank goodnes we have other options.. But for how long? AND WHY NOW is Obama making covert strategic moves in order to protect himself from the backlash once this information  saturates the blogasphere reaching even the lowest infomation voters and they realize they have been duped…

Let’s get started…with a communication I discovered last night that is still out for verification from our reliable sources…


U.S. Congressman Kenny Marchant On Impeachment:
Obama Investigations Underway In House, Senate And FBI

excerpt from the letter:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding your desire for articles of impeachment to be brought against the President. […]

There are currently investigations underway in the House, The Senate and at the FBI to gather as much information from the Administration as possible. I am involved with and support those investigations so that we can get all information about those that are responsible in order to hold them accountable. Namely, the President is under the most scrutiny and will have to face the truth of what we know to be fact in the many investigations.” […] – July 8, 2013


Read more:
Now Comes this announcement:

Obama signs executive order to allow shut down of all US communications

RT has reported that in a secretly unannounced move, President Barack Obama signed an executive order giving the Department of Homeland Security the ability to shut down all of the United States’ communications systems upon his request. Barack Obama laid out a statement he titled “Assignment of National Security Emergency Preparedness Communications Function”. No doubt a very confusing title. The reasoning behind his issuing of this executive order, is that he feels the government may one day need to access all of our telephones, computers, cable communications, etc., in the name of national security.

“The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive mission.”

The American public should be concerned about what this “mission” could be. In a presidential election, one candidate’s mission may not be the same as his opponents. RT quotes the president as saying:

“Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies and improve national security..”

The fact that our nation needs so much “national security” is puzzling, given the fact that President Obama has declared himself leader of the front that has ended terrorism in the U.S. It seems like now, more than ever, our nation is in peril according to the State Department; but many U.S. citizens are asking themselves, “From what?”, or better yet, “From who?”

According to Obama, the items of confiscation, or shut down can include: wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, broadcasting, internet, and other key information systems. Never in United States’ history has a president given himself the authority to shut down the entire nation and immobilize the citizenry.

The public has been alerted recently that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been buying an excessive amount of weaponry and ammunitions; inclusive of hallow point bullets. DHS has also been given authority to “supervise” some protests throughout the nation. Tea Party groups have had several organized and peaceful protests circled by Department of Homeland Security officers, leading many to believe that DHS has been given the authority to intimidate as well.

If you combine bullets with nationwide immobilizing of all communications, the power given unto the government, is a power our founding fathers never foresaw, nor wished.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently announced that they had already used drones on Americans for surveillance. This is just one step closer to American’s journey towards a police state.


Is this IT?.. Is this Obama’s plan for the final takeover of our country’s Liberty and Freedom and the subjugation of all American citizens because the gig is up? HAVE  AMERICAN patriots  finally said to these grifters, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

WE the People shall SEE….stay tuned…

For the SNOWDEN FILES.. read from the beginning here:

Updates on Snowden’s groundbreaking one man fight to SAVE America will be posted here as it happens.



May 29, 2013


An IRS Scandal Inseparable from Obamacare

The IRS attempts to save Obamacare by unilaterally declaring that it will disregard the law.

Thanks to ubiquitous if imperfectly honest press coverage, most Americans know about the IRS scandal involving tax-exempt applications from various Tea Party groups. The public is still, however, getting the mushroom treatment on two other outrages by that rogue agency. The media have devoted scant coverage to its theft of 60 million medical records, now the subject of a class action lawsuit, and they have been all but silent regarding the illegal IRS scheme to fund Obamacare’s federal insurance exchanges.

As scary as is the medical record theft, which I wrote about here last week, the more important of these two additional scandals involves IRS skullduggery relating to the exchanges. A year ago, the IRS finalized a regulatory ruling to the effect that it will issue tax credits through Obamacare’s federal insurance exchangesy is that such a big deal? Well, the IRS has been granted no legal authority, by the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or any other act of Congress, to issue such credits. In fact, the ruling flouts the explicit language of Obamacare.

PPACA stipulates that all such assistance must emanate from state-run exchanges. Even if the federal government sets up an exchange in a state that has declined to do so, it wouldn’t be authorized to issue tax credits. And because 27 states have refused to set up exchanges, this restriction will cripple Obamacare. Without the ability to dole out tax credits and subsidies in more than half of the states, the Beltway bureaucrats attempting to implement the much-despised “reform” law will be hamstrung.

The IRS is attempting to save Obamacare by unilaterally declaring that it will issue tax credits through all exchanges, federal and state alike. Immediately upon the promulgation of this rule, a number of experts on the health care law pointed out that it was illegal. In a paper for Health Matrix, Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon wrote, “The plain text of the Act only authorizes premium-assistance tax credits … for those who purchase plans on state-run Exchanges.”

Adler and Cannon go on to spell out the breathtaking scope of this IRS plan to offer tax credits through all exchanges: “[T]he IRS is attempting to create two entitlements not authorized by Congress.” Michael Gerson, one of the few who have addressed this in the MSM, puts it thus: “The IRS seized the authority to spend about $800 billion over 10 years on benefits that were not authorized by Congress.” In other words, the IRS has arrogated “The Power of the Purse,” a right reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

This is obviously an unprecedented and dangerous power grab. And it gets worse. Adler and Cannon also point out that the arbitrary IRS rule will allow it “to tax employers whom Congress did not authorize the agency to tax.” Just as PPACA stipulates that tax credits can only be issued through state-run exchanges, it also says that employer mandates can only originate from these entities. Therefore, the IRS isn’t legally authorized to fine noncompliant businesses in a state that has refused to set up an exchange.

Yet it clearly intends to do so. As it did with the tax-exempt applications of conservative groups and the confidential medical records of millions of U.S. citizens, the IRS plans to simply disregard the law. Because of the harm this feature of the rule will inflict on many businesses, it has generated several lawsuits. The most promising of these was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of small businesses challenging the rule as an extralegal expansion of Obamacare.

According to Michael Carvin, one of the attorneys representing the group, “The IRS rule we are challenging is at war with [PPACA’s] plain language and completely rewrites the deal that Congress made with the states on running these insurance exchanges.” Another of the group’s lawyers put the rule in context thus: “ObamaCare is already an incredibly massive program. For the IRS to expand it even more, without congressional authorization and in a manner aimed at undercutting state choice, is flagrantly illegal.”

It will come as no surprise that this illegal expansion of Obamacare involved at least one of the IRS officials at the center of the Tea Party scandal. According to United Liberty’s Brian Gilmore, the regulation has short-lived Commissioner Steven Miller’s “fingerprints all over it.” Indeed, Gilmore reports that it was Miller who approved it: “Page 30400 of the Federal Register states you-know-who as having approved the regulation: ‘Steven T. Miller, [then] Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: May 16, 2012.’”

Interestingly, that was two weeks after Miller was informed that “applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups were … singled out for extra scrutiny.” And yet we are told by the hot shot “reporters” of the establishment media that the metastasizing IRS scandals have nothing to do with Obamacare. In reality, the IRS scandals and the crime against democracy known as the “Affordable Care Act” are symptoms of a single disease, merely the two most obvious pustules of an administration scabrous with corruption.

As long as the voters allow this sick regime to stay in office, we can expect it to use the IRS and any other handy bureaucracy to target its political enemies and to issue illegal decrees. They have little respect for the law and less for the voters. There is only one cure for this disease: Obama, his congressional accomplices, and the enabling media must be replaced by people with at least a passing familiarity with ethics and integrity.

A few comments by ATB:

Call your Congressmen …Let them know… (that YOU know) they are obligated to stand up to these usurpation of powers by the Federal government now….

This is a must read…if left to stand …it is the Trojan Horse that destroys this nation…the Gestapho IRS has usurped the power of the purse and of Congress…

Read the above thoroughly and you’ll understand the arrogance of the IRS officials who testified before Congress…they understand completely what Congress doesn’t …they’ve made Congress completely irrelevant …the IRS has usurped their every power.

Once it was determined that the American people hated Obamacare and didn´t want it, this corrupt Administration went into action fitting its various Agencies with non-existent powers to do that which Congress won´t.

“[T]he IRS is attempting to create two entitlements not authorized by Congress.”

Once again, Obama is doing an end-run around Congress, knowing full well that Congress won´t get his agenda passed for him. So Obama creates powers he hopes no one will examine.

This is seminal to our liberty and freedom. Every news outlet, including talk radio, should let Americans know that this President doesn´t have the power to do half the things he is doing.

THAT is the real scandal here; enabling his Agencies to do that which the various ACTS don´t


Obama will continue throwing fastballs — from multiple fields..

….overwhelming and diluting any message the opposition might have…

Everything is on the line and he and his communist cabal are all in for 2014. America will cease to exist if they win.

Did you just get your email from the White House? Subject: Faith? …Letting you know how our caring and
decent president is helping those in OK …and today helping in NJ?…and how you too can join him …as he’s there to “steer you in the right direction”

He dares us to oppose him…as his jackals are ready to pounce:


A filibuster dare? Obama reportedly plans three simultaneous nominations to DC Circuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

President Obama is reportedly planning a bold move after winning approval for Srikanth “Sri” Srinivasan for a spot on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In a “more aggressive” strategy, Obama plans to nominate three people simultaneously to the federal appeals court, the New York Timesreports. “He will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees,” the story says. An announcement could come this week.

With Srinivasan’s confirmation, the court currently has four judges who are Democratic appointees and four who are Republican appointees. However, five out of six senior judges are Republican appointees, giving the court “a strongly conservative flavor,” the Times says.

Some names that have surfaced as possible nominees include Georgetown law professor Cornelia Pillard, who formerly worked for the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; consumer and investor lawyer David Frederick, who worked for five years in the Solicitor General’s office; and appellate lawyerPatricia Ann Millett of Akin Gump, who worked for a decade in the Solicitor General’s office.

Democrats plan to schedule several confirmation votes on federal court nominees this summer, which could bring attention to the filibuster issue if votes are blocked. Some Democrats hope the publicity could lead to a rule change that would prevent filibusters of judicial nominees, the story says.


UPDATES DAILY: An incestual mainstream press- The WH struggling to coverup scandals..

May 12, 2013

Don’t Blow It on Benghazi: The Focus Must Be Obama, NOT HILLARY CLINTON!

America could be on the cusp of a great victory–a victory for accountability and truth. The Benghazi debacle is, at last, breaking into the public consciousness. Indeed, in its outlines, finally visible as the coverup unravels, Benghazi is starting to look like a scandal, bringing up memories of an earlier scandal, Watergate.

Yet the Republicans could still blow it, not only for themselves, but much more importantly, for the country. They could blow it, that is, if they make the terrible mistake of turning an honest and necessary inquiry about the events of 2012 and 2013 into a contrived exercise in political positioning for 2016.

Yes, I am looking at you, Karl Rove. After your abysmal campaign performance in 2012, it’s painfully evident that your too-clever-by-half tricks in 2013–injecting your presidential-campaign-style attack spot into the Benghazi investigation–could undercut your own party yet again.

We’ll get back to Rove in the third installment, but first, let’s assess where we are on Benghazi.

As we all know by now, the Obama administration bungled everything about Benghazi on September 11, 2012, leading to the tragic death of our ambassador and three more brave Americans. Yet at the same time, we must admit that the administration was successful in covering up its own fecklessness–at least well enough to get through last year’s presidential election.

Yet in the last few days, that coverup has been uncovered, as all Americans can now see. [snip]

Speaking of coverups and the obstruction of justice, I might add that for me, as someone who experienced Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal firsthand back in the 70s, the memories of that sordid mess have all come flooding back as I think on this new sordid mess.

The cliché of scandals is that it’s usually not the incident itself that’s so serious, but rather, the cover-up of the incident. That was certainly true of Watergate; yes, it was a criminal conspiracy from the outset–a conspiracy to rig the re-election of Richard Nixon–but it’s not clear that Nixon knew about it in advance. Yet he did know soon after the June 17, 1972 break-in, and instead of cleaning house, he helped to cover it up. That’s what turned Watergate from a election scandal into an impeachment scandal. [snip]

But of course, then Obama would have had to cancel his campaign events, hunker down in the White House, and prove himself to be a real commander-in-chief. [snip]

It never seems to have occurred to Obama, or anyone else in his administration, that the Benghazi tragedy required some sort of midcourse correction, away from campaigning and toward governing. No, the campaign strategy had been set in Chicago long before: The Obama re-election campaign was predicated on the idea that the 44th President had killed Osama Bin Laden and won the war on terror.

So Obama’s team was all assembled for that famous photo in the White House Situation Room as they awaited the news of the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan on May 1, 2011. But then, more than a year later, a new attack by Al Qaeda on a new 9/11 simply wasn’t part of the carefully laid out campaign script. And since campaigning was paramount,the Al Qaeda role in the Benghazi attack had to be airbrushed out by the White House–with the aid, of course, of an adoring media.

Thus the terrorist assassins became, in the Obama narrative, just an unruly mob, fired up by some dumb Mohammed video made in California. Once that cover story was settled upon, that was the beginning of the cover-up of Benghazi.

As the rubble in Benghazi was still smoldering, the President declared, on September 12, 2012, “We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” And then he was aboard Air Force One, off to Las Vegas, for a rally and fundraiser.

The immediate question, of course, is what Obama left behind in Washington D.C. that day. Increasingly, it appears that he left his underlings in Washington to work out the new and dishonest Benghazi narrative–the cover-up. The goal was to insulate the President from all this bad news–he had nothing to do with it. Isn’t it interesting, for example, that no photos were ever released of the President working on the Benghazi crisis on the night of the attacks? Nope, with the November election just six weeks away, the White House strategy was clear: The President was to kept far, far away from anything that might make the votes wonder if they had the right commander-in-chief.

Thus we come to the more important question–the ultimate question: What did the President know? (and when did he know it?)

Everything else, in the long run, flows from that. Obama might not know it or think it, but he is, as JFK said more than a half-century ago, “the responsible officer of this government.” That is, the President is primary in the Benghazi saga; inquiries into the role of anyone else–including the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton–are decidedly secondary or even tertiary. In an investigation such as this, we shouldn’t be looking to the capillaries, or even the arteries; we should be going right to the heart–Obama. If others wish to obscure his role, well, we must seek to clarify his role.

Yet even as we keep our focus on the President, we still have to understand how his men and women acted on his behalf.

The first document of the cover-up, of course, were those dozen-times rewritten Benghazi talking points, the ones that Susan Rice used to mislead the nation on September 16, 2012–five ways to Sunday, one might say. We might immediately note that the Mohammed video never appears in those “talkers.” It was only in the days to come that the blame-the-video narrative was repeated by not only the President, but also the Vice President, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and everyone else in the administration. So there’s a mystery to be unraveled? Who dropped the Mohammed video argument into the national dialogue?

So who was ultimately in charge of those talking points? Not Hillary Clinton, nor her State Department. Instead, the buck seems to have stopped at the White House–but nowhere near the President, of course.

Instead, it was a second-tier functionary at the National Security Council who took the lead. The key figure seems to be one Ben Rhodes, whose title is deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and speechwriting–which should be translated to, “spinning and talking-point massaging.” He was the main rewrite guy.

But here’s where the cover-up gets even more interesting. How so? Because, after all, Rhodes is not in charge of the NSC. And if the actual head of the NSC doesn’t leap to mind, well, that’s proof that the plan is working. What plan? The plan to keep Tom Donilon out of the news and out of the line of fire.

The Benghazi cover-up at the White House was, in fact, a double cover-up. As we have seen, the President was to be insulated from Benghazi. But so, too, was someone else. That someone else is Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser at the White House, who is, of course, Ben Rhodes’ boss at the National Security Council. So if Rhodes is doing something as vital as managing the Benghazi message, we can be reasonably sure that Donilon was all over it. We can be reasonably sure of it, that it, but what we can’t actually see it, because Donilon has chosen to become politically invisible. Yes, if you and I haven’t heard much of Donilon lately, that’s not an accident; even though he is very ambitious, he has always been a behind-the-scenes player. And he’s been very behind-the-scenes for these past eight months.

I consider Donilon to be the greatest spinner and string-puller working in Washington today, and those talents have been good for his career. He started out as a political hack who then parlayed those talents into a gig that made him millions at Fannie Mae . And while the Fannie scandal has destroyed many Beltway careers, and deservedly so, Donilon managed to worm his way up into the highest rung of US national-security policymaking.

Yet not surprisingly, Donilon’s rise has been terrible for the country. I have warned about Donilon extensively in the past, noting, in particular, his skill as a master-leaker and news master-manipulator. In particular, Donilon has been in the middle of the Stuxnet leaks from last year–the leaks designed to make the Obama administration look tough against Iran. And although many Washington leaders, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) were forthright in expressing their concerns about the leaks, and in suggesting that the White House was involved, nothing happened to anyone in the White House–certainly not Donilon. So perhaps that’s how Donilon developed the hubristic arrogance to think that he could leak and spin anything, even Benghazi.

As an aside, to see Donilon in action, we might take another look at that famous Sit Room photo from May 1, 2011. Look closely at the picture: Who’s the dominant figure? It’s not Obama; he’s hunched down on the side. No, the alpha male in the shot is the bluff fellow in the blue-green shirt, his arms sternly folded across his chest–Tom Donilon. These things don’t happen by accident; it’s Donilon, not the others, who runs the Sit Room, and he is smart enough to know where to stand. Does that seem petty? Sure it does. Is it petty? Sure it is. Welcome to Washington.

However, Donilon’s skills seem to have stopped there, with his ability to look commanding in a photo. By contrast, his command of American foreign policy and national security is considerably weaker–more like atrocious.

Donilon could have gone to the President after Benghazi and suggested that course-correction. Donilon could have said, “Mr. President, the situation has changed. You must face up to the challenge of terror and confront it head on.” Once again, not only would such a new and resolute course of action have been the right thing to do, but it would have proven to be, as a residual result, good politics for Obama, as well. Yet Donilon, whom I have known for 35 years, isn’t that smart. If he ever knew that JFK had said, in the wake of the Bay of Pigs back in 1961, “I am the responsible officer,” he obviously failed to grasp the positive impact of forthright candor.

Lacking any larger vision of his own job, Donilon just defaulted to what he knew best–conniving and cover-upping. And conniving and cover-upping not only for Obama, but also for himself. Instead, he was the offstage orchestra conductor, and the maestro; he orchestrated a campaign to of minimize, marginalize, misdirect, and mislead the country.

Yet even Donilon could also see that the Benghazi cover-story effort was not going to be a particularly happy experience for anyone. And so Donilon himself went underground–a hard feat for a national security adviser. Yet Donilon, the “invisible man” when he wants to be–and with the help of a dependent and subservient press–has so far gotten away with it. Thus it’s Ben Rhodes getting kicked around, not his boss.

If the only issue were who is getting credit when things are good (Donilon and Bin Laden), and discredit when things bad (Rhodes and Benghazi), then West Wing power games would be, well, a somewhat amusing little game.

However, as we know, the stakes are much higher than any mere game, In fact, the echoes between Benghazi and Watergate are eerie, indeed. Yet the stakes are, in fact, much higher because they go to not only the credibility of the presidency, but also to the security of the country.

Yet as we learned in Watergate–or should have learned, anyway–a complicated cover-up conspiracy cannot succeed. So Tom Donilon and his tactics are not only a cancer on the presidency, but they are also, by now, a threat to Obama’s credibility and legacy.

Most of all, though, Donilon and his ways, now metastasized across the federal government, are a threat to the United States of America.


Next: The Eerie Parallels Between Benghazi and Watergate

You can read Cadell’s very enlightening article in it’s entirety here:


Yes, there is more than one scandal brewing in a White House cauldron of LIES! Let’s begin at the beginning. What was Amb Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place with little or no security just the bare minimum of locals providing protection?

In order to get to the bottom of this mystery, the daily news reports are forced to work backwards until they arrive at the beginning. In my opinion, we must establish why Christoper Stevens was asked to go to Benghazi (at the May 2012 Correspondent’s Dinner) by Obama? That answer has been bandied about in several reports but nothing concrete has yet been established except for the fact it was about GUNS- Were those gun made in the USA? Were they leftover guns from Kadaffi’s storehouse? Why was it imperative to use the Ambassador to collect those guns?  Obama asking him to accept the mission at the Correspondents Dinner? (these questions have yet to receive clear concise answers. So they remain at the forefront of our questions list until they are answered as the beginning of the ‘Benghazi Odyssey” of Chris Stevens.)

Here is a recent compilation posted in The New Yorker by Alex Koppelman, entitled “Spinning Benghazi”. I suggest you open the links (as you go) for the details before you continue reading if you are not aware of all the facts as this story is pieced together.

“Spinning Benghazi”

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:


“The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.”

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

The New Yorker link

For reading about the incestual press aiding in the coverup read here:

The Boston Marathon Bombing was an indirect blowback from Benghazi…

April 23, 2013

Obama’s blood trail from Benghazi to Boston

If we persist on taking a myopic view of the incidents happening over the last seven months, we are missing the totality of the transformation of our country under a globalist agenda. I know, it’s as stretch taxing our minds connecting these dots but as painful as it has been for us over recent months, it must be done to understand the metamorphosis taking place in our country before our very eyes.

Are you still wondering why it seems there is no opposition to our democratically controlled government? Where is the outrage from Republicans over the safety of the country? Where is the deafening roar of outrage we heard during the Lewinski scandal?

Why the branding of Bill Clinton by Republican minions as unfit for the presidency shouted from the rooftops and the sordid details of the affair played out 24/7 on tv by Big media in special reports, as the country was in a state of so called peril, triggering the House of Representatives to call for Impeachment proceedings to begin immediately?

Was Bill Clinton guilty of attempting to shred and break the Constitution by taking our guns from our cold dead hands? Was he demanding citizens say nothing negative about the Irish out of fear we were offending their sensibilities or insulting their beliefs in their lifelong Catholic/Protestant religions?

Hardly- He had an affair people. Like so many members of Congress, the very people who condemned him. Later on one by one they confessed to their so-called youthful indiscretions..example [sic] House Manager, Henry Hyde.. (keeping a mistress and supporting a child out of wedlock.)

(the Clinton comparison is strictly for gaining a perspective to the current threats before us and the unrelenting undoing of our Constitution by Executive fiat)

What do the murders of four Americans in Benghazi have to do with the murders of three in a terrorist attack in Boston? Plenty, if you understand what you are seeing in the abstract expressionism of the Jackson Pollock painting is actually a blood trail, and the Pollock painting you are closely studying is an exact reproduction of one of his earlier works. It is a reproduction of a reproduction. We’ve seen this picture before, a bloodstained tangle of lies being sold to us as an artistic masterpiece. But you have to step farther back, not closer to the painting, to actually see the blood trail.

(the illustration at the link is a Pollack painting revealing traces of blood after a forensic examination by art experts.) I will defer to this article helping you gain a much wider perspective written by By Doug Hagmann @ Canada Free Press.

Read it until you realize we are under attack while we sleep- Benghazi and the Boston Bombings are the overt examples that have to be explained away by our government as diverse unrelated events that are unfortunate but do happen occasionally but under the watchful eye of Homeland Security “we will ensure they never happen again.”

Does anyone still remember the terror attack and murders of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? Does anyone still care?

In the wake of the bombings in Boston and amid information the government and media does not want you, the average American citizen to know, motive and causation make a lot of difference. Compare Clinton’s terse response to questions surrounding Benghazi with that of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whose testosterone levels rose sharply as she decided that she would not even dignify Congressman Jeff Duncan’s questioning last week about the reported involvement of a Saudi national identified as Abdulrahman Ali Isa al-Salami al-Harbi, a/k/a Abdulrahman al Harbi.

The Saudi connections

In the event you don’t recognize that name associated with the Boston bombing, the media initially reported that a Saudi national, later determined to be al Harbi, was under guard at a Boston hospital after being injured in the attack. He was seen running from the explosions and tackled by police a short distance from the bombing site. During the normal investigative process of al Harbi, investigators learned that he was reportedly the subject of an alleged deportation order under Section 212 3B Immigration & Nationality Act regarding “Security an”, but completely unrelated to Boston. To get on this list requires some pretty substantial evidence. To be removed from this list is practically impossible, short of detention or death.

Amid the flurry of media reports that followed, however, his name and status at the hospital were gradually and methodically being erased from news reports and people’s memories. An intentional government and media brown-out turned into a noticeable blackout, even while federal authorities were searching his fifth floor apartment at 364 Ocean Avenue, Revere, MA and removing various items for forensic analysis.

Before the last items were taken from his apartment, I am told, orders were given to immediately stop any investigation of al Harbi. Suddenly and inexplicably, al Harbi became off limits, and a few federal agents are angry and want to know why.

His status under Section 212 3B was reportedly rescinded about 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, and he suddenly enjoyed protective status on orders from the ‘highest levels of our government’, but not before Congressman Duncan had a copy of the 212 3B status of al Harbi. Additionally, it is reported, not only was the order rescinded, but his file was made to appear as if the order never existed in the first place.

According to sources close to this author, al Harbi became the primary focus of a high level diplomatic meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal on Tuesday morning, the day after the marathon bombing and the day before his status suddenly changed. The 10:00 am meeting was abruptly closed to the media with only minutes notice, something that rarely happens. The reason, according to sources with “knowledge” of the matter, is due to the classification of al Harbi as a person of interest in the marathon bombing and his status as a Saudi “elite”.

The aforementioned file alteration and status were changed following this meeting, and arrangements were reportedly made for him to leave the United States. As all of this reportedly took place in such a very short period of time, it is important to understand that the alleged changes had to have the approval at the level of the U.S. Secretary of State, or higher. It was done on behalf of the Saudis, with approval and direction from the highest levels of our own government. Why is this important to the events in Boston and Benghazi?

Benghazi to Boston: the Saudi agenda & shielding the truth

First, don’t get stuck in the minutia of al Harbi, just be aware of it and who is behind it. Instead, look at the larger picture. To be clear, al Harbi himself is not the main story here. It’s bigger than that, and the problem is that people are not thinking big enough. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in place to finish what was started long ago. Now, the players under Obama and a complicit press are shielding the truth from the American people. We are not being told the truth about anything, from Benghazi to Boston, and the common factor in all of this is Saudi Arabia.

Our intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia began in earnest (most recently) under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear by now that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one. We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Understanding this should explain that the right-left paradigm is a historical artifact, and provide prospective in terms of how the government is pushing this agenda towards completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within.

We’ve learned from the 2001 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to doing their dirty work. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, they have infiltrated many, if not all levels of our government. As stated, this did not begin under Obama, but was expanded under him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense? (do notice the lack of complicity and inclusion of one name…Clinton)

We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured operation.

Just as the situation involving al Harbi provides us with a window into this agenda, Benghazi provides us with that same window. Unraveling the truth from the lies in both instances will show just how deep the U.S. is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.

Remember this? Obama bowing to the Saudi King? Now you know why!

Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI KNEW the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, under the Obama regime, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.

Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East, and warned Obama not to meddle in the affairs of Syria, which he described as their ‘red line in the sand’. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is the backdoor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.

Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were the paymasters for this operation, but are duplicitous.

Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon to be China-with no peaceful end in sight as the U.S. continues to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the internationalists, the international bankers, and the global elite. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.

Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a sole Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of the Pollock painting. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.

The path to WW III

Like the Pollock paintings, people must be able to see the connections—the blood trails—that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists by our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and in some cases, siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or freeing people from oppression, but creating a new world order.

Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same template reproductions of the paintings, yet don’t recognize it.

We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.

The ‘elected’ are the ‘elect’ vying for a future seat at the global table. They are hidden amid the entanglements of the Pollock work. They are the very ones who will lead us into global conflict.

So when you see the next massive manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from the painting to identify. While we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions. That is assuming, of course, there is anyone left to ask such questions.

Step back and look at the larger picture. See the blood trail that extends among the continents.

It you want the Truth of what is happening to our country, you won’t find it on American TV. You will have to search out the Truth yourself from overseas reports or read here for new postings.

The ‘Uncle Tom-ing’ of Ben Carson Begins:

March 24, 2013

by Larry O’Connor
Ben Carson

MSNBC host and commentator Touré fired a clear and distinct shot at Dr. Ben Carson Friday, hammering the African-American Presidential Medal of Freedom winner for daring to challenge the Obamadoxy parroted by Touré and progressive journalists bent on supporting the President’s policies at all costs.

Dr. Ben Carson splashed onto the national stage with his blistering criticism of ObamaCare last month at the National Prayer breakfast, with President Obama seated just a few feet away. Carson is a heroic surgeon, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, who performed groundbreaking medical miracles at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is a brilliant and passionate advocate for free market principals, individual responsibility, and the freedoms and liberty embodied in resistance to bloated big government programs like ObamaCare. He also happens to be black. Therefore, he must be stopped, now.

Like Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell (until he got the message) and Herman Cain before him, Carson will now be the target of the most vile and reprehensible kinds of criticism from black progressives like Touré and his colleague Al Sharpton. A black man who doesn’t blindly support the president and the big government programs that has created a dependency on government that has crippled America’s underclass is susceptible to name calling that, otherwise, would not be tolerated in American political discourse.

On his show, Touré said this of Carson:

“Carson is a brilliant medical thinker but he’s got intellectual tumors like a flat tax, which is regressive, and ignorant in the face of wealth inequality where the top 1% own 35% and the bottom 60% own 2.3%. I doubt Jesus would tax them equally. Just as I doubt the GOP would entertain a white non-politician with unserious ideas. But Carson has joined the GOP’s version of affirmative action, where blacks that can speak conservative game get raced to the front of the line because then people get to put a bumper sticker on their car that say, ‘How could I be racist? I would have voted for Carson!’ Which would fit nicely over the bumper sticker saying, ‘How could I be racist? I would have voted for Cain?’ Which fit nicely over the bumper sticker saying, ‘How could I be racist? I would have voted for Allen West!'”

Yes, any black friend will do, no matter how far outside the political system they emerge from and no matter how unserious their ideas are. Because it’s all make believe. None of them will ever get a nomination for the Presidency, just as the GOP will never get black votes, because the only thing they care about is winning and not the economic or social needs of black people. But in the meantime, imagine away you guys.

At CPAC Carson said, ‘Let’s say you magically put me in the White House.’ But, my brother, no magic is required to accomplish that. As soon as the sequester ends, you could take a White House tour.

Let’s be clear:  Touré holds black men up to a different (lower or higher, not sure) standard when they criticize the President.  He expects black people to think a certain way and pounces when they step out of line and express a different set of ideas than what Touré believes they should believe, due to their skin color. Because Carson is a black man, he is therefore the beneficiary of affirmitive action, in Touré’s mind, and if he dares to present an opposing view from MSNBC’s Obamadoxy, he is an Uncle Tom and betrayer of his race.

In short, Touré has a special contempt for black men who criticize President Obama.  There may be many different interpretations of the definition of racial prejudice and/or racism, but my understanding of racism is that it is the belief that humans are divided into distinct groups based upon their skin color and genetic make-up, and those groups are expected to behave and think in certain ways (inferior or superior) solely based upon their race.  Touré’s special loathing of Dr. Carson may not be based upon his race, but it certainly appears to be.  And if that doesn’t fall under the description of racism, then I would really appreciate it if Touré could explain the distinction to me, because I’m having trouble seeing it.

Court Slaps Down Obama for Hip Pocket Ilegal Amnesty…

March 11, 2013

Court Rules Obama DHS Violated FOIA with Stealth Amnesty Secrecy
Meaning: As was said by a former Secret Service Agent..Obama and Napolitano released thousands of illegal aliens who should have been deported..

Judicial Watch recently earned a major victory against the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in its efforts to uncover records detailing the Obama administration’s “stealth amnesty” initiative. And with DHS releasing thousands of illegal alien criminals onto the streets, it could not have come at a better time.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that the Obama DHS had failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records related to the agency’s policy of suspending some illegal alien deportations. The opinion was issued by The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Our FOIA lawsuit concerns a DHS policy, implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which led to the reduction of the deportation docket in Houston, Texas, by dismissing pending enforcement proceedings against illegal immigrants who DHS claimed did not have serious criminal records. (Now we know this was a lie. Judicial Watch uncovered records showing that multiple deportation cases were dismissed against illegal immigrants who had committed serious felonies. But more on that in a moment.)

In the old days–and by the “old days” I mean 2010–this was called “stealth amnesty.” But there’s nothing “stealth” about the Obama administration’s amnesty campaign now. According to the Associated Press, since mid-February, the Obama administration has openly and proudly released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation from jail. Reports indicate that it plans to release 3,000 more this month.

Regarding our lawsuit and the court victory, we filed our original FOIA request with DHS on August 30, 2010, and a subsequent lawsuit on March 23, 2011, after the DHS refused to release the requested records. On January 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court denied a DHS motion to dismiss in part, chastising the agency for its inadequate explanations and giving it one “final” opportunity to establish the applicability of certain privileges in withholding the information from Judicial Watch.

In the February 28, 2013, decision, the District Court ruled that with respect to a substantial number of documents at issue, DHS had continued to withhold information improperly under the “attorney-client” and attorney “work-product” privileges:

Regarding DHS attempts to withhold information under an attorney-client privilege, the court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch, declaring, “[E]ach of these documents appears to concern nothing more than the implementation of an agency policy, the withholding of which runs counter to the [DC] Circuit’s [earlier] admonition that a government attorney’s ‘advice on political, strategic, or policy issues [is] not … shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.’” (The court drew a similar conclusion regarding the DHS effort to withhold information in order to protect attorney “work-product.”)

The records at issue concern internal DHS controversy over how the Houston ICE officials were interpreting the Obama administration’s narrowed immigration enforcement priorities.

Documents previously uncovered by JW show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of its immigration enforcement policy change, which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases–including the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes. So don’t believe the Obama administration’s lie that public safety is not at issue here. I believe people will die as a result of this new policy. (I cited my reasons for pessimism in last week’s update.)

But this ruling is good news at a time when the country really needs it.

It proves the Obama administration is willing to go to any extent–including gaming the courts–to continue stonewalling the full story of its lawless release of illegal aliens. Now, with the prison floodgates being thrown open to illegal aliens under the phony pretense of abiding by sequester cuts, it is more important that details of this threat to the public safety be revealed.

We’re pleased the court would not allow DHS to continue its contempt for FOIA law. We look forward to getting those records.


How Obama Turned America into Venezuela; tout de suite..

by Daniel Greenfield

Hugo Chavez’s death was met with tributes from Iran, Bolivia, China and El Salvador. The Western left did not waste much time adding their withered roses to El Comandante’s coffin. George Galloway called him another Spartacus. Jimmy Carter described him as a leader who fought for the “neglected and trampled.” Michael Moore praised him for declaring that the oil belongs to the people.

Whether or not the oil belongs to the people is a matter of some debate considering how much of it ended up in Chavez’s pocket.

Chavez died with an estimated net worth of 2 billion dollars making him the 4th richest man in Venezuela and the 49th richest man in Latin America.

While the Bolivarian Spartacus lined his pockets with oil money, Venezuela’s middle-class was struggling to get by in a country where the private sector had imploded. Income increased on paper, but decreased in reality. Around the same time that Comrade Hugo was launching the third phase of his Bolivarian Revolution, inflation had decreased household income 8.8 percent while consumer goods prices increased 27 percent.On his deathbed, Hugo Chavez devalued his country’s currency for the fifth time by 32 percent, after tripling the deficit during his previous term when the national debt had increased by 90 percent. From 2008 to 2011, Chavez’s oil-rich government increased the debt by nearly 50 billion in a country of less than 30 million. That same year, The Economist speculated that Venezuela might go bankrupt.

Chavez had swollen the ranks of Venezuela’s public employees to 2.5 million in a country where the 15-64 population numbered only 18 million. With 1 public employee to every 7 working adults, the entire mess was subsidized by oil exports and debt. When the price of oil fell, only debt was left.Those public employees became Chavez’s campaign staff with no choice but to vote for him or see their positions wiped out to keep the economy from crashing. And they won him one last election.

The dead tyrant leaves behind the lowest GDP growth rate and highest inflation rate in Latin America. He leaves behind an economy where more than half the population depends on government benefits or government jobs. He leaves behind a giant pile of debt for the people and 2 billion dollars in misappropriated oil money for his heirs.

But we don’t need to look to a leftist banana republic south of the border to see how profitable fighting for the poor can be.

7 of the 10 richest counties in America are now in the Washington D.C. area. Arlington County alone added $6,000 to its average income in one year alone. D.C. and its bedroom communities got rich at twice the rate of the rest of the country and in the last election; Obama won 8 of the 10 richest counties in the country.

Washington D.C. is richer than Silicon Valley. Median income in the D.C. area hit $84,523 despite the city itself having horrendous unemployment and poverty statistics. The top 5 percent in D.C. earns 60% more than the top 5 percent in other cities and 54 times what the bottom fifth earns in that same city.

This wealth of government money isn’t a rising tide that lifts all boats. Income inequality in Washington D.C. is one of the worst in the nation. For families with children, the income inequality level in D.C. is double the average for the rest of the country.

But when you concentrate the wealth of the land in a single imperial city, then you end up with a sharp gap between the poor and the fighters for the poor. Mid-level jobs are disappearing, but high-level jobs continue to grow. Small businesses are going out of business, but lawyers and consultants are being hired at a breathtaking rate.

Washington D.C. has the highest concentration of lawyers in the country. 1 out of every 12 city residents is a lawyer. 1 in 25 of the country’s lawyers lives in Washington D.C. In 2009, the Office of Personnel Management reported that there were 31,797 practicing lawyers in the Federal government earning an average salary of $127,500 a year. Or to put it another way, the taxpayers were spending double Hugo Chavez’s 2 billion dollar net worth each year just to pay the lawyers.

That was in 2009. The numbers have undoubtedly gotten much worse since.

That same year there were 383,000 federal civilian workers with six figure salaries. Multiply that and you get all the debt that Hugo Chavez dumped on Venezuela being dumped out in a single year on American taxpayers.

The number of Federal civilian employees is only slightly higher than in Chavez’s utopian Socialist paradise, but average Federal employee salary clocks in at a mean $75,000.

Federal civilian employee wages and benefits run around $200 billion. The cost of the Federal workforce in a single year is more than double Venezuela’s entire national debt. During Nixon’s first year in office, $200 billion would have covered the entire Federal budget. Now it’s just the paychecks. In the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees welfare and food stamps, among other things, 1,461 of HHS’ 64,750 employees earn over $155,000.

While the Obama Administration fires marines, it hires more civilian employees. 101 new Federal employees have been hired every day of Obama’s first term in office. In 1962, there were more American military personnel than Federal civilian employees. The number of military personnel has dropped sharply, but the number of civilian employees is higher now than it was then. And their salaries have become much higher.

But the civilian employees are only part of the picture. The massive deficit spending has turned Washington D.C. into a treasure trove of government grants and stimulus plans on the favor train. The national debt grew by 6 trillion dollars in one term of Obama adding $50,521 in debt per household. That money was used to buy favors and support across the country.

While Obama ran on a platform of taking care of the poor, he was raiding the social safety net to buy support from a coalition of billionaires that paid him back with bundled contributions and SuperPACs. Green Energy tycoons got rich on loans and grants, while the middle class imploded. Billions in taxpayer money was traded for millions in contributions in one of the dirtiest deals to take place outside an actual banana republic.

Like Chavez, Obama presides over a poorer country whose poor are convinced that he is the only thing standing between them and absolute poverty. Deficit spending and high debt has destroyed any potential for GDP growth leaving America looking like an oversized version of Venezuela.

The new America is not a booming economy, but a political power structure built on unsustainable spending. Like Chavez, Obama has created an impossible trap that leaves half the country dependent on him and leaves his opponents with no alternative but to propose some form of austerity. It is an economic kamikaze maneuver that invariably ends with economic or political destruction.Obama, like Chavez, has made economic recovery structurally impossible, perpetuating poverty in order to profit politically from the national state of misery. Chavez died before the consequences of his economic policies caught up with Venezuela. Like Chavez, Obama won a contentious election, but he has no easy escape from the economic destruction coming up on the road ahead.


Hillary WILL run in 2016, claims wealthy Greek donor (who says Bill told him)

February 13, 2013

Hillary WILL run in 2016, claims wealthy Greek donor (who says Bill told him)

By Leslie Larson
13 February 2013

A wealthy Democratic donor is fanning the flames of speculation that Hillary Clinton is indeed running for president.

Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos says Bill Clinton has confirmed the presumed plan that the former Secretary of State will make a bid for the White House again.


The millionaire told the Greek Reporter that Clinton’s husband revealed his wife’s political ambition, as the power couple gear up for a 2016 race.

Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos (left) was a key fundraiser for Team Hillary during her first presidential bid.

‘Hillary will be our next President and she will be a great one,’ Mr Tsakopoulos told the Greek Reporter at a private gala event in California over the weekend.

His daughter, Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, was appointed Ambassador to Hungary in 2010

‘I talk to her husband, and he confirmed it. She will run,’ he added. Reps from the Clinton camp have publicly addressed his statements.

Hillary Clinton’s political plans are considered the worst kept secret in Washington.

Though the 65-year-old, who left the State Department in January, claims she has no set agenda for the future it has been widely thought that she still has her eye on the Oval Office.

Just days after she handed over the reins of the State Department to former Mass. Sen. John Kerry, she launched a new website with the mysterious web address

The website features a glamorous photo of the diplomat but provides no information on its purpose, other than the option for a visitor to enter their contact information.

She has long stated that she would be taking time to rest and not focusing on her long-term plans.

In December, she suffered a concussion and was hospitalized briefly for a blood clot near her brain.

She previously sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, against then Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

She and her husband fought tooth and nail against the rising Democratic star, who ultimately proved victorious.

Though the indefatigable political pair had to lick their wounds when Mr Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination, they eventually got in line to support the party and then Sen. Clinton (D-NY) was appointed Secretary of State under the 44th president.

But she has maintained a powerful circle of supporters who have continued to express their hope that she would run again.

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Will Run for President in 2016 – Confirmed


Obama Campaigns Delays Budget Release by a Week…. And Then..

February 5, 2013

Obama Sequestration Request Calling For Short-Term Budget Fix To Delay Automatic Cuts

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is asking Congress for a short-term deficit reduction package of spending cuts and tax revenue that will delay the effective date of steeper automatic cuts now scheduled to kick in on March 1. Obama said the looming cuts would be economically damaging and must be avoided.

The president reiterated his insistence on long-term deficit reduction that combines taxes and cuts, a blend that faces stiff resistance from anti-tax Republicans in Congress.

Obama made his case Tuesday afternoon in the White House briefing room, just minutes after the Congressional Budget Office released revised budget projections that showed the deficit will drop to $845 billion this year, the first time during Obama’s presidency that the red ink would fall below $1 trillion. The budget office also said the economy will grow slowly in 2013, hindered by a tax increase enacted in January and by the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect this spring.

It is those cuts that Obama is seeking to put off with less onerous measures. Neither the president nor White House aides specified what those measures should be.

“There’s no reason that the jobs of thousands of American who work in national security or education or clean energy, not to mention the growth of the entire economy, should be put in jeopardy just because folks in Washington couldn’t come together to eliminate a few special interest tax loopholes or government programs that we agree need some reform,” he said.

Obama said Congress needs more time to work out a 10-year plan worth more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. Obama did not place a time span or a dollar amount on the short-term plan. Officials said he will leave that to Congress.

His request comes as some congressional Republicans were signaling that they might allow the automatic cuts to kick in as the only viable means of achieving deficit reduction, even though it cut into programs they support, such as defense.

The president’s request would continue what has become a common practice in Washington – dealing with fiscal issues in small steps in hopes that over time Congress and the administration are able to agree on broader and more lasting policies. In his remarks, Obama alluded to the incremental nature of the work ahead.

“Let’s keep on chipping away at this problem together, as Democrats and Republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead,” Obama said.

read the rest :



The Obama administration announced January 23rd it will release its proposed budget  Feb. 13, a week later than scheduled.

“As in previous years, the date was determined based on the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document,” said an announcement from the Office of Management and Budget.

(OMB also announced it will not be providing free bound copies of the document to the media, calling it a cost-saving measure.)

Congressional Republicans blasted the delayed budget. Under federal law, the president must submit a budget by the first Monday in February. As a result, that last day before the deadline has become the de facto date.

But Obama violated the law last year with a one-week delay, and he’s doing it again this year.

“This will mark the third time in four years the president has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time, while trillion-dollar budget deficits continue to mount,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Ryan added: “As the President announces another missed deadline, tomorrow marks the 1,000th day Senate Democrats have gone without any budget at all.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, called it “an inauspicious way to launch his State of the Union address.”

“In this, the final year of his term, one would think he would be ready and eager to lay out his detailed plan for our nation’s financial future,” Sessions said. “He speaks of the American people’s economic suffering, yet he would, at such a time, delay fulfilling this fundamental duty on their behalf.”

And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a former White House budget director in the Bush administration, suggested Obama get off the campaign trail.

“I’m incredibly concerned that, with a record national debt now equal to 100% of our GDP, the president is unable to put forward a plan to address Washington’s out of control debt and deficits,” Portman said. “If I were advising President Obama, I’d recommend less time campaigning and more time spent addressing the impending fiscal crisis. We need a budget with a responsible spending restraint and pro-growth reforms, and WE NEED IT NOW!



January 24, 2013


Closer look at the president’s role in Libya aftermath

What was he doing during and after attack?


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!)


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!



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…

January 21, 2013

Communist nation could control American land as ‘development zones’


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:



World View: Discussion of China’s Directive to ‘Get Ready for War’

by John J. Xenakis


This morning’s key headlines from

  • 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


SHOWDOWN at the OK Corral?

January 15, 2013



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



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.


Supreme Court to hear case on Obama’s alleged forged documents

January 10, 2013

See Link for all 4 photos

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

January 2, 2013


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…


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.


Senate Report Confirms Obama Lied When He Linked Benghazi To Mohammed Film On September 18th…

( – 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…

December 22, 2012

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.


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.



You will be astonished at the number of school shootings.

A New Assault Coming on 2nd Amendment Rights?

December 15, 2012

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.

SOROS Ties To The Muslim Brotherhood….

December 10, 2012

You’ve heard the warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood before. The radicals who have designs on all Muslim countries and seek to destroy the West and Israel have met with members of the Obama administration and have been infiltrating U.S. government and society for years.

Now, in a Blaze Magazine exclusive, we reveal that left-wing sugar daddy George Soros has some unnerving ties to the radical Islamist movement that is seeking to take over Egypt and the rest of the Middle East, implement Shariah law and establish a global caliphate.

For those familiar with George Soros and his myriad organizations–from the Open Society Institute to the International Crisis Group–the billionaire financier’s long and distinct history of promoting far-Left causes both at home and abroad is well known.

But the mention of Soros actually joining forces with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood takes radical political activism to an entirely new level, conjuring up images of an unholy alliance forged in the fiery pits of Mordor.

But Soros does have ties to and had joined forces with the Brotherhood.

And we have the evidence.

For example:

*A 2008 report from Soros’ International Crisis Group (ICG) titled “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?” strongly urged the normalization and “regularization” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “participation” in Egyptian political life, including by “ceasing” arrests of Muslim Brothers and “setting guidelines for the establishment of a political party with religious reference.” According to the ICG, these measures, if executed, would prove Egypt’s “wider commitment to political pluralism.” The ICG’s “integration” report also trivialized the crackdown on the Brotherhood as “dangerously short-sighted.”

*The spokesmen for Soros’ ICG are none other than former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher (who also oversees research at the Soros-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) and onetime U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head and current Brotherhood-endorsed interim Egyptian steward Mohamed ElBaradei. Soros, Muasher and ElBaradei all have a nasty habit of minimizing the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood.

*Soros’ buddy Muasher, doing his best impression of a Chicago politician, referred to the Middle East uprisings and breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian talks as a “crisis” that “would be a terrible thing to waste.”

And that’s only the tip of the radical-family iceberg.

Of course, this fits right in with Soros’ anti-Israel agenda.

In a February 2011 op-ed Soros wrote for the Washington Post, the Left’s favorite moneyman unilaterally decided America’s power and influence in the world had all but vanished and trivialized U.S. and Israeli fears over the civil unrest in Egypt. Soros dismissed the idea that dissidents who sought to topple the Mubarak regime would be the least bit hostile to Israel.

Soros even went so far as to say the opposition was “not advancing a theocratic agenda at all” and then praised the only organized political force in the region–the Muslim Brotherhood.

Consistently referring to Israel as the “stumbling block” to peace in the Middle East, Soros made no bones about his hopes for the Brotherhood. He even heartily encouraged giving the Muslim Brotherhood a place at Egypt’s social and political table when the country’s streets erupted in flames in early 2011.

Soros urged President Obama to stand with the revolution in Egypt–and lamenting Israel’s being in the way.



FRANCE May be the first to FALL to the US NEXT?

November 28, 2012

Sharia Law may claim it’s first European Country, France. Having the highest number of Muslim immigrants of any European country some 15 million Muslims now live in France. Will the Muslim takeover of France be breaking ground for more European countries to fall?   Will the French government buckle, allowing Sharia Law to be the Law of the Land? The French government is blacking out their media refusing to cover news of Islam’s radical undertaking.

“A broad coalition of groups from across France came together because they feel they’re losing their country to radical Islam, Sharia law, and a politically correct establishment that encourages the spread of Islam.”

“Sharia law is slowly being enforced in our country and we want to march here to protest that because our government is doing nothing,” one French demonstrator said.

“The French people — they want to defend their culture, their history – they are called ‘fascists,’” one woman said.

“I don’t think it’s only a problem of France. It’s a problem of Europe. It’s also a problem for the U.S.A.,” another protestor said.

Then you have the ‘Islamization’ of Paris:

“If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.”
French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.

“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.

The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.

Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.

But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.

“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”

“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”

Here is a WARNING from a former Muslim :

To the infidels of the West:

The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction.

We will fight the infidel to death. 

– Meanwhile American laws will protect us.
– Democrats Leftist will support us.

N.G.O.s will legitimize us.
C.A.I.R. will incubate us.
– The A.C.L.U. will empower us.
Western Universities will educate us.
– Mosques will shelter us
– O.P.E.C. will finance us
Hollywood will love us.
– Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses.

Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools.

We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.

We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost. Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest.

We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US.

Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mixed with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?

We are the sleeper cells.

Protests in Alexandria, Cairo

Protests in Alexandria, Cairo and other cities were sparked by edicts issued last week by President Mohammed Morsi. In Alexandria, protesters broke into the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Nov. 27)


Obama Fired Military Officers Because He ‘Fears a Coup’

November 22, 2012

GUILT is trailing Obama like a shadow he can’t shake. Maybe because the military’s VOTES WERE NEVER COUNTED for the 2012 Election? Lots to feel guilty about.

Firings always HELP Barack sleep better at night..

According to (shadowy anonymous blogger) Sorcha Faal the Russian military’s GRU foreign intelligence unit presented a report to Kremlin leadership late last month that said Obama removed one of the United States Navy’s most powerful admirals from his command (in the wake of Benghazi 9/11) specifically because he fears a military coup is being planned against him.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette
Photo Courtesy of USS Stennis/US Navy via BlackFive

On 9/11/2012, that officer –Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, commander of Carrier Strike Group Three in the Middle East- apparently felt obligated to come to the aid of besieged US defenses at the Benghazi consulate, violating an utterly bewildering White House command he probably had a hard time believing was even being made. Gaouette was said to be attempting to help AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham, also purged by Obama for violating of an obstinate White House insistence to ‘stand down’.

Ham considered himself bound-by-duty to take action, but the story goes that his second-in-command -a likely Obammunist- promptly stepped-right-up and informed him he’d just been ‘relieved of his command’, effective immediately- General Ham was then physically apprehended/arrested.

General Carter Ham

Subsequently -and despite Navy claims that he was NOT ‘replaced’ due to Benghazi– Admiral Gaouette was otherwise inexplicably removed as Carrier Strike Group commander on October 27th…


US news reports on Obama’s unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette’s removal was for ‘allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment’ that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East.

This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to ‘assist and provide intelligence for’ American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama.

And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders: ‘The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of AFRICOM received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down.
His response was ‘screw it’, he was going to help anyhow.

Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command…’








BREAKING: Gaza Ceasefire That Took Effect Last Night

( And The Back Story)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Egyptian equivalent Mohamed Kamel Amr held a joint press conference today announcing a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel with Egypt as a mediating partner.

The deal basically takes effect at 8 PM local time. Both sides are to cease attacks on each other, Israel is to cease targeting Hamas leaders, and to take some undefined steps to ease its sea blockade of Gaza after a 24-hour period.

Now,here’s what actually happened.

According to a couple of my notorious lil’ birdies who are very much in a position to know, the Israelis fully intended to go into Gaza and eradicate Hamas. A country like Israel doesn’t call up that many reserves and affect its economy unless they were serious about the matter.

But then the Obama Administration intervened.

They were perfectly happy for Israel to go in to Gaza and take out Hamas, but insisted that they then turn Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority. This was supposed to strengthen PA President Mahmoud Abbas as ‘Palestine’s savior’ . As as a kicker, President Obama insisted that Israel immediately declare a Palestinian State in Gaza and most of Judea and Samaria, including areas currently under Israeli sovereignty from which the Jewish residents would then be removed. These were also to be turned over to Abbas.

If the Israelis were unwilling to have the IDF do Mahmoud Abbas’ dirty work for him and then give up large areas populated by Jews, then the Obama Administration told the Israelis the U.S. would not back an IDF ground assault in Gaza.

So they Israelis took the ceasefire, essentially meaning that Hamas is going to be left in place to regroup and fight another day. And can claim a victory.

That’s way Israel appeared to be delaying their ground operation for so long..the real back and forth was between the Obama Administration and Israel.

As a sop for being cooperative, President Obama said in a statement that he congratulated PM Netanyahu for accepting the truce and that the US would use the opportunity offered by a ceasefire to intensify efforts to help Israel address its security needs, especially the issue of the smuggling of weapons and explosives into Gaza.

How what is going to happen is, shall we say, problematical? Apparently – wait for it- The White House expects the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt to take charge of policing Hamas. After all, that approach worked so well in keeping Hezbollah in Lebanon from rearming after the 2006 war, even with a UN peacekeeping force on the ground.

The President also said that he was committed to seeking additional funding for Iron Dome and other US-Israel missile defense programs.

What’s really behind this, of course, is an effort to strengthen Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government as a regional player and improve ties between the Islamists and the U.S.

It also takes the heat off Morsi, had Israel gone into Gaza, there would have been widespread agitating for Egypt to send ‘volunteers’ to fight the Israelis.

We’ll see if this takes hold. I’d be surprised if it didn’t, since it’s mostly on Hamas’ terms.


Surprise: Obama forced Netanyahu to accept one-sided pro-Hamas ‘cease fire’

Here’s yet another indication that President Obama (without even the consent of  ‘moderate‘ ‘Palestinian‘ President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen forced Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept a ‘cease fire’ arrangement that is favorable to Hamas (Hat Tip: Ricky G).

Obama “commended [Israel’s] Prime Minister for agreeing to the Egyptian ceasefire proposal – which the President recommended the Prime Minster do,” said the 12.31 a.m. EST statement from the White House.

The cease-fire terms released by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s office do not mention any measures to penalize Hamas for launching another wave of rocket attacks against Israel.

“A. Israel should stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals. … All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border,” said the statement.

The announcement also seems to accept Hamas’s demand for an end to Israeli restrictions on the importation of military-related items into the enclave, and its ban on movement of Hamas’ people from Gaza to the nearby West Bank, which is ruled by an unpopular Arab authority that has curbed attacks against Israel.

“Refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire,” said the announcement.

The announcement does not include mechanisms to enforce Hamas’s compliance. “Each party shall commit itself not to perform any acts that would breach this understanding,” said the statement.

The absence of any enforceable terms in an inconclusive cease-fire agreement, which would still prevent Israel’s threatened ground movement into the enclave, will be touted as a victory by Hamas and its allies.

Hamas’ allies wanted to stop an Israeli movement that could have killed many of Hamas’s jihadis and leaders, destroyed more of their hidden weapons and demonstrated their inability to maintain control of their territory.

Also, any cease-fire arrangement without terms is a de facto rejection by the United States and Egypt of Israel’s goals for peace.

Israel’s government had sought new curbs on Hamas’ ability to smuggle rockets and other weapons into the enclave, and for the creation of a kilometer-wide buffer zone between Israel and Gaza. They sought the buffer because local jihadis routinely launch rockets at Israeli border patrols and farmers.

Morsi and Hamas are ideological allies.

Hamas is the Gaza-based affiliate of the international Muslim Brotherhood Islamist movement, which is based in Egypt.

It should be clear that the only way Israel agrees to such a one-sided arrangement (although admittedly, it should also infuriate Abu Mazen – see below) is that President Obama forces the Prime Minister’s hand. In other words, Bibi caved in again. Why?

There’s an election two months from today. Netanyahu does not want to give his opposition more ammunition about how he has spoiled Israel’s relations with the United States – something which is assigned way too high a value here in my humble opinion. Now, suppose Bibi wins. Does he continue to kiss Obama’s butt after the election, at least for some period of time. My guess is yes because (a) he wants Obama to strike Iran or at least not veto an Israeli strike and (b) unlike the US, a Prime Minister of Israel has no limit on the number of terms he can serve (Bibi has already served two) but is subject to his government falling at any time. Bibi may be afraid that Obama can bring him down if he’s not a good boy.

But Bibi is wrong. As much stock as Israelis put in their relations with the US, they also recognize that there are no good relations to be had with this President. Had Bibi defied Obama, the public would have backed him. The proof? A Channel 2 poll taken before the cease fire went into effect on Wednesday night found that 70% of the Israeli public opposes the cease fire, only 24% favors it, and only 7% believe it will last.  And you can bet that most of that 24% was not aware of the provisions I highlighted above. So he caved in to Obama needlessly, at least from a political perspective.

Finally, this agreement has a message for Abu Mazen as well. The provision that allows Hamas terrorists to travel to Judea and Samaria is bound to undermine Abu Mazen’s rule there, and is undoubtedly blowback for Abu Mazen’s continued insistence (including Wednesday in his meeting with Secretary of State Clinton) on pushing ahead with the UN vote. Obama essentially told him that if he won’t play ball, he will be replaced by Hamas. Obama also proved to Abu Mazen that he can bend Netanyahu and force him to make the concessions Abu Mazen wants him to make. Will Abu Mazen get another chance/? Maybe. Or maybe Obama has decided that he is going to try to force Israel to reach an agreement with Hamas.

It’s a long time to 2016….


WH Throws CIA Under the Bus

November 18, 2012

The White House is doubling down on their assertions that they did not have the proper information when they sent Susan Rice out to the Sunday talk shows to claim the Benghazi attack was due to a video. They claim that the only edit they made to the information given them was to change the name of the attacked facility from “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said Saturday:

“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment. The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.

Rhodes said that the White House changed “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”  He continued, “Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

It had to be the CIA that screwed up, not the White House, right? Sure it was, Rhodes asserted:”I can’t speak to what the process is within the CIA.  (The administration) indicated we believed extremists were involved. The president himself called it an ‘act of terror,’ right? So you have an initial assessment, an initial judgment, but you’re able to get more specific as … the investigation proceeds. That’s going to be the natural progression of events.”

According to insiders who heard the testimony of General David Petraeus on Friday, he said that he had quickly concluded after the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that the talking points that administration officials used erased the reference to a terrorist attack.

Rhodes finished throwing the CIA under the bus like this:

 The focus of this has often been on public statements that were made by Susan Rice and other administration officials in that first week after the attack, those were informed by unclassified talking points that were provided to the Congress and the other agencies in the rest of the administration by the intelligence community. So that’s what informed our public statements. Now if there were adjustments to them made by the intelligence community, that’s common and that’s something they would have done themselves. Yet officials inside the White House apparently have  confessed  that the White House knew within 72 hours of the attack that it was al-Qaeda operated. And knowing that the attack was likely being viewed in the situation room of the White House as it occurred makes it virtually impossible to believe that the White House would have eschewed getting information from the CIA immediately. information that Petraeus has acknowledged confirmed it was a terrorist attack.

The question is this: is the CIA willing to go to the rack on behalf of a White House that is throwing it under the bus?



Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga said: White House cut al-Qaida in talking points!

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 (UPI)Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said on “Fox News Sunday” every agency representative who testified last week before the Intelligence Committee on the deadly attack in Benghazi claimed not to know who “edited” the controversial talking points in which U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said the raid was the result of an impromptu street demonstration

“Everybody there was asked, do you know who made these changes?” Chambliss said. “Nobody knew. The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the White House.

“What I do know is that every member of the intelligence community says that references to al-Qaida were removed by somebody, and they don’t know who,” Chambliss added.

Another committee member, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Ind-Conn., told Fox there was still confusion over Rice and the talking points but he considered the debate to be less significant than larger questions about the State Department’s handling of diplomatic security in Libya at a time when intelligence indicated al-Qaida and other militants were setting up shop in the unstable country.

“With what we know now about the intelligence on the terrorists who were in the vicinity of Benghazi, it was in my opinion irresponsible to have our State Department personnel there, with only three security guards,” Lieberman said. “Either we should have given them the protection they deserved, or should have closed that mission in Benghazi, as the British government had done a short while before.”



November 14, 2012

This is all the information we have right now..

(UPDATE: See below)

So far this is only a breaking headline at Fox News, but the word on Twitter is that former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify in both House and Senate intelligence committee hearings about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans and sacked our consulate in Benghazi.  That reverses the previous announcements that Petraeus would decline to testify and have acting DCI Michael Morell handle Congress in his stead.

We’ll add more as the story develops.  This probably won’t mean any big surprises in the Benghazi story line, but it will give Congress an opening to demand answers on how the White House decided to push the spontaneous-movie-review meme for so long in the face of the overwhelming data that the attack was both deliberate and well-planned, with paramilitary forces, materiel, and tactics.

Fox does have a story link up, but with little detail as of yet.




Petraeus to testify before Congress on Benghazi attack

Former CIA Director David H. Petraeus has agreed to testify before Congress about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, The Washington Times has learned.

Mr. Petraeus will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Petraeus will testify Thursday morning before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill and before the Senate Intelligence Committee at an off-site location, a congressional source said.

Mr. Petraeus had cancelled his scheduled appearance before the Senate panel on Thursday after he resigned as CIA director on Friday amid revelations he had an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell

Lawmakers will focus what the CIA knew before, during and after the Benghazi attack, and whether its account differs from that of the White House.

However, they also are likely to ask about his affair, whether it compromised national security and whether he disclosed any classified information to Mrs. Broadwell.

During an Oct. 26 speech at the University of Colorado, Mrs. Broadwell talked about the Benghazi attack and suggested it was an attempt to free militants being held in the CIA’s annex building. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

The FBI also found classified material on Mrs. Broadwell’s computer, but she has said she did not receive it from Mr. Petraeus

Wash Times


Petraeus Resigns Rather than LIE for Obama..

November 10, 2012

The Lie… “Obama said: It was the amateur 15 min video that caused a protest in Benghazi which led to the death of 4 Americans including the brutal death of the US Ambassador to Libya.”

My information is that Petraeus did not resign because of the affair he mentions in his resignation latter. My information is that Petraeus quit because he misled carefully the relevant intelligence committees on their inquiries on the Benghazi tragedy in the first wave of investigation in September and October.

Am told that Petraeus did not testify to the committees while under oath. Am told that Petraeus did not want to return to the Hill under oath next week and confront the inconsistencies in his remarks about the CIA’s part in the fiasco.

The impolite word is “lie.” The White House developed the “hateful video” explanation on September 11/12. It was nakedly fallacious. Petraeus did not correct the record in public.

The election stalled a full Congressional inquiry. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not take to the idea of a commission, however Senator Diane Feinstein has the whip hand with her intelligence committee in the Senate.

The House will proceed at all possible speed in the Lame Duck. This will go far and high. The leaking is daily and brutal. At risk right away is the administration’s plan to advance Susan Rice, perhaps as the next Secretary of State.

However all the principals of the national security apparatus are at risk, Tom Donilon, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, President and Vice President. It appears that the American people were purposefully misinformed by the Obama administration. Why, what purpose? The election? Or worse?

Why did the DCI keep silent?


Romney WON- Obama’s Win was a MISTAKE…

November 8, 2012

So much flexibility, so little time.

Data Points To A Powerful Romney Campaign – And Yet…He Lost?

Forensic auditors remain completely confounded as to how the reported #s and final results appear to directly conflict with data such as appears in this link.


Here is a brief summary of just how well Mitt Romney did in shifting voters toward him in 2012 versus what took place in 2008:

Mitt Romney earned MORE Republican votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.

Barack Obama earned FEWER Black votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.

Mitt Romney by the way, earned MORE Black votes in 2012 than were cast for the Republican in 2008.

Mitt Romney earned MORE votes from both married men and married woman than were cast for Republicans in 2008, while also improving support among non-married men and woman by 2% from 2008 as well.

Mitt Romney earned MORE votes among liberals, moderates, and conservatives than were cast for the Republican candidate in 2008 – in fact, this improvement was by a full 7% over 2008 – a very significant improvement.

Mitt Romney earned more votes from Protestants, Catholics, and Jews than the Republican nominee received in 2008, including a 9-point improvement among Jewish voters alone.

The two top issues according to voters were the economy and the budget. Mitt Romney earned A 38 POINT ADVANTAGE OVER BARACK OBAMA on the top two issues of the election – and yet Romney was somehow defeated?

Lastly, regarding the following three personal trait issues – strong leader, shares my values, and has a vision for the future, Mitt Romney DOMINATED Barack Obama among 2012 voters by 45 points. And lost the election?

Here is the link to the data via the Washington Post. It is stunning, some might even say inconceivable, that a candidate improves in such categories as overall votes among Whites AND minorities, is ranked far ahead of their opponent in both the top two concerns among voters, as well as the three most important personal trait issues – and still loses the election.

That is exactly what happened election night. Somehow, someway…that is what happened to Mitt Romney – and to all who supported him.


See link below – and the dramatic shift in Republicans’ favor in 2012 vs 2008. A shift the resulted in a confounding loss that remains dubious at best…

Exit polls 2012: How votes are shifting


WHY WERE THE: Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late? They  Would Have Swung Election For Romney

WASHINGTON, DC – Sources confirmed today that hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots were delivered hours after the deadline for them to be counted, with preliminary counts showing that they would have overturned the vote in several states and brought a victory for Governor Mitt Romney.

Officials say the ballots were delivered late due to problems within the military mail system. Tracking invoices show the ballots sat in a warehouse for a month, then they were accidentally labeled as ammunition and shipped to Afghanistan. At Camp Dwyer, Marine Sergeant John Davis signed for them and was surprised at the contents.

“I told Gunny we got a bunch of ballots instead of ammo,” Davis told investigators earlier today. “He told me to file a report of improper delivery and that the chain of command would take care of it. We didn’t hear anything for three weeks. While we were waiting we came under fire so we dumped a bunch of them in the Hescoes. We didn’t dig those ones back out.”

After military officials realized the initial error, the ballots were then sent back to the U.S. but suffered a series of setbacks.

Twelve boxes of ballots were dropped overboard during delivery to the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) in the Persian Gulf, then while the ship sailed to Bahrain, postal clerks allegedly pocketed whatever ballots they wanted.
Gunny’s Blog


The remaining absentee ballots were loaded onto a C-130, but the flight was delayed until November 1st so the crew could get tax free pay for the month. Once the ballots arrived stateside they were promptly mailed to each state’s counting facility, reaching their final destination on November 7th.

“It’s a shame,” Rear Admiral John Dawes said when asked for comment. “I expected a delay so I ordered that everyone cast their votes eight months ago. It’s really unfortunate that our mail system failed us and directly affected the course of history.”

Upon hearing the news, angry Republicans have begun a demand for a recount, but most military absentee voters have shrugged off the news, with many wondering whether the care packages their families sent six months ago were ever going to show up.



November 7, 2012

Now one of these two headlines isn’t True.  You’ll have to think a minute and guess which one is more believable.  Both of these statements have their own set of believability problems whether they are True or Not. The only believable reality we have is the electoral  vote system is beyond dysfunctional.

Jessie Jackson jr. WON re-election in spite of a serious ethics violations investigation from his temporary home for the last 6 months at the Mayo Clinic.

“Amid health issues that have kept him from office since June and various reports of bizarre behavior, U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.  was re-elected in Tuesday’s election. The Chicago Democrat cruised to an easy victory over Republican Brian Woodworth and Independent Marcus Lewis in Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District, according to the Associated Press. Jackson won 71.7 percent of the popular vote with 43 percent of precincts reporting. As of that time, Woodworth had 14.2 percent support.”


Jackson said in a statement from Mayo Clinic that he was “humbled and moved” by his constituents’ support.

“U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder earlier this year and has made no public appearances since early this summer,easily won re-election to his Chicago-area district Tuesday.

Jackson, a Democrat who has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1995, was expected to win despite his ailment and ethics questions hanging over him. He defeated Republican Brian Woodworth, a lawyer and professor at Olivet Nazarene University.”

As Chris Matthews said: ‘I’m so glad we had that storm last week'”

“In their gloating over Obama’s victory, members of the left are letting the mask slip. Chris Matthews, already notorious for his over the top enthusiasms for Obama, and vitriolic rhetoric toward conservatives, has actually reveled in the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy. For the left, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The Bolsheviks, too, were quite willing to let the people of Russia suffer, in pursuit of their utopia.

In their gloating over Obama’s victory, members of the left are letting the mask slip. Chris Matthews, already notorious for his over the top enthusiasms for Obama, and vitriolic rhetoric toward conservatives, has actually reveled in the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy. For the left, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The Bolsheviks, too, were quite willing to let the people of Russia suffer, in pursuit of their utopia, America, take note.



by Tellurian

Both questions have been answered- Obama was declared the winner of the 2012 presidential election without visible voter support. And as uncanny as it is,  a WIN was pulled off by a absentee candidate, Jessie Jackson jr, absent  from his official  office for the last six months living and in treatment at the Mayo Clinic for a bi-polar disorder was also re-elected last night.

Miracles of miracles… TWO miracles happening effortlessly without batting an eyelash!

So, let the BLAME GAMES begin.  Who or what is at fault here?

Was Romney too soft on Obama? Was his ‘nice’ guy approach just too unbearably ‘nice’ to crush the hopes of Obama loyalists for re-electing their candidate?

Or is it Governor Christie’s  fault?  Did a Republican by simply hugging Obama during his tour of the devastation inflicted on NJ residents by hurricane Sandy break Romney’s momentum so badly causing the needle to move far Left actually helping put Obama over the top to ultimately win the election?

Putting your your mind at ease- here is a quote by Gov Christie released this morning

“This morning, Christie made it clear,   “I told Gov. Romney at that time that if the storm landed as predicted that it was going to be catastrophic to New Jersey and unprecedented,” Christie said. “I said to him, ‘Listen, Mitt, if this storm hits the way I think it’s going to, I’m off the campaign trail from here to Election Day.’ And he said to me, ‘Chris, of course. Do your job, don’t worry about me. I’ll take care of things.’ So all this other noise, I think, is coming from know-nothing, disgruntled Romney staffers who, you know, don’t like the fact that I said nice things about the president of the United States. Well, that’s too bad for them.”

“He told me last Sunday night that he expected no other political travel or help from me over the course of the remaining time between then and the election, if in fact the storm hit the way it was projected,” Christie continued. “If it missed us, I would have been happy to go out on the road and help him. But it didn’t.”

So there you have it- It wasn’t Christie’s fault. Unless you think one moment of bi-partisanship in full public view is so powerful, it can win elections.  Which to my mind is too incredible to be believed.

Governor Romney was perfectly content to let Christie do his job taking care of his constituency before and after the Perfect Storm was to make landfall in NJ.  Christie was not the cause of Romney’s loss. Hurricane Sandy might qualify as a contributor to Romney’s loss but not in the conventional way we think of as obstructionism but more in the way of a distraction from our priorities of the moment.  Granted, many of Sandy’s victims were overwhelmed and rightly so, by the sheer destruction and loss of their homes and so little help forthcoming to them by FEMA the next day if anything they blamed ( Obama) the Federal government.  It isn’t a reach that depression and anger could overtake them resulting in an apathetic view of a dysfunctional government finally saying.. “I Give Up.” and not turn that anger into a vote for Romney.. I happen to think the effect would be the reverse.. Safe to say.. It wasn’t the dastardly fault of a hurricane either.

So here we are at ‘The Day After the Election’.. The question remains.  Who or what is to blame for Romney loss to a more than unqualified, unwanted  candidate who has done nothing in four years to stir a sustainable resurrection of our economy easing the suffering of distraught Americans without a home or a job?

Well we’ve had one viable option floating in the ether that seems to resonate as a distinct possibility as an underlying cause. VOTER FRAUD.

To back up a little, refreshing the histrionics of past experience lamenting what was done right  in front of our eyes during the Primary of 08′ to Hillary Clinton, all because the Dem Party arbitrarily decided she couldn’t win.

Even though the DNC  had sequestered the electoral votes from Florida and Michigan away from both candidates because both states had broken the primary rules of not changing the election dates chosen by the DNC.  The Rule stated, “If any state was to move the date of the primary chosen by the DNC, they would be severely penalized by the [DNC]  not having their electoral votes counted toward a democrat candidate or a penalty to be decided issued to the offending state at the discretion of the DNC.

To make a long story short. In their discretionary power, the DNC awarded all of the electoral votes to Obama even though Hillary won a majority vote in Florida and MI, where if you recall Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.. Electoral Theft before our very eyes.

So, is it within the scope of comprehension that last night’s election could have been stolen from Romney as well?  When we know in the waning days of the election, Obama’s venue attendance were shrieking before our eyes from tens of thousands to a mere 3 thousand, if that.  However, the venues at Romney’s venues were overflowing with tens of thousands in attendance. Thousands of people looking forward to seeing Romney walking up to a reported 4 miles to get to the rally site only to be turned away because the venues were severely overcrowded before they arrived.

In effect, through this preliminary process of elimination, it seems Voter Fraud is a distinct possibility.
How it was done this time, we do not yet know. But I guarantee you,  we are NOT about to let it stand.

So, your mission my friends, IS to STOP, LOOK and LISTEN.  Any information you find (there will be leaks) relating to this Grand Theft. Please get it out on the Internet. If it can be verified as TRUE, we will run with it as unstoppable as a freight train losing it’s brakes until this travesty to the American people is rectified.


A BETTER PRESIDENT and the BEST COUNTRY are Waiting for Your VOTE!

November 6, 2012

DON’T Disappoint Your COUNTRY-  VOTE for a Man who LOVES America!


HERE is Where We Begin:







Friends have told me today a MARATHON ALL NIGHT Prayer Vigil is taking place THROUGHOUT the COUNTRY!




Month Before Benghazi Attack: “Smoking Gun Warning Here”

November 1, 2012

“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You’ve got this emergency meeting in Benghazi, less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are ten, ten, Islamic militias and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The consulate can not sustain a coordinated attack and they need extra help. This information goes directly to the office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, again, you have the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they’re in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon,” FOX News’ Catherine Herridge reported on FOX News’ “On the Record” Wednesday night.

Read Herridge’s report here.

“I believe based on this cable the point that was being made, that they wanted made publicly, not just in a classified study, is that the warning that came from Benghazi was very specific. It said ‘we can not withstand an attack,’ the militias are everything, al-Qaeda is here. This was known to the U.S. intelligence community as well. And that they really could not see a situation where security was going to turn around. They send that it was trending negatively,” Herridge further reported.

“I can’t think of anything that would be more specific than if these groups had emailed the State Department and said, ‘Here’s the time, here’s the place, and here’s the method of the attack,'” she said.

“There can be no doubt that this is really a cry for help from the people on the ground,” Herridge told Greta van Susteren.

“If you couple this with the fact that we were coming up with the 9/11 anniversary and if you couple this with the statements that a videotape was somehow responsible, what you see is that is completely undercut. This cable says that, ‘The militias and al-Qaeda are here, we essentially think that we are next.’ So to take this attack and to suggest for such a long period of time that it was a video when you have classified cable and the intelligence, it just doesn’t match up,” she said.

“What I see is a growing body of evidence that the State Department has culpability for the death of the Ambassador and those three Americans,” Herridge declared. “The warnings were specific, they were direct, they name the enemy and they said that this consulate needed more support. And it also indicated in the cable that the consulate should probably move long-term into the annex. We now know that is the CIA facility in Benghazi.       Real Clear Politics



Gingrich: Senator Told Me Networks Have Emails From White House Ordering Team to Stand Down on Benghazi Rescue

UPDATE: ​The Obama administration has denied that anyone at the White House nixed any requests for assistance in Benghazi.

​Original story below:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday a U.S. senator told him that at least two news networks have emails from the White House ordering a counterterrorism team to stand down on a rescue mission at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “They were a group in real-time trying to mobilize Marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’”

He continued, “If that’s true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that’s true and that comes out in the next day or two, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And I think that’s very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

Gingrich said if accurate, it leaves two conclusions: that the the secretary of defense usurped the commander in chief or that Obama never gave the order.

“I think you are going to see this come back tomorrow and the next day,” he said.

Gingrich said he thinks Benghazi will be “enormous in terms of the election,” saying that he’s been to multiple places where voters want to know what happened.

“[Benghazi] was suspended for two days by the storm coverage, which dominated everything, but I think tomorrow as the storm begins to recede, you’ll see Benghazi come back,” he said

Watch below, via Fox News. Relevant portion begins at the 9:55 mark: (video w/Greta)




The White House Disinformation Campaign of Libya…

October 30, 2012

Something else the left wing media aren’t telling you about Benghazi

Witnesses who live near the U.S. Consulate report that Islamic terrorists were sealing off streets and setting up checkpoints two hours before the attacks began.

Debate has raged about who is responsible for the attack, which led to the deaths of four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Fingers have been pointed at Libyan Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, which increased in strength during the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and has a similar ideology to al-Qaeda. But the group has denied involvement, instead suggesting the attack was the result of a protest against the US-made, anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims”.

A longtime Military Insider gives a brief and searing response regarding whether or not U.S.military could have successfully been deployed in time to save Americans under attack by terrorists on September 11th at the American consulate in Benghazi.

MILITARY INSIDER:  How soon could we have gotten to Benghazi?  All that was needed to send those  -deleted-  scattering was one single F-18.  Range of app. 2k.  TS of over 1000mph.  Do the math.  We had that capability less than 500 miles away.   NASSIG would have had full armed deployment inside of 20.  From time of initial report to arming, to takeoff.  I’ve seen it done in less.  ETA  to consulate in less than hour.   Would have ripped a hole in the sky to get there.  This is exactly what we are trained for.  Just one flyer would have lit those  -deleted-  up inside of 10. Coordinates known.  That’s all our guys need.  Would have been precision termination.  Clean.  In/out.

Instead,  left on own to die out there. 

Not the first time.

WHC coordinating with State, others  to TS classify everything.  EVERYTHING. 

Shutting it all down. 

Significant activity out of NLSO on this as well. 

Have eyes.  Have ears.  Need mouths.

F-cking politicians.



If Obama Ordered Military To “Secure Our Personnel,” Where Is Proof Of That Order?

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Marine Bing West crushes the “fog of war” excuse laid out earlier by the Obama White House – namely challenging Barack Obama himself to show proof of the directive he told to the American people that he gave as terrorists were attacking the Benghazi compound.  Either Barack Obama lied, or his own military leaders refused to follow his directive.  Either way, he is unworthy to be given the responsibility of four more years as America’s Commander in Chief.

(Persistent questions remain as to why no help was given to Americans under attack by terrorists at the Benghazi com For hours these American fought back and waiting for that help to arrive.  It never did.  Barack Obama publicly claimed to have given a directive to “secure our personnel” – but no proof of that directive has yet been shown, and members of the American military are stating no directive was ever received.)


Our ambassador to Libya was killed in our own consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11. For the next six weeks, President Obama repeated the same talking point: The morning after the attack, he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region.

Suddenly, on the campaign trail in Denver on October 26, he changed his story. “The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”

Notice the repeated use of the present tense, implying that he gave the order during the attack. Mr. Obama met with his national-security team, including the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at 5:00 p.m. Washington time. 

…The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.

…Yet the general in charge of the Africa region has allegedly said he received no directive from Washington to dispatch military aid. Members of the mutual protective society of generals are offering the bizarre defense that our Africa Command could do nothing because it has no military assets; it’s some sort of ghost command. Even if that is true, the most powerful nation in the world has sufficient forces and flexibility to send fighter aircraft over a consulate in flames, or to land some troops at the secure airport east of Benghazi. After all, our embassy in Tripoli, 400 miles away, sent an aircraft with six Americans to fight in Benghazi. But our base in Sigonella, 480 miles away, sent no help.

Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.

Please read the entire article by Bing West  HERE  @ National Review

(ht/BareNakedIslam and of course, Ulsterman..

Father of Slain Benghazi SEAL: The White House Watched My Son Die & Did Nothing ..


OBAMA attempting to “Run Out the Clock” on Libyan Scandal…

October 29, 2012


“The White House itself   is  being careful about not making news. This is why no statement was released denying the Fox News report. If the Administration issues a denial, the CorruptMedia will be forced to cover the denial, which in turn will call attention to the story.

You bet it’s a big, fat naked conspiracy between the Obama campaign and the media. This is nothing more than a replay of the John Edwards scandal, where the media ignored an extra-marital affair until Edwards’ chances at being elected president disappeared.

I could be wrong about one thing, though; my speculation that this is an “unspoken” conspiracy. After Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin dropped her bombshell, it’s not hard to imagine David Axelrod burning up a Bat Phone that connects directly to the JournOlist Hotline and denying the story completely — off the record, of course — you know, so that the denial won’t…make news.

To be fair, it’s entirely possible there’s more to the story than what’s being reported, or that the White House has a good answer. But there’s no question the only response thus far has been a preventive-defense cone of silence. This is not an issue Obama or his media pals want to litigate now, not even with denials. ***But in a moral world, the media would be demanding this matter be cleared up before people cast their votes.*** We just don’t live in that world.

We are of the understanding the people just aren’t going to take it anymore. The SLEEPING GIANT HAS RISEN! saying:

“Our Intel & SpecOps community are refusing to be thrown under the OBAMA 2012 bus, the next “big” headline will make Fast & Furious pale in comparison,” Americans died hiding Obama gun running to al-Quada. We don’t need the LameStreamMedia™ anymore, thanks to Breitbart and FOX NEWS, we’re all “Big” now.”

Media Blackout?

We have a remedy. As Old fashioned and primitive as it is, IT WORKS!

If you are increasingly upset over the Mainstream Media’s refusal to honestly cover the Benghazi Massacre and cover-up in order to insulate Barack Obama and his failed administration from rightful blame, for the deaths of four Americans, I urge you now to let your feelings be known by those who control the networks. This process can begin today with your collective emails and phone calls specifically to COMCAST and NBC News (NBC Phone (212)-664-3720). This contact information is now available here to you here.

TOGETHER, YOU HAVE FAR MORE POWER THAN YOU MIGHT REALIZE. And if you wish to contact other news media, here is that information as well:

ABC Phone (212) 456-7777

CBS Phone (212) – 975-4321

CNN Phone (404) 827-1500





OBAMA Knew About the Benghazi Attack and Refused to Send HELP!

October 27, 2012

Clare Lopez was a guest on the Glenn Beck TV on Monday evening and told Beck, “They let our ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn’t do anything about it.”

Obama and Jarret BOTH knew Ambassador Stevens was in serious peril and needed HELP. Multiple requests for HELP by Ambassador Stevens while under attack were denied by Jarret and Obama. CIA personnel were ordered to STAND DOWN NOT ONCE but SEVERAL TIMES by Obama and Jarret.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request to help during Benghazi attack, sources say

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command meaning, the President– who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11..

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood claims that requests for support were turned down by the White House.
“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Watch “Special Report Investigates: Benghazi — New Revelations” on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi’s fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.  FOX NEWS


“Secretary Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said NO” Video

Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Klein explained that everyone knew what was happening in Benghazi from the CIA to the National Security Agency and that there’s intelligence cables that have not been released.

Wilkow asked, “If everybody knew this including the White House, who would have given the order to go in and save the ambassador?”

Klein, “The President…he should have given the order to use the rapid reaction force…”

Wilkow, “Not Petraeus?”

Klein, “Well it has to come from the president.”

Wilkow also asked Klein about Valerie Jarrett who’s the Senior Advisor to Obama and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and her role in this cover-up.

Klein said, “We don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes, and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without passing it by Valerie Jarrett”… so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett whose also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line…she has a direct line to David Axlerod, was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House.”

This latest news comes on the heels when the Paulding County Republican Examiner reported that former CIA officer, Clare Lopez was a guest on the Glenn Beck TV on Monday evening and told Beck, “They let our ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn’t do anything about it.” The Examiner


BENGHAZI is Obama’s Waterloo.. “They stood, and they watched, as our people DIED.”

October 24, 2012

Contradictory remarks from a former CIA commander regarding the Benghazi Massacre appears to confirm the repeated LIE told to the American public by the Obama administration regarding what really happened. And everyday, the picture of what the Obama administration did while the attack was happening begins to clarify and focus on Obama’s actions.

Report: U.S. Had Predator Drone Over Benghazi As Attack Happened, “They Stood And They Watched And Our People Died”…


So, What This Means… IS.. While our Ambassador and 3 Brave men affording undirected security by any authority to Chris Stevens; the Obama White House ALWAYS had the capability for defending the Ambassador from the armed assault on his residence with the use of UNMANNED DRONES. Instead the Obama White House STOOD AND WATCHED via a surveillance drone for over 6 hrs as the terrorist assault overpowered the embassy and his security team until they were SURE they all were dead..

The question is WHY did Obama want HIS TARGET, Ambassador CHRIS STEVENS, dead? What did Chris Stevens know that Obama was afraid he would reveal to the World? Was it something SO damaging to Obama, he was afraid if Stevens went public with his revelation, it would end up causing OBAMA to LOSE THE ELECTION?


Obama did NOTHING to HELP SAVE the lives of our Americans in Benghazi… when he had the POWER to DO SO!



Obama Calls Romney ‘A Bull******* ‘

by Michael Patrick Leahy 25 Oct 2012

Politico reported on Thursday that President Obama recently displayed his idea of “the new civility” in an interview with historian Douglas Brinkley for Rolling Stone:

FIRST LOOK – Rolling Stone cover, “Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview,” by Douglas Brinkley: “We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered.

‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”(emphasis added)

After four years of privately insulting his opponents, President Obama has decided it’s time to share his real approach to “cooperation” with the voting public just days before the election. Undecided voters are certain to notice the President’s demeanor. It’s a preview of the style and tone he’s likely to display if he were to be elected to a second term.   LINK


WILL TONIGHT’s DEBATE Help or Hurt Obama or Romney?

October 22, 2012

As president, you would have thought Obama would have laid out his vision for America by now? Obama has been campaigning for almost a year and has not mentioned any plans pertaining to the future of America. Perhaps, his campaign promises are coming back to haunt him by people who believed he was a man of his word and found out too late he wasn’t. Right now Obama’s word is looking pretty worthless to a country still ruminating within the straits of pain and austerity with no hope of any significant changes coming soon that will belie that fact. If anything, January 2013 will be a date to remember when a new Federal Tax is levied on services never taxed before. Taking Americans by surprise when they pick up their Dry Cleaning, have a tooth filled or any dental work for that matter advanced by a dentist, have their hair cut and styled by a barber or a hairdresser taxed with a Federal Excise tax on many non-taxable items including food, clothing and home heating oil.

That is if America continues in denial thinking Obama is actually going to do an about face helping Americans rather than nickle diming them to death with new Taxes and restrictive Work related regulations.

Unless a change of the presidency comes about 2 weeks from now.. we are doomed to suffer under the dictatorial hand of a disengaged president who cares only about himself, his family and his donors. As long as the flow of money is going north into Obama’s treasury, you can forget hoping for a change unless you agree voting for Romney is the better choice in this election.

Gallup: Romney Holds Steady +7 Lead

Today’s tracking poll from Gallup confirms that Romney has opened a consistent, and significant, lead in the race against President Obama. After dipping a point yesterday, the poll finds Romney again leading Obama by 7 points among likely voters, 52-45. Romney even leads by 3-points among registered voters, a sample which gives Democrats an advantage. The Gallup poll has been remarkably steady since Romney surged into the lead.

Significantly, most of this poll was conducted after Tuesday’s second presidential debate. Obama was more energetic in that debate. It would have been just about impossible to not be, but the performance hasn’t translated into any kind of bounce in polling for Obama. While he didn’t “lose” this week’s debate, he certainly hasn’t done anything to arrest his erosion in the polls.

A month ago, baseball statistician Nate Silver bragged that Gallup had correctly predicted 18 of the last 20 elections. Of course, Obama was leading the Gallup poll then. Now that Gallup shows Romney with a solid lead, Silver and the rest of the left are hell-bent on attacking Gallup’s credibility. In fact, in a textbook case of confirmation bias, Silver has greeted Romney’s rise in the Gallup poll by arguing that Obama’s chances of reelection have increased. Apparently, Romney’s rise in the polls is dooming his campaign.

Even if we allow that Gallup is overstating Romney’s lead, their results are consistent with virtually all other polling. State-level polling shows him maintaining solid leads in battlegrounds like North Carolina and Florida, tied or marginally ahead in Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa, and narrowing the gap in all the other swing states.

Other national polls that don’t use ridiculous turnout models all point to Romney edging Obama with just over two weeks to go.

The technical term for this is momentum. Romney’s campaign has all the hallmarks of a campaign that is surging at exactly the right, critical moment. While the Obama campaign obsesses over Big Bird, binders and word-games with Romney’s name, Romney has honed a substantive message that fits the times and resonates with voters.

Obama needs something very big to save his reelection. Time is running out. LINK



When Americans Are Murdered Obama Calls It “Not Optimal”

October 19, 2012

Likely the most bizarre and detached responses by a national politician to a terrorist attack and resulting loss of life EVER. Four Americans killed. The first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty in 35 years. Blood stained walls, explosions, gunfire, followed by denial, confusion, and a now ongoing cover up by the Obama administration and the President of the United States simply refers to all of that as “not optimal.” Obama then goes on to say he’ll “fix” the deaths of four Americans? How does one “fix” the fact somebody has died? Does Barack Obama now believe himself capable of bringing back the dead?

(Apparently, nothing makes Barack Obama smile like the opportunity to speak about dead Americans…)


‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL’: Obama’s extraordinary response to Comedy Central question about shifting story after Benghazi attack

President Barack Obama, during an interview to be shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.

Stewart asked: ‘Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? ’Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.

‘Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.’

Obama responded: ‘Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

He continued: ‘We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up.




Mother of Slain Diplomat To Obama – ” My Son Is Not Very Optimal – My Son Is Very Dead “

A clearly angry and disappointed mother of slain U.S. diplomat Sean Smith killed during a terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, fires back at Barack Obama’s remarks made on Comedy Central where he referred to the deaths of four Americans as “not optimal.”


The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as ‘not optimal’, saying: ‘My son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.’

During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the assault by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: ‘It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right.

‘How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.’ 


“NOT OPTIMAL”: President Barack Obama, discussed the killing of four men in Benghazi while speaking to Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show.


How U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked to Jihadist Rebels in Syria (And It Involves Weapons)

Hillary Clinton is not a doormat for Obama…

October 17, 2012

Hillary Clinton is far from being a doormat for anyone.

“First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat.” That’s what The Post’s Jennifer Rubin tweeted Monday.

Hillary Clinton attends a news conference in Lima, Peru.

Would anyone say that about a male secretary of state?    Very likely, no. If a man stood up and took responsibility for a failure in his department, he would be admired as handling the problem with a tough-as-nails manner. They would say a male secretary of state “manned up.”

Instead, conservatives are saying Obama should have manned up and Hillary should have stood down. That’s because conservatives want to make this an issue of gender when it clearly is not.

Take Sherman Frederick, who wrote in the Las Vegas Review-Journal that President Obama was hiding behind Hillary’s skirt. That echoes another tweet by Rubin. David Axelrod, an Obama adviser, tweeted to Rubin: “Sick. Mitt mouthpiece jumps shark.” Rubin replied: “so is Obama going to hide behind her skirt Tuesday night? Why would the president let Hillary end her career in disgrace?”

Then Rush Limbaugh opened his mouth Tuesday. He mimicked Rubin’s sentiments, saying, “The woman is a doormat, not a feminist leader. It’s the most amazing thing.” Of course, Limbaugh had to revisit Bill Clinton’s past sexual indiscretions against Hillary.

This shouldn’t be a psychosexual drama about how Hillary is strong and covered for Obama in an election year and Obama is a weakling who won’t take responsibility. It’s far from that.

Realistically, the federal government is massive.  Obama is obviously not overseeing the daily details in every department like state or micromanaging every embassy and diplomatic post on the planet. That’s why he appoints strong, intelligent people like Hillary.

Hillary said in the CNN interview Monday that she oversees the State Department, where information is often fluid. Within that department are security and intelligence officials who make decisions like whether a post in Libya needs more security.

Let’s be honest, though, Hillary can’t catch a break. When she was running against Obama for president, she was seen as an opportunist. Even her long-time admirer, the late writer Nora Ephron, said that many people thought back then that Hillary “will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe …”

Now that Hillary has taken an unsafe position on Libya, she is labeled an Obama administration scapegoat. The end to feminism does not arrive just because women now have power. It arrives when women are treated the same as men in the same position.

As one supporter in a forum dedicated to all things Hillary wrote: “She did not fall on her sword. She picked it up and lifted it over her head. She is going to get to the bottom of this. She has said so. It may appear to some that she has fallen on her sword, but that’s only because we see so rarely (except in her case) what she is exhibiting: real leadership.”

In 2007, Lakshmi Chaudhry wrote a story in The Nation quoting Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who said: “Put gender aside. Just treat her like you would any other candidate.” Perhaps we should take his words to heart now and treat her like any other secretary of state. WP- Suzie Parker


CNN: Clinton takes ‘full responsibility’ for security before Benghazi attack:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have  stepped up their criticism of the Obama administration’s actions before and since the attack, suggesting that the officials have not been transparent with the public about the incident, and more broadly arguing that it is evidence of a failed foreign policy strategy in the Middle East. LINK



Hillary takes responsibility for Libya but Obama’s terror policy is real problem

One of the most telling questions of the second town hall presidential debate was on Libya.

An audience member said he and his buddies had gotten together and wanted to know, “Who was it who denied enhanced security in Libya, and why?” The president dodged the question with lots of references about how no one wants the answer to that question, or cares more than he does, but in the end he didn’t answer the question.

Now you have to ask WHY?

Okay, it’s a cover up. But thanks to Secretary of State Clinton’s willingness to take the blame, it’s a coverup that’s succeeded….so far. And for the Obama administration, that’s good enough, as long as the “so far” extends to Election Day.

The mainstream media, like an overindulgent parent, believes the Obama administration’s excuses, and most people don’t care what happens half a world away when they don’t have jobs at home. Plus, as Secretary Clinton says, there is such a “fog of war” that we’re not sure what happened, never mind that the fog was deliberately created by the Obama administration’s own fog machine.

Looks like the Obama administration has gotten away with it.

But the real problem isn’t the intelligence failures, or security lapses or even the cover up. It’s the policy. Al Qaeda is NOT “on its heels,” as President Obama claimed at the Democratic Convention just five days before the Benghazi attack. Al Qaeda is larger and stronger than ever, and has moved into whole new regions in North Africa and the Middle East. The Benghazi attack was only the beginning.

Al Qaeda’s trademark is to have an escalating series of attacks until they are stopped in their tracks. They watch to see our reaction after each attack and, if we fail to retaliate, they do something even bolder the next time.

The Benghazi attack on September 11 was preceded by car bombs and assaults against British and American facilities in Benghazi throughout the summer. The September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City was preceded by attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen, and US embassies in Africa the year before, and failed attack on the Twin Towers a decade before.

Compare that to Ronald Reagan’s reaction when Col. Qaddafi bombed a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen in 1986. American soldiers were died and injured as a result. Reagan’s reaction? He bombed Qaddafi’s compound a week later. Qaddafi escaped injury, but he got the point. Don’t mess with America.

If you’re Al Qaeda how are you looking at the Benghazi attack? From your point of view it was an unqualified success – the Americans are now fighting amongst themselves, they’ve set up a commission to study what happened, and while they’re rattling a few sabers, they have yet to retaliate.

If you’re Al Qaeda you keep going. And what could be bigger and better than a dead American ambassador? FOX NEWS

Romney at Bat Looking for the Grand Slam… Obama batting ZERO in the 9th…

October 16, 2012

Obama could drive ‘a stake through his own heart’ in do-or-die debate against Romney tonight.Romney aide says tonight’s debate at Hofstra University, New York, could deal decisive blow to Obama’s re-election hopes. Obama has to turn the tide of momentum that Romney has built up following his stunning victory in first debate in Denver. Remains to be seen who will play better in more intimate ‘town hall’ format where audience fires questions at them.


by Tellurian

“WHO will make it through tonight as far as contests go;
The winner is a toss up, the game has more to show.
We shall hear the whys and wherefores of answers far too long;
Thankful for a timekeeper handy with a gong.”

“We are hoping for a fresh face with ideas for a new start;
We’ve tried the ‘Hope and Change’ and deemed it not too smart.
So off we go wondering what is in store to be our fate;
A Love for America hangs in the balance, we hope it’s not too late..”

The Romney campaign goes into tonight’s second presidential debate confident that the race has shifted decisively in their direction and that a below par performance by Barack Obama could doom him to defeat on November 6.


A senior adviser to Mitt Romney told MailOnline: ‘The President could drive a stake through the heart of his own campaign tonight if he’s not careful.

‘If he doesn’t give a vigorous enough defence of his last four years in office, if he tries to place blame everywhere else, if he doesn’t articulate what the next four years will look like beyond just giving away free stuff – if he fumbles all that, he drives a stake through his own heart.’

‘Can Romney connect? Can Barack Obama connect for that matter? Because at the end of the day Barack Obama is not the kind of communicator Bill Clinton was in that kind of format. Is he better at it than Mitt Romney. That’s the real question.

He added: ‘The stakes are huge for Obama. He has to stem the tide here with Mitt Romney in those swing states. He has to make a direct connection to voters but he also has to point out ideological differences and inconsistencies in Romney’s campaign message without seeming churlish or argumentative.


‘If Obama doesn’t connect with people it’ll be two debates in a row where he’s seemed disengaged or not ready to fight and think about the challenges ahead.’

Brabdender added on MSNBC that Romney’s 19 primary debates had helped him prevail against Obama, who before Denver had not debated since 2008.

‘I would argue that he [Romney] is better than the President today because having gone through and debated Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

‘What he’s also learned to do is to be more personable and tell a narrative, not just feel like he’s answering the question and not feel like this is about who’s the smartest kid in the class. This is about having a rapport with the people that are watching and having them believe and respect you and he’s become much better at that.’


Foggy Bottom vs. Chicago… Put your money on Foggy Bottom!!

October 14, 2012

Hillary Strikes Back: Attaches U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to Obama White House Propaganda Messaging…

The Clinton’s are clearly on a divergent path than President Obama.   Hillary just Judo’d Obama in this informative article posted in the UK Daily Mail.

In this report Secretary Clinton separates U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from her State Department, and instead says that Rice was selling the message, and following orders, from the White House, not from the State Department.   President Obama made Susan Rice (UN Ambassador)  a cabinet level position – not part of State Dept.

Hillary goes on to say that THEY (State Department) NEVER felt it was a video movie that caused the Benghazi attack:

The State Department’s insistence it never bought the story – expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations – that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill’s administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if  Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said ‘others’ in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department’s conclusion, reporters were told.   (read more)

What Hillary will have to answer for now is why “she”, as an individual, was repeating the storyline -up to and including Pakistani commercials- about a U-Tube video.   Which is an informational error because yes, Hillary denounced the video for it’s disrespect to Islam but NEVER said it was the genesis of a protest or the attack on the consulate in Benghazi or justified the death of four Americans including the US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

@SheriefSfarid We’ve never heard of this movie, what is it?—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 09, 2012


The article   also lists the blow-by-blow account of what actually took place in Benghazi.  It is a must read:

It appears the report of the supportive CIA report is BOGUS, yet it was spread in various news sources as factual support for the White House assertion by Susan Rice.  Remember, with Obama  he changed the status of UN Ambassador to “Cabinet Level“;  Meaning SUSAN RICE Reports TO OBAMA NOT HILLARY.

Follow Closely!

The White House sent Susan Rice out to sell a story of a video/movie.   To support the assertion a bogus AP report was formulated saying that CIA intelligence apparatus had provided the same information.   But it doesn’t exist.

To the contrary the entire intelligence apparatus, sans OUR MAN CLAPPER, has said there was no intelligence even alluding to a movie, a protest, or an impetus of a movie spurred protest in either Cairo (at the embassy) or Benghazi (at the consulate).

On Friday September 28th James Clapper provided the White House with cover and plausible deniability when he said:

WASHINGTON DC – Extremists from groups linked to al Qaida struck the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” the top U.S. intelligence agency said Friday, as it took responsibility for the Obama administration’s initial claims that the deadly assault grew from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video.

The unusual statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared to have two goals: updating the public on the latest findings of the investigation into the assault, and SHIELDING the WHITE HOUSE from a POLITICAL BACKLASH OVER its ORIGINAL ACCOUNTS.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates and sets policies for the 16 other U.S. intelligence agencies, is led by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in August 2010.   (link)


So the WHITE HOUSE  trotted out Susan Rice to SELL a FALSE STORY, unbeknownst to Hillary Clinton, who was then told to toe-the-line and WAIT..   To provide elbow room, and cover for the White House, a bogus AP report mentioning the CIA was seeded to, and picked up by, the press thereby providing enough space and time to coordinate with James Clapper, so that he could arrange a bogus intelligence mistake story to back them up.

All of this before the “discovery” of U.S. officials on the ground in Libya asking for more security help.   Which, unfortunately for the White House, became a bigger story than the FALSE “movie” explanation.

The failure to provide the requested security creates the White House back in a position of blaming the State Dept.   The same State Dept who was providing cover for the false “movie” explanation.

Hence the ping-pong ball back and forth.

While Hillary might have been willing to STAND SILENT for the White House movie story’s “EXPLANATION”  by the WH under the guise of faulty intelligence, which she did diligently, she ain’t gonna take being thrown under the bus for the lack of security protection.

Hillary was SMART waiting until the  “movie” fiasco would be DEBUNKED.   But now that the narrative, and attention, has switched to the PERSONAL SECURITY ISSUE of FOUR AMERICANS,  she isn’t about to TAKE the BLAME for something she was NEVER part of to BEGIN with.

So who were these “Senior Administration Officials” who spoke to CNN on 9/13 and placed the blame on the U-tube video ? Find that out, and we will have a better understanding of “why” they felt it necessary to create a false story.

…… And someone needs to explain this contradictory excerpt from the Daily Mail story:

[…] A concurrent CIA memo obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi ‘were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’ and ‘evolved into a direct assault’ on the diplomatic posts by ‘extremists’. (link)

Oddly the USA Today picked up the same excerpt:

The AP reports Wednesday that a concurrent CIA memo obtained by the news agency cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi “were spontaneously
inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” and “evolved into a direct assault” on the diplomatic posts by “extremists.”

But guess what? No article has an internal link to the AP report, AND when you try to confirm at AP…..



(or any version of one with a host of different search engine feeds and keywords)


“How did the jihadists know in advance, long enough to plan for the attack, that Stevens would be in Benghazi that night?”


“Fox News’ Catherine Herridge told Megyn Kelly that the night Ambassador Chris Stevens died, someone heard someone say “we got him,” meaning a successful assassination of Stevens.

One of the American diplomats killed Tuesday in a bloody attack on a Libyan Consulate told pals in an online gaming forum hours earlier that he’d seen suspicious people taking pictures outside his compound and wondered if he and his team might “die tonight.”

But hours before the bloody assault, Smith sent a message to Alex Gianturco, the director of “Goonswarm,” Smith’s online gaming team or “guild.”

“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Source

After Herridge’s report, I see that someone in the administration is already debunking it. Obama has everything to lose over this. He has made a major mistake by immediately blaming Americans FOR offending Muslims. It was known to be a lie early on, but he latched on anyway. US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, beclowns herself (again) read more here.

CHRIS WALLACE: Terrorist cells in Benghazi had carried out 5 attacks since April, including one at this same Consulate in June. Should US Security have been tighter at that Consulate, given the history of terrorist activity in Benghazi? SUSAN RICE: We obviously did have a strong security presence and unfortunately two of the FOUR Americans who died in Benghazi were there to provide security, but it obviously wasn’t sufficient in the circumstances to prevent the overrun of the Consulate. See the video here.

Memo to Ms. Rice: The “circumstances” were the anniversary of 9-11-01 on 9-11-12. It’s reasonable to ask why Sean Smith did not mention people gathering outside the compound jabbering about a movie. Online reports say in the past, while chatting in the online forum, he had typed “incoming” and disappeared for awhile, meaning they were being fired upon. Maybe there was no hint of what was to come. It seems more likely from latest reports that firepower came from two directions, fast and powerful, and we know now, inescapable.

Herridge said the consulate came under fire from two different locations and in two waves, with the attackers using rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Source: Fox News Insider

Considering that Smith had indicated the Compound has been fired on in the past, how can we possibly think two Americans serving as security inside the compound could be sufficient, when the outside of the compound was “protected” by Libyans who abandoned the property under heavy fire.

Remember that NBC quoted the Libyan President in their own video, saying the film had nothing to do with the attack. The accompanying article that went along with the video eliminated the quote, and the President actually saying the words was eliminated it in the video, but it was clearly quoted at the very beginning of the video by the narrator. Slick and slimy media using public airways to “fundamentally transform America.”


Obama White House Sharpens Blade Upon The Neck Of Clinton State Department

A highly defensive and finger pointing David Axelrod pushed off claims President Obama knew the real story of the Benghazi Massacre before the president and his administration repeatedly told the American people and members of Congress otherwise. The question now appears to be who within the State Department will be given up as the sacrificial lamb – all in the effort to insulate Barack Obama himself from any and all responsibility for the deaths of four Americans – including the first U.S. ambassador to be killed since the Carter administration.

During on interview with Fox News this morning, Axelrod first further defined what Vice President Joe Biden said earlier this week when remarking “we didn’t know they wanted more security” – a reference to multiple requests by American Benghazi personnel asking for enhanced security measures to be implemented in the months and weeks prior to the Benghazi Massacre on September 11th. Those requests were either refused or ignored by the Obama administration. Regarding that point, David Axelrod made it clear the blame is to be placed upon the State Department and not the Obama White House itself:

“These were judgments that were made by security folks at the State Department.”

I await information from inside sources regarding the current relationship between the Clintons and Team Obama. Surely this relationship is far more divisive and untrusting than just a few weeks ago.

UNCLE JOE did not HELP Obama tonight. PAUL RYAN is Ready for PRIME TIME..

October 11, 2012

Paul Ryan proved his metal tonight.. HE CAME, HE SAW, HE CONQUERED!

And just about escorted Biden to his retirement home.. as a gentleman would,
of course!
  We viewed a consensus of comments from around the web and will list them here:

HA poster mapper has this – reaction from left bloggers. Very interesting.

TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Not sure debate cameras have been light tested for Biden’s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.”

NBC’s David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: “So did Biden practice laughing at Ryan???”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Ok. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling”

PBS’ Jeff Greenfield: “Biden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.”

The New York Times’ Ashley Parker: “Biden’s grin is Chesire Cat caliber.”

Movie critic Roger Ebert: “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin: “Biden’s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxious”

Comedy Central’s Indecision: “If this keeps up much longer, Joe Biden’s going to sprain his laugh muscles.”


NBC called the debate for Ryan.


[POLL RESULTS] Who do you think won the VP Debate? Paul Ryan: 56%, Joe Biden: 36%, Neither: 8%


Chris Wallace – I have never seen a debate in which one participant was so disrespectful of another.

He was openly mocking and contemptuous.

It was loose talk, bluster and unprecedented behavior by a VP candidate.

Baier says Biden even smirked during the Iran discussion.


CNN undecided voter: Biden was “being a buffoon in general

If you would like a review of comments during the debate, you can read here.

Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security

Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night’s debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.



“We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,” Biden said.

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Read the rest of a good article at the link:

The Cable on Foreign Policy


Which Joe Is Going to Show Up Tonight?

October 11, 2012


So off We Go Into the Wild Blue Yonder Flying High Into the Sky… by the Seat of our Pants..

Every Blog I’ve looked at today has ALL the basics pretty well down- All repeating everything we already know.. We have the “Joe of Many Faces”.. Will we get the gaff-prone “Sloppy Joe” or the Smart Constitutional Professor Joe? I don’t know.- “Tell Me it Ain’t So”.. Joe!


I hear good things about Paul Ryan’s ability to think clearly and logically. What His Colleagues Say: “He Wins [You ] Over By Reason” Will this be Joe’s Achilles Heel?  Stumping Joe before he’s out of the Gate?

Well here’s what they advising Joe to do. You discern and decide.

“If One Were Joe Biden, ‘I’d Be Hiding Under My Bed’”

Republican political communication is like a game of patty-cake compared to the Democrats’ brass-knuckles approach, but this presidential campaign should be easier. Republicans merely need to transmit the truth about Barack Obama — and tonight, Ryan may just do that. Let’s hope.

Perhaps the most effective seed to plant in voters’ minds this year is “You have the power to overrule the Supreme Court on Obama-Care.” The debate platform would be an opportune place to drop this bomb because most people forget the real power does not lie with politicians, it lies with the People. It’s “USE IT” or “LOSE IT” Time..
So remember, Use what you learn tonight objectively and subjectively when you go to the polls Nov. 6th..

Or run the Risk of Losing IT.. For Real this time.

I hear good news Romney in Florida is leading Obama by 7pts.. will it hold after tonight if Ryan does poorly?
Only the HAND knows for sure….


Oh-OK.. Here are a few fact refreshers to compare and contrast between the candidates from THE HILL

A pocket edition of a Cheat Sheet…

WHAT IF: Obama deems there is NO actionable intelligence on a planned attack in the US?

October 10, 2012


Do we just chalk up Obama’s negligence to “poor judgement” on his part? WHAT IF- Major cites: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Dallas and Orlando are HIT simultaneously in a well planned Terror Attack similar to Benghazi?

Obama has a history of poor decision making. His debate performance a few weeks ago can attest to that- Can we really afford taking another chance on Obama for the next four years? I VOTE NO.. He is TOO great a RISK to the Safety and Welfare of Americans. A Risk America CANNOT AFFORD to take. The proof lies squarely in our faces. Four Americans DEAD in Benghazi. Victims of Obama’s POOR Judgment.

This video below has the questions YOU may think too incredulous to ASK:


“US  ‘had no warning’ of attack on Benghazi consulate.”

The US consulate in flames in Benghazi, Libya 11 September 2011. The Obama administration now describes the incident in Benghazi as a terrorist attack.

The US Department of State has said it had no “actionable intelligence” about plans for last month’s deadly attack on the American consulate in Libya.

The 11 September Benghazi assault, in which the ambassador and three others died, was unprecedented in recent diplomatic history, officials added.

The incident is politically sensitive, just weeks ahead of the US elections.

State department officials are due to testify before Congress on Wednesday about their handling of the attack.

The BBC’s Kim Ghattas in Washington says the detailed briefing appears to be an effort to preempt criticism the agency is expected to face from the panel.

The hearing is part of an investigation into the security situation in Benghazi leading up to the attack and is the first public inquiry on Capitol Hill into what went wrong.

The state department has launched its own internal review of events.

‘Security requests denied’

Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, initially described the attack as a “spontaneous” one that arose out of a protest against an inflammatory anti-Islam film.

But in Tuesday’s briefing, unnamed officials from the state department said it had never concluded that the sacking of the mission was motivated by the US-made video ridiculing Muslims.

“That was not our conclusion,” an official said.

They said it was instead a co-ordinated assault involving several groups of men armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades over an expanse of more than a mile.

“There was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack,” a top state department official said.

The official also told reporters: “It would be very, very hard to find a precedent for an attack like that in recent diplomatic history.”

In addition to two state department officials scheduled to give evidence on Wednesday, two security officers who were posted in Libya until recently are also expected to testify.

They have both said the Department of State denied requests for extra security.

One officer, Eric Nordstrom, has said in a document to the congressional committee that a state department official, Charlene Lamb, had wanted to keep the security presence in Benghazi “artificially low”.

Both are due to appear {today} on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

State department official Patrick Kennedy and Lt Col Andrew Wood, who was in charge of a security support team at the US embassy in Tripoli, will also give evidence.

As the 6 November presidential election looms, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has used the Libyan attack to criticize President Barack Obama. {TG}

In a speech on Monday, Mr Romney called the Benghazi incident an example of the Democratic president’s foreign policy weakness.

The Obama administration has said it provided its best intelligence on the attack, and amended that explanation as further information emerged.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped alone in the burning consulate building. Three other officials were killed, and three wounded.

Read on to connect the dots:

“US Libyan consulate attack: Timeline of events.”
US consulate attack: Libyans react to Benghazi violence.



Someone Has Finally Thrown Obama Under The Bus And Her Name Is Hillary Clinton

What other conclusions can one draw from this from the AP?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at the WH Service for Americans Killed in Benghazi

WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

Just as a reminder the Obama administration couldn’t get its story squared with the facts for well over a week. The Heritage Foundation put out this helpful video essay of the administration’s cover up on the assassination of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.


Barack Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole

October 9, 2012

In 2008, the FCC in it’s reluctance to audit Obama campaign donations because…. {wait for it-} “The cost for the audit would be TOO prohibitive.”  Is facing the same predicament this election cycle. John McCain allocated several million paying for the audit of his campaign donations. Besides Mr. Obama given a substantial PASS accounting for the donors submitting small $10 and $20 dollar donations; here we are once again, dealing with what looks like Obama’s donation total nearing a billion dollars subject to audit for this campaign. Can we guess what will be the excuse this election cycle?  Something redeemable by FCC standards, I’m sure.



A new report obtained by Townhall from the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute [GAI] shows the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage.

…Because of the lack of a CVV code requirement, the door is opened for OFA to accept robo-donations, or in other words, large numbers of small and automatic donations made online to evade FEC reporting requirements. Although it isn’t illegal to decline the use of a secure CVV credit card code for campaign donations, it is illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign sources.

…A large part of the Team Obama operation is outsourced. More than 200 domain names with the word “Obama” in the web address have been purchased. The most significant of these websites may be, which is owned by an Obama bundler in Shanghai, China with “questionable business ties to state-run Chinese enterprises,” according to the report.

… Attorney Kenneth Sukhia analyzed the GAI’s findings and this revelation in the following way in a separate report:

“Because a campaign’s decision to opt out of the standard security measures and to pay more to receive less information about their contributors defies all conventional campaign logic, and because it is difficult to identify a more plausible motive, there is reason to suspect that such decisions may be motivated by the belief that more money could be raised through foreign contributions than lost in added fees by declining security tools designed to stop them.”

…As reported over the weekend, the Obama campaign raised $181 million in September alone–only 2 percent of those donations are required to be reported to the FEC.

….Although GAI’s findings were most prominent with “Obama for America”, the “CCV loophole” is a problem across the political spectrum. The report found nearly half of Congress is at least vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.

…Obama for America did not return calls for comment.
Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole and a (HT/Ulsterman

Team Obama Blames John Kerry for Debate Loss… BREAKING: CIA Turns on Obama

October 6, 2012

It’s always easier when you know what the game is.. when it’s being played on you!

The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers.  They’ve tried–and thus far failed–to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver.  Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President’s successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying.  In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City’s altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.

“Neither of those caught on with the mainstream pro-Obama media”.

Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly Romney stand-in John Kerry, did not channel Mitt’s aggression enough.

From CBS’s “This Morning”:

Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama’s] campaign needs a wake-up call.  Bill Plante is here with that part of the story.  Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?

Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged.  They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney.  They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that.  So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”

The 2012 Obama campaign continues to prove to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort.  In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people.  In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.

What once was “Hope and Change,” is now “Mope and Blame,” and this time it’s John Kerry under the President’s bus. LINK
Poor John Kerry- He’s been waiting patiently to slip into Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s shoes the minute she resigns from her Cabinet position.. Kerry was almost replaced in the Mid-Terms when an unknown challenger managed to scare the Bejezzus out of him almost replacing him in his Senate seat…

We’ve been wondering ‘WHY’ Exit Polling will no longer be used this Election.

“Why the Networks Cut Exit Polls”

The networks and the Associated Press have an insidious plan to help President Obama on Election Day that is being swept under the rug: they are cutting nineteen states from the list of exit polls they will report. For twenty years, all 50 states have been reported, but somehow this year the networks and AP are ignoring 19 of them.  Now just how and why were those 19 states selected?

The ostensible reason given is the rising cost of the surveys. Dan Merkle, director of elections for ABC News, and a member of the consortium that runs the polls, said the goal “is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states.”

“So just which states are being ignored?  Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.”

The Washington Post tried to gloss over the scheme, noting “how carefully the exit poll planners allocated resources. All 19 of the states with no exit polls are classified as either “solid Obama” or “solid Romney.”

Really? Of the nineteen states (including Washington, D.C.) exactly 4 are for Obama, with a total of 14 electoral votes. The fifteen Romney states add up to 135.

It is utter hogwash that the exit polls were cut from these states because they were in the bag for one of the candidates. If Texas is cut, how about New York and California?

The real reason the consortium has cut these states is that they know that if they report fifteen states coming in for Romney early, independent voters in other states will take notice and be swayed his way.

There is no way that the networks and AP can rationalize their decision without damning themselves with their obvious partisanship. In 2008, the major media outlets were in the tank and lined up for Obama, but it was done under the radar. Now it’s all-encompassing. They are goose-stepping in public.


BREAKING: CIA Turns On Obama – Indicating Significant Cover-Up

Less than a month ago a United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. For days the Obama administration denied the attacks were terrorist related. Now intelligence figures from within the American government are letting it be known how the Obama White House has repeatedly ignored and then covered up information and events that put the safety and security of the United States in danger.


Revolt of the Spooks

Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

…Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.

“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.

Do NOT Miss Reading this Article: REVOLT OF THE SPOOKS!

WSI: On Latest Obama Jobs Report: “Absolute Rubbish”

October 5, 2012

A longtime Wall Street power player makes clear the attempted October surprise jobs report by the Obama/Jarrett administration is a “fabrication built upon a fabrication” that proves just how desperate those who hope to keep Obama in power have now become.

“I note you have already created a response to this morning’s jobs report showing a reduction in the unemployment rate to 7.8%. Quite a significant drop. And quite a lie by this increasingly hysterical administration. Absolute rubbish in fact.”

As others have, or will note, the decrease comes primarily from a reduction in the overall workforce. This reduction has time and again been the sad foundation for earlier decreases in the unemployment rate during Jarrett’s reign over America. In this instance, nearly 350,000 people are no longer seeking work. As such, they are no longer being counted. So in essence, we have a report indicating a marginal job creation figure of just 114,000 while 350,000 have given up looking for work. That indicates 300% more Americans have given up than found employment during the month of September alone under the Jarrett administration. How easy then would it be, as our friend is so fond of saying, for them to “cook the books” by simply not counting hundreds of thousands of unemployed? Very easy indeed.

Unfortunately most have never heard of, nor understand the term U-6, a combination of both unemployed and underemployed. It is the U-6 that marks among the most depressing and heart-wrenching aspects of the last four years. That number remains at nearly 15% and shows no indication of improving despite this latest jobs report that is nothing more than a fabrication built upon a fabrication. Perhaps the media needs to acquaint more Americans with the U-6? And so they now will.

And so too shall there be a harder look into the machinations of the Jarrett Labor Department. Simply put, these numbers today don’t add up. I have personally reviewed them twice and something is amiss here. For them to be so open in their manipulations of data proves beyond a doubt their fear.

Do not concern yourself with this current distraction my friend. We remain resolute. This unemployment number is to be swept aside very soon. And I appreciate your willingness to remain near silent during this now very critical time. It likely has not been easy for you to do so.

(ht/Ulsterman… LINK


Romney: Jobs growth not enough to re-elect Obama

WEYERS CAVE, Va. — The jobs picture improved in September, but Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the fall in the nation’s jobless rate still is not enough to justify giving President Obama another term in office.

“This is not what a real recovery looks like,” Mr. Romney said in a statement, pointing to what he said was a downward trend of job-creation. “We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics‘ key jobs survey said the economy added 114,000 new jobs in September, and BLS said the unemployment rate dipped to 7.8 percent — a drop of three-tenths of a percent.

That means the rate is now back down to what it was in January 2009, when Mr. Obama took office, inheriting a recession from President George W. Bush.

BLS also revised July and August job numbers upward by a combined 86,000, suggesting a slightly better jobs picture over the summer than was reported at the time.

The jobs news comes just two days after Mr. Romney seemed to be gaining momentum from a strong debate performance.(…)

“If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent,” Mr. Romney said in his statement. “The results of President Obama’s failed policies are staggering — 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty, and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”


Debate night in Denver- The Black Knight vs The White Knight…

October 3, 2012

America is in dire need of an INTERVENTION….

My observation is this:  The mistake pundits, strategists and political bloggers make is expecting their advise suited to them projected onto a political candidate who is nothing like them. You have to understand human nature to understand why… the candidate isn’t listening. 

Here’s WHY-

By and large people are divided into 2 Groups: Predatory people and Prey people. My two best examples are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.. Obama being the predatory candidate and Romney the prey candidate. A winning strategy will work for one but the same strategy WILL NOT work for the other.

Obama’s latest strategy is playing the humble self-effacing candidate. His words ring out as hollow as a carved-out Halloween pumpkin emanating a false toothy grin illuminated by a back light duplicitously enhancing the pumpkin’s message as well as pointing to it’s limited shelf life rotting from the inside knowing the demise of the orange vegetable is coming within days.


These are just some of the promises Obama made that will happen during his First Term:

Lets have a look at the campaign promises Obama made on the road in 08′. : I think everyone has lived it enough to know whether Obama is a ‘Man of His Word’ or a ‘Fast Talkin’ salesman once again begging us to believe him?

First on the Budget Deficit : Promising to streamline the budget in his FIRST TERM.


Next: Promising to reform entitlements in his FIRST TERM.


Promising to reform immigration  in his FIRST TERM…


Here are some facts you ought to be aware of if Obama is re-elected:

90% of US Households Face Huge Tax Hikes Next Year 2013.

“On November 7th, while cleaning crews are still tidying up from election night parties, America’s political class will be hurling themselves into another essential battle over government spending, taxes and debt. On January 2nd, 2013, absent some kind of budget deal, America will fall off the “fiscal cliff” and face a massive tax increase and across the board cuts in government spending. Like most crisis these days, its a creation of politicians. “

“A new study from the Brookings Institution’s Tax Policy Center finds that the expiration of the Bush-ear tax cuts at the end of the year will hit Americans with a $500 billion tax hike. While liberal talking points suggest that only the wealthy received a tax cut under Bush, in fact every income group saw their taxes reduced. The rich got “more” tax cuts for the simple reason that they pay more in taxes. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hit everybody.

An average middle-class household — making between around $40,000 to $65,000 — would see an almost $2,000 tax hike next year, while those making under $20,000 a year would see their bill rise by an average of just over $400. Both groups would see their after-tax income drop by around four percent.  But households in the top 20 percent of earners would take a $14,000 hit, and those making a half million dollars or more a year — the top one percent of taxpayers — face an average $120,000 increase. That top one percent would see a more than 10 percent hit to their after-tax income.

“According to the study, almost 9 out of 10 households would see higher taxes. The economic impact is likely to be disastrous, as the economy is already teetering on the brink of recession.”
“Republicans are properly squeamish about calling their opponents liars. (Democrats are not so shy.) But sometimes a lie can be demonstrated. Republicans need to factually report Obama’s falsehoods so the electorate will conclude on its own that he intentionally deceives.”

Voters need to get comfortable with calling a Democrat a liar. A poignant theme: If you can’t call a liar a liar, it gives carte blanche to liars. The corollary: Americans can no longer believe anything Barack Obama says — just like any Chicago politician.

As a public service, therefore, and in the wake of flat-footed Republican efforts, I now summarize some truth-laden message fodder the Romney campaign should use to save our country from more Obama:

• “Fast & Furious” is a huge scandal inherently. Even if initial research shows little importance to the public, that will grow when people learn the essence: Obama’s Justice Department running guns to the drug cartels. That picturesque imagery is compelling. Use it, Mr. Romney.

• Of the terrible things about ObamaCare, one needs highlighting: The death panels are real. Show voters text from the law describing the bureaucrat panels empowered to bestow life or death. (Do you suppose an Obama death panel might consider party affiliation in its decisions?)

Please, Mr. Romney, use the rhetoric  of Obama’s callous declaration to sacrifice Grandma to a pain pill, along with the plaintive questioner asking if dictator Obama will allow her mother to live. This dramatic display, a major blunder by Obama, has been under-utilized. Emphasize to voters: ObamaCare may kill you, but will very likely kill your children.

And distinguishing ‘RomneyCare’ from ‘ObamaCare’ is easy.

A hint: Experimenting at the state level is not the same as jamming down the throat of the whole nation.

“Perhaps the most effective seed to plant in voters’ minds this year is “You have the power to overrule the Supreme Court on Obama-Care.”  The reason is that most people experience very little personal power in their lives, so the rare opportunity to exercise real power is something they will relish.”

“Obama claimed he was not present for Rev. Wright’s incendiary sermons. That can be falsified statistically. Based on the frequency we know of, and Obama’s estimate of 50% attendance, the probability that Barack Obama was absent for all of Wright’s anti-American, anti-Semitic diatribes is so low as to be rejected at the 95% confidence level.

Obama loves this country, you say? If so, why is he determined to “fundamentally transform America”? And please, Mr. Romney, remind the nation of how the Obama government has become an OUTLAW regime, establishing a creeping dictatorship by executive order.”

• It is also simple to show how Obama/Democrat policies increase gasoline prices. Do it! Don’t let them get away with “one man can’t control gas prices.” A large part of the current price can be blamed on Obama. His policies affect market psychology, as well as supply..

• Another is to explain the personal consequences of Obama’s bankrupting of America: Because of the dollar’s inevitable collapse, whatever money you have left will be nearly worthless. Then, a bankrupt nation cannot defend itself. The stakes are that grave. Say so.

• Perhaps the most effective message of all to expose the “Wizard of Oz-bama” would be to explain how the president insults the public’s intelligence at every turn. He uses not only “the big lie” but “the big insult” because he thinks voters are so stupid”. (Obama may yet prove to be right about that.)


As I have said before on this blog and elsewhere, we didn’t bargain for these choices.  These choices were bundled and foisted on us by the Liar in Chief when he was just a senator from Illinois  No, at the time he was busy  setting up his own agenda stealing the democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton.  Well by now that is old news as well. Could we have foreseen how Obama’s presidency would pan out 4 yrs hence? If we could have, we would have risked blood in the streets to prevent Obama from taking office.

Has Obama ever apologized for NOT solving these issues important to Americans?  Actually, I think I am within bounds saying Obama could not care less what we think. Obama is into personal gratification.  Watching his sport shows, playing golf, campaigning on the Tax Payers dime and defending radical Muslims from our democratic principles as Americans. Our democracy, a minority of Muslims purport they wish for as their way of life takes bloodshed and resolve.



@ 9pm Tonight:

Obama Won’t Call Libya Attacks Terrorism… ASKS Congress to Give Egypt $450 Million in Aid-

September 29, 2012

By Katrina Trinko

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler has a terrific list of statements made after the Benghazi attack by administration officials and President Obama.  Interestingly, despite the fact that yesterday it was reported that U.S. officials knew as early as September 12 that the attack was orchestrated by al-Qaeda, no official used the term “terrorism” until September 19th, when National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen said in a congressional testimony, “I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”

The next day at the Univision Town hall, Obama is asked this: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

But in his response, Obama suggests it remains unclear whether the attack was an act of terror. “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries,” Obama said. “And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

And then again, several days after Olsen has told Congress that the attack in Benghazi was a “a terrorist attack,” Obama refuses to call it terrorism when appearing on The View in an episode that aired September 25. In response to this question, “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism.” “Is it? What do you say?”, Obama said, “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.” Once again, there is no mention of the word “terrorism.”

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Obama has yet to describe the attack as “terrorism” in any public forum.

Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom criticized the Obama administration’s handling of the matter today. “I think President Obama needs to be held accountable for his administration’s attempts to mislead the American people about what happened in Benghazi,” Fehrnstrom said on Fox News Channel’s America’s Newsroom. “We were initially told that this was a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video that was on You Tube.  The administration sent their ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, on the Sunday shows to defend that position.  Now we’re learning that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack, conduct on the anniversary of 9/11 and that it involved elements of Al Qaida.”

National Review

WH Moves to Give Egypt $450 Million in Aid Meets Resistance

September 28, 2012

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The aid is part of the $1 billion in assistance that the Obama administration has pledged to Egypt to bolster its transition to democracy after the overthrow last year of the former president, Hosni Mubarak. Its fate, however, was clouded by concerns over the new government’s policies and, more recently, the protests that damaged the American Embassy in Cairo.

The United States Agency for International Development notified Congress of the cash infusion on Friday morning during the pre-election recess, promptly igniting a smoldering debate over foreign aid and the administration’s handling of crises in the Islamic world.

An influential Republican lawmaker, Representative Kay Granger of Texas, immediately announced that she would use her position as chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid to block the distribution of the money. She said the American relationship with Egypt “has never been under more scrutiny” than it is in the wake of the election of President Mohamed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
“I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time,” Ms. Granger said in a statement that her office issued even before the administration announced the package.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a meeting of the Group of 8 nations in New York, said on Friday that the world needed to do more to support the governments that have emerged from the Arab Spring uprisings, including those in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

“The recent riots and protests throughout the region have brought the challenge of transition into sharp relief,” Mrs. Clinton said, without mentioning the assistance to Egypt specifically. “Extremists are clearly determined to hijack these wars and revolutions to further their agendas and ideology, so our partnership must empower those who would see their nations emerge as true democracies.”

The debate comes as the issue of foreign aid in general made an unexpected appearance in the presidential campaign.

In a speech in New York on Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, called for revamping assistance to focus more on investments in the private sector than on direct aid — a shift administration officials have said is under way.

While Mr. Romney did not address aid to Egypt directly, he cited Mr. Morsi’s membership in the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the alarming developments in the Middle East, along with the war in Syria, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the killing of the American ambassador to Libya.

“A temporary aid package can jolt an economy,” he said. “It can fund some projects. It can pay some bills. It can employ some people some of the time. But it can’t sustain an economy — not for long. It can’t pull the whole cart, because at some point the money runs out.”

The $1 billion in aid, announced by Mr. Obama in May 2011, was initially intended to relieve Egypt’s debts to the United States, though negotiations stalled during the country’s turbulent transition from military rule to the election of Mr. Morsi this summer.

In recent weeks, negotiations over the assistance picked up pace, and the administration decided to provide $450 million instead, including $190 million immediately, because the country’s economic crisis has become acute, with an estimated budget shortfall of $12 billion.

The assistance outlined in letters to Congress on Friday would be contingent on Egypt’s setting in motion economic and budgetary changes that the International Monetary Fund is now negotiating as part of a $4.8 billion loan.

The administration has also thrown its support behind that loan, and officials said they hoped it would be completed before the end of the year. A $260 million infusion would come when the much larger loan is completed, according to officials familiar with the package. By law, all assistance to Egypt is contingent on the country’s meeting certain requirements, including adherence to basic democratic values and the Camp David peace treaty with Israel.

The protests over an anti-Muslim video and the storming of the American Embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11 came even as senior White House and State Department officials led a large business delegation to promote economic assistance and trade in Egypt.

Mr. Morsi’s slow response to the protests raised concerns in Washington, although administration officials later cited improved cooperation over the embassy’s security.

The $1 billion in assistance has been cobbled together from funds already appropriated by Congress, but the administration is required to notify lawmakers of its intention to release any of the funds. Ms. Granger presumably can put a hold on that release and pursue legislation to reverse the appropriation.

Mrs. Clinton lobbied lawmakers last week during closed-door briefings that focused on the tumult across the region, including the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Libya that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

In addition to the $1 billion in assistance, the administration is working with Egypt to provide $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses. All of that comes on top of $1.3 billion in military aid that the United States provides Egypt each year.

A senior State Department official said that the administration would consult with members of Congress in the days ahead “to make the case that this budget support is firmly in U.S. interests in seeing peace, stability and democracy in Egypt and the wider neighborhood.”





UPDATED 10.09.12

Libyan President Contradicts Obama: Film Not Responsible for Attack

September 27, 2012

The proverbial sh*te is hitting the proverbial fan! Finally!

As recently as yesterday, President Obama stood before the world at the United Nations and blamed “The Innocence of Muslims” for the unrest in the Middle East and, more specifically, the death of four Americans in Libya, including Christopher Stevens, our Libyan Ambassador. Obama refuses to acknowledge the assassination of Stevens was a terrorist attack, even though other members of his Administration, including his own Secretary of State, have already conceded it was exactly that.

In fact, every bit of intel also contradicts the President.

And now, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief is on the record declaratively stating the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks:

Libyan President Mohamed Magarief said the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which also resulted in the deaths of three other Americans, was more likely pegged to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

“Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September,” Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in the exclusive interview. “They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message.” …


Clinton Suggests Link to al Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack :

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday suggested there was a link between the Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three others. She was the highest-ranking Obama administration official to publicly make the connection, and her comments intensified what is becoming a fiercely partisan fight over whether the attack could have been prevented.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meeting with President Mohamed Magariaf of Libya.

Mrs. Clinton did not offer any new evidence of a Qaeda link, and officials later said the question would be officially settled only after the F.B.I. completed a criminal inquiry, which could take months. But they said they had not ruled out the involvement of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb — an affiliate of the international terrorist group with origins in Algeria — in an attack the administration initially described as a spontaneous protest turned violent.


Mrs. Clinton made her remarks at a special United Nations meeting on the political and security crisis in the parts of North Africa known as the Maghreb and the Sahel, particularly in northern Mali, which has been overrun by Islamic extremists since a military coup helped lead to the division of that country this year.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has long operated in the region, she said, and was now exploiting a haven in Mali to export extremism and terrorist violence to neighbors like Libya.

“Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions,” Mrs. Clinton told leaders assembled at the meeting, including President François Hollande of France and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. “And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

Mr. Ban called the meeting to lay the groundwork for a possible international military intervention — to be led by African troops — to help the new military government in Mali re-establish control over a part of the country that Mr. Hollande noted was the size of France and is now under the grip of Islamist extremists imposing their vision of law and order.

“We cannot stand by and allow terrorists to take over an entire territory,” Mr. Hollande said.

Top militia leaders in Benghazi have dismissed the possibility that Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb played a role in the attacks or had a foothold in eastern Libya. Benghazi residents have said they believe the brigade that conducted the attack could not have managed the assault on its own, because it included more than 100 heavily armed fighters.

Mrs. Clinton’s connection of the turmoil in the Sahel with the violence in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, echoed remarks made last week by Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He said that intelligence analysts were investigating ties between local Libyan militias and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, but had not yet come to any conclusions.

A senior administration official said that Mrs. Clinton intended to underscore the rising threat that the Qaeda affiliate and other extremist organizations pose to the emerging democratic governments in countries like Tunisia and Libya, adding that the group clearly intended to make contact with extremists in Benghazi and elsewhere. The final determination of the group’s role, the official said, would await the investigation by the F.B.I.

Mrs. Clinton has also ordered a review of diplomatic security that is being led by Thomas R. Pickering, a veteran diplomat and former undersecretary of state.

It was not clear whether Mrs. Clinton’s remarks foreshadowed any possible retaliation against those who carried out the attack, whether they operated in sympathy with, or on orders from, Al Qaeda leaders. But she reiterated the administration’s vow to bring those responsible to justice, telling the conference that American intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were working not only with Libya but with other nations in the region to investigate the attack.

The cooperation with other nations beyond Libya in the investigations also seemed to indicate that the attack’s planning and execution might have crossed international borders and not simply have been a local, spontaneous eruption of violence in response to an amateurish Internet video denigrating the Prophet Muhammad.


From the start, Libyan officials have sought to blame foreigners, even as they move to crack down on extremist militias that took part in the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi last year and clearly had a role in the attack. Mr. Magariaf said at least 40 suspects had been questioned, but there was no definitive conclusion about those involved. “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens,” Mr. Magariaf said in remarks broadcast on NBC’s “Today” show Wednesday.

The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, defended the administration’s evolving version of events. “Over the course of the past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as it has been able to,” Mr. Carney told reporters traveling on Air Force One to Ohio on Wednesday. “We made clear that our initial assessment and interim reports were based on information that was available at the time.”

Read the story

How Mitt Romney is actually defeating Barack Obama in the presidential race

September 25, 2012

TAKE THE POLL..  at the bottom of the page:

Despite all the noise created by all those media-commissioned skewed polls that appear to have President Obama leading, Mitt Romney is actually winning the presidential race as of today. The newest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Daily Tracking poll released today shows Obama 47 percent to Romney 46 percent, and shows them tied at 48 percent when leaning voters are included. The Gallup tracking poll, which is based on a sample that tends to favor Democrats by a few points, released today shows Obama leading just two percent, 48 percent to 46 percent. The QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll released today shows a Romney lead of 51 percent to 45 percent.

Polling data and analysis of voting patterns indicates that Romney is going to win most of the key swing states including the five surveyed by Purple Strategies just a few days ago. The last QStarNews analysis and projection of the electoral college covered in this column predicts Romney winning 301 electoral votes, 31 more than needed for election as president.

As former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris and others have pointed out, the undecided vote in a presidential election will always heavily favor the challenging candidate by election day. A reasonable figure to use as a factor on this is to estimate that approximately 75 percent of the current undecided voters, who are voters that have already decided they will not vote for Barack Obama but have not finalized a decision to vote for Mitt Romney, will break for Romney at some time between now and election day.

Looking at the Rasmussen poll showing leaning voters with the candidates tied at 48 percent, leads to a conclusion of Romney winning 51 percent to 49 percent. The Gallup poll, unskewed, would produce a difference similar to this earlier Gallup poll unskewed that indicated a five percent Romney lead, very similar to the Romney lead reported in today’s QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll.

But many still wonder how the other polls can show such varying results for the presidential race. This is because the mainstream media-commissioned polls over-sample Democrats to produce skewed results that favor the Democrats. The recent CNN/ORC poll was based on a sample that included 50.5 percent Democrats. The makeup of the electorate, according to exit polls, in 2008 was Democrats 39 percent to Republicans 32 during an election in which Barack Obama won the race 53 percent to 46 percent over John McCain. Even if one assumes the 2012 electorate will match that, which most analysts consider highly unlikely, a poll sample including 50.5 percent still over-samples Democrats by 11.5 percent.

The electorate in 2010 was made up of 35 percent registered Democrats and Republicans with almost all the rest being independents. Rasmussen Reports partisan data measured from hundreds of thousands of voters by Rasmussen Reports, which measures the partisan percentages at 37.6 percent Republicans, 33.3 percent Democrats and 29.2 percent independents.

If we assume that Romney will win 56 percent of the independent vote to Obama’s 44 percent, a conclusion that is quite reasonable given most of the polling data available, we can look at how the race turns out at varying levels of weighting of the Democrats and Republicans.

Using Rasmussen’s 37.6 percent Republicans to 33.3 percent Democrats, Romney would win the election with a 54.10 percent to 45.90 percent margin.

Using a weighting that assumes Republicans and Democrats will be 35 percent each in the actual electorate that votes in the election, Romney would win the race 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent.

If the electorate is Republicans by two percent, meaning 36 percent Republicans to 34 percent Democrats, Romney would win 50.70 percent to 49.30 percent.

If the electorate is Democrats by two percent, meaning 36 percent Democrats to 34 percent Republicans, Romney would win 52.90 percent to 47.10 percent.

Democrats will have to have a four percent edge among the voting electorate, meaning 37 percent Democrats to 33 percent Republicans, for Obama to win the popular vote by a very narrow 50.40 percent to 49.60 percent majority. Assuming those numbers and adding just a five percent higher turnout level among Republicans would wipe out that Obama margin and give Romney a slim lead.

If one believes the real election day results are somewhere near the middle of the range in the above scenarios, that points to an electorate that is even to possibly one or two points in favor of the Democrats, which nonetheless still translates to Romney being announced president-elect on election night. Romney is winning this election right now.

Let your voice be heard, take the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll, just a few quick questions, and the full QStarNews Poll with many interesting questions.

See where the candidates really stand in the polls at

The average of unskewed polls.

The Examiner


Barack Obama Goes All-In On Muslim Sympathy During Speech To United Nations

Ulsterman on September 25, 2012

Looking bored at times, President Barack Obama engaged in his side-to-side speechifying skills to remind Muslim leaders assembled this week at the United Nations that it is Muslims who have suffered the most from extremism. Yup – he said it.

President Surreal refused to meet with world leaders this week – including most infamously, a rebuke of the request coming from Israel. Instead, Barack Obama took himself to the friendlier pro-Obama confines of network television – ABC’s The View where he chatted and chortled on the couch with the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters.

This morning he took to the podium of the United Nations with the events of the Middle East embassy attacks and resulting chaos very much another presence in that room. Obama proceeded to give a rambling and often apologetic speech that at times, bordered on a verbal bow to the Muslim world. Despite such events as 9-11, the Benghazi attacks, and countless suicide bombings that have rendered limb and life from thousands of American soldiers,

President Barack Obama took time out to convince the world that it is Muslims who “have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.”

Nothing generates respect and fear in the Muslim world like open groveling – and that is what Barack Obama once again gave radical Islam yet again.

Oh – and in very much related news, there was a memorial service for slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens a few days ago – held in Libya.

No word on services in the United States. No word on a cause of death report from doctors in the United States. Was the Ambassador brutalized prior to his death as some reports suggest? What of the other three slain Americans?

There has been no word on these very simple and basic questions.

“That means cover-up folks.” LINK

Questions Now Turn To WHY Obama White House LIED About Muslim Embassy Attacks

September 22, 2012

While the level of questioning has not reached outrage quite yet (though it certainly should) more in the media are now asking why the Obama administration – including the president himself,  repeatedly told a tale so easily proven false regarding the fatal attacks against Americans in the Middle East.


Permanent Spin

For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.
…White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.

So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.

“This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal”.




Paulson: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism?

by Scott Paulson

After the deadly attack on the United States Embassy in Libya, it was apparent to many that the attack was premeditated and designed to kill Americans – not to protest an amateur-made movie that mocked Islam and disrespected Mohammad. The militant 9-11 attackers totally achieved their goal by leaving the United States Embassy in shambles with charred and blood-stained walls as well as a trail of death.

Yet the current administration in the United States government insisted otherwise. President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney led the way by denouncing those who dared state the obvious version of what had happened in Benghazi, Libya – that it was about terrorism and not about the anti-Mohammad film.

Finally, a week later, the obvious has been addressed by Jay Carney at the White House and Mathew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-terrorism Center, who both now admit that the deadly acts against United States Ambassador to Libya Christopher Steven and three other Americans were indeed an act of terrorism, obviously committed on 9-11.

With Americans watching the nearing of the date September 11, 2012 on the calendar for weeks – if not months – and dreading the stark reality that something disastrous may happen to innocent Americans again, the president and his political cronies refused to believe what happened.

Yet Americans are supposed to have faith in them, their judgment, trust their words and actions – and sit idly by as they denounce anyone who dares to try to challenge their words. Additionally, with extreme words, they denounce anyone who tries to challenge them for their power and positions. Unfortunately, in the past week, we have seen far too many Americans bow down to the blatant misspeaks or, perhaps, lies spoken by those in positions we have been able to dutifully trust in the past.

With this administration, we have seen far too many people trust in everything the political leaders say and do in Washington – without logical and discerned question. This is just plain foolish on the part of the blind followers.

More than what these national leaders and politicians are doing to Americans, consider what they are they telling the rest of the world – the rest of the world who figured out the nation was 9/11-attacked again as soon as it happened. Our leaders told the world that we are a nation led by either ignorance via doubt or by liars. Neither, of course, is an admirable trait to display when one claims to be “the” world leader. Beyond causing America to be embarrassed throughout the world, last week’s denial of what happened on 9/11/2012 makes us look incredibly weak.

Even the thought of blaming the anti-Islamic, Mohammad-disgracing movie for the most recent 9/11 attack on innocent Americans was ignorant – and carrying the thought out through words from the nation’s capital via our top leaders was incredibly inappropriate, totally embarrassing, extremely America-weakening, and – most of all – an ignorant stunt to try to pass on to America and the world.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” is too little – far too late.

The goal now is for the United States and Libya to join political forces to bring the attackers to justice. This, of course, needs to be done swiftly and honorably in the name of the four fallen Americans.

Then, there needs to be a full investigation as to why those present in the attacked-United States Embassies weren’t forewarned of the attacks as evidence that there was prior knowledge of the attacks grows. LINK

OBAMA LIED again… Now Admits Embassy Attack; Attack Against America…

September 20, 2012


Obama Flip-Flops On Middle East Embassy Attacks – Now Admits It WAS A Terrorist Attack Against America

After days of officials at the highest levels of the Obama administration repeatedly telling Americans the deadly Middle East embassy attacks were nothing more than Muslim demonstrations against a little known and less seen YouTube video, this same Obama administration is now quietly admitting the attack in Libya was in fact the act of terrorists. Either the Obama White House is incapable of truth, or incapable of competence. Perhaps it is both…

The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact “a terrorist attack” and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning.

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

As for who was responsible, Olsen said it appears there were attackers from a number of different militant groups that operate in and around Benghazi, and said there are already signs of al Qaeda involvement.

“We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” he said.

The U.S. government just isn’t sure yet whether the terrorist attack was pre-planned or whether it was an example of terrorists taking advantage of protests against an anti-Islam film, Olsen said.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack,” he said.

His statements go further than those of the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who said last week that the protests in Cairo and Benghazi were a reaction to the video and not a pre-planned attack. Today, Carney didn’t repeat the assertion that the video was solely to blame, but he said again that there is no evidence the Benghazi attack was pre-planned.

“What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as … our ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack,” Carney said Wednesday. “It is a simple fact that there are in post-revolution, post-war Libya armed groups; there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites, or American sites.”

Committee ranking Republican Susan Collins (R-ME) declared at the hearing that she believes the attacks were planned well in advance and she referenced information she had received from U.S. intelligence officials behind closed doors.

“First, I will tell you that based on the briefings I have had, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion and agree with the president of Libya that this was a premeditated, planned attack that was associated with the date of 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11,” she said. “I just don’t think that people come to protests equipped with RPGs and other heavy weapons. And the reports of complicity — and they are many — with the Libyan guards who were assigned to guard the consulate also suggest to me that this was premeditated.”

Collins said she was concerned by the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, especially since there had been an attack on the mission in June and a more serious attack on the British ambassador’s convoy as well. Olsen said the U.S. government was aware of the danger but not of impending attack that killed the four Americans.

“So there were reports detailing those attacks and detailing generally the threat that was faced to U.S. and Western individuals and interests in Eastern Libya from, again, armed militants as well as elements connected to al Qaeda,” he said. “There was no specific intelligence regarding an imminent attack prior to September 11th on our post in Benghazi.”

Foreign Policy: Cable


MORE Lies from Michelle and Barack:



Ambassador Stevens & the Scorpion…

September 19, 2012


The globalist table is being set. The plans are ‘Order from Chaos’ – engineered chaos. The “New World Order” has been defined.

by Doug Hagmann, Canada Free Press
Most people have heard the fable about the frog and the scorpion, but in the event you haven’t, I’ll briefly recount it here. A scorpion asks a frog to carry him on his back to the other side of a stream. The frog initially refuses, telling the scorpion that he would likely sting and kill him along the journey.

The scorpion promises not to, pointing out that they would both die if the scorpion was to sting the frog in the middle of the water. The frog then said that the scorpion would sting the frog once they were on the other side. The scorpion scoffed, telling the frog that he would be too grateful to do something as sinister as that.

Like the story of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the tale does not have a happy ending. After the frog agrees to carry the scorpion, the frog gets stung in the middle of the stream, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion simply replies, “it is my nature.” Believe what you wish about America’s foreign policy, but Ambassador Stevens succumbed to the sting of the scorpion that is inherent in the nature of Islamic fundamentalism that exists under the pretext of what is termed “Arab Spring.”

The Obama doctrine

On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama made what many describe as a conciliatory speech in Cairo, which laid the foundation for his foreign policy in the Arab World. Thus began a doctrine of overt acquiescence and apology, followed by an active policy of engagement against certain Middle East dictators who were repressing democracy. At least that’s the way it was made to appear on the surface.

Obama’s actions by funding and arming the very element who promised not to “sting” us illustrates only one of two possibilities. Either inexplicable naiveté by Obama, or a deliberate course of action designed to create orchestrated chaos across the Middle East. While Ambassador Stevens might have adhered to the ideology that by helping our enemies, our actions would cause them to suddenly abandon their inherent nature and become our friends, it is unlikely that this was, or is Obama’s mindset. By all accounts and by his own admission, he is fully aware of that ideology as he lived it.

Given our experiences over the last fifty years and through multiple administrations, we must then ask what it is that Obama is actually attempting to do? The answer to this question, if one believes that he actually understands the Islamic mindset, is beyond troubling. It becomes exponentially more troubling as one digs far beneath the official narratives of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

It is here that one must have a very good understanding of history, and not the history shaped by the influx of Petrodollars into American academia. It is extremely important to understand that since the 1970s, our universities have been saturated with money provided by Arab and Muslim elites. By influencing the students and educators coming from these universities and redefining history, the whole of society, including politicians and journalists are thusly influenced. From the early 1970s forward, Middle East studies overtook schools and universities, teaching a false historical doctrine that eventually shaped our foreign policy and how the current generation of journalists report on Muslim and Middle East issues.

This, combined with the agenda of global elites, especially the Progressives and those on the far left, resulted in the stifling of any historical understanding of the global Islamic Caliphate. Understanding history and exploiting American’s intellectual paralysis, compliments of a media staffed by the new generation of journalists and infiltrated by globalist facilitators, the globalists saw 2008 as the time to roll out an already well-groomed Barack Hussein Obama, a self-proclaimed citizen of the world, as the leader of the free world. The actual and perceived failures of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, itself influenced by oil and the coziness that only Petrodollars could buy, set the stage for Obama. Finally, the events put into motion decades ago, propelled by the 9/11 attacks, could be cultivated to advance their idea of a New World Order, or a singular system of international rule.

To accomplish this system of global governance, it would be necessary to change the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Hold-outs for national independence and sovereignty would have to be removed, such as Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. Without the preoccupation of a cold war enemy, the globalists and the Islamic fundamentalists united in a common goal: to usurp the sovereignty and independence of nations filled with Islamic fundamentalists held at bay by their despotic leaders. This was done under the thinly veiled pretext of advancing human rights and promoting democracy where none had ever existed and never could. The pretext is able to exist due to the lack of honest scrutiny by a complicit media. Moreover, few Americans have the ability to challenge the official narrative, thanks to the revisionist history taught in schools and universities, compliments of the Arab and Muslim elite.

With the promise of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate in the region known as the Greater Middle East, or the area from Morocco to Afghanistan, Obama inked a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to clear the path for a global system of governance. He brought in the Muslim Brotherhood to all areas of our government to collude with the globalists and communists already firmly rooted in our government and our media. The allegiance of both the secular globalists and Islamic fundamentalists working to re-establish a Caliphate promises them all a seat at the globalist table, yet they fail to understand that they are dining with scorpions.

The Obama doctrine, it would appear, is one of orchestrated deconstruction of countries getting in the way of the reconstruction of the Islamic Caliphate. Once established, the Islamic Caliphate will usher in a repressive global religion complimentary to the larger globalist agenda. Accordingly, Syria cannot be allowed to exist in its current form, nor can Israel, but for different reasons. We witnessed this doctrine in action in Egypt and Libya, with the spoils going to a cabal of international bankers backing the plan.

The Obama doctrine of foreign policy is the globalist doctrine, except the Obama doctrine employs the effective use of the Muslim Brotherhood to advance the globalist agenda. This explains the seemingly schizophrenic policies in play by Obama and those signed on to his agenda on both sides of the political spectrum. Ending with the big Lie

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” That quote is attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, and a monster with a deep contempt for humanity.

It is easy to see the quote in action today. Simply look at the narratives pushed by Obama and his minions, and other politicos on all sides of the political divide. Obviously, Obama does not have exclusivity to its use, but he certainly has mastered it. He has been helped by an American academia that has been infiltrated long enough to produce a generation intellectually hobbled in history, and a media so enamored by a messianic persona manufactured by a cabal of globalists that it is collectively blind to their own coming demise.

It is sad that Ambassador Christopher Stevens met his own demise at the hands of the very people he truly thought were his friends. One can even understand the mindset of Ambassador Stevens, as he was the product of the same doctrine that led to his demise. In the end, however, we must realize that we will meet the same fate if we do not understand that what we’ve been told, and what we continue to be told, is a big lie that is being repeated at the behest of the globalist elite.

Arab Spring was never spontaneous, but carefully planned and orchestrated. It is not about freeing repressed nations, but conquering them. It is not about democracy, but about destroying their sovereignty and replacing one oppressor with another. It’s about taking the spoils and lining the pockets of those bankrolling the operations. It’s just one phase in a series of phases. It’s about re-instituting the Islamic Caliphate that ruled until European mandates ended its reign, and using it as a means to a larger end. Again, who better than Barack Hussein Obama, as ruler of the free world, to usher in the new Caliphate?

The globalist table is being set. The plans are order from chaos – engineered chaos. The “New World Order” has been defined, and its plans are in progress. Barack Hussein Obama has been selected as the one to usher in the new age of global governance. Backroom deals have been made by those who believe they will have a seat at that table. However, most will not sit at that table. Like the frog, they will take their final breaths beneath a scorpion.LINK

A Map of Muslim Protests Around the World…

September 15, 2012

If you can’t keep track of all the Muslim protests erupting across the globe, you’re not alone. The uproar over a 14-minute anti-Islam YouTube video has sparked furious protests from Somalia to Egypt to Sudan to Tunisia to Libya to Bangladesh to Indonesia to Pakistan. With new reports of protests surfacing every minute, we’ve compiled the latest reported incidents into this handy interactive Google Map. Click the locations and embedded links for more details about each incident.

Movie link-

Did we miss any? We’ll be updating the map through the day, and if you post a note in the comment section and we’ll include it.

View enlarged interactive Map here:

The censorship becomes official.President Barack Obama has bowed to the Muslim Brotherhood’s demand that the federal government suppress a satirical video of Islam’s prophet,  Muhammad.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told the Washington Post that the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”

The request complies with the Sept. 13 demand and threat by the brotherhood, which now governs the Arab’s world’s largest country, Egypt. “Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and… we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial,” according to an English-language statement on the brotherhood’s website.

The brotherhood’s demand included a threat of additional violence during Obama’s re-election campaign. “The people’s anger and fury for their Faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable,” said the website.

That violence could deeply damage Obama’s election chances OR NOT, just as similar Islamist violence in Iran sank President Jimmy Carter’s re-election effort in 1979 . OR, this violence could spread to the United States enlisting  Muslins already US Citizens and available to uphold  their religious beliefs… ‘death to all Christians.”


Mainstream Media Ignoring Disaffected, Disillusioned Obama 2008 Voters

President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted largely because Democrats and independents who fell for his “hope and change” rhetoric in 2008 have now abandoned him and his false promises. But the mainstream media is not covering this, once again protecting their favored candidate through omissions, treating Obama with kid gloves.

Stephen K. Bannon and Citizens United interviewed such Democrats and independents in swing states like Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania and made a movie called “The Hope and The Change.” It is a movie Sean Hannity said was the “most powerful documentary” he had ever seen. And the mainstream media must agree, because they know reporting on these stories will resonate with Americans like “The Hope and The Change,” which opens next week, has. And that is why they are not reporting on these disaffected former Obama voters.

The influential and insightful Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus notes in The Hill that “the mainstream media are comfortably snuggled in the pocket of President Obama” and “his cheerleaders in the media no longer even make so much as the weakest attempt to camouflage their allegiance.”

Reporting on disaffected Obama voters, Jacobus notes, will not only hurt Obama but also their careers — “or at least curtail the in-crowd party invites in D.C. and the Upper West Side.”

Jacobus writes that the insular, groupthink members of political press should watch “The Hope and The Change” because “they actually talk to the Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 in some key battleground states but are now bitterly disappointed after four years.”

“Political reporters don’t seem interested in listening to these voters and even pretend they don’t exist,” Jacobus writes. “Yet it’s these voters who are going to make Decision 2012.”

If journalists spoke to voters such as the ones profiled in “The Hope and the Change,” they may hear things such as:

“Obama says a lot of things, but his actions are often different.”

“Obama’s a great con-artist.”

“I think he just wanted to get up there and show off.”

“This is the type of thing my father was trying to get away from in communist Eastern Europe.”

“This is the limit. We gotta go by the budget.”

“I fear for my children.”

“Smoke and mirrors.”

“I don’t know if we can recover from this.”

But these soundbites and quotes from Reagan Democrats and independents outside of the political bubble would demolish the mainstream media’s narrative that Obama is a competent leader who can best help the middle class.

“In contrast to the ‘real people’ featured in pro-Obama news with nothing to say regarding the overall good of the nation, instead focusing exclusively on what taxpayer-funded free stuff can do for them, those in ‘The Hope and the Change’ are concerned about the decline of the nation under Obama, as well as the impact on their families,” Jacobus writes. “That the man with the silver tongue who began with some of the highest approval ratings since they’ve been tracked could find himself below 50 percent at this late juncture should be one of the most-reported political items this election cycle.

That so very many Democrats — not to mention independents — who voted for the unknown Barack Obama in 2008 are now turning away from him is news. Big news.”

Jacobus notes the film also tracks Obama’s failures the mainstream media barely mentions.

“From expensive vacations on our dime, slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon and the ‘cash for clunkers’ program (that could now serve as an anti-Obama campaign theme) to the S&P downgrade, the perplexing Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing, repetitive sloganeering by Obama that borders on the creepy, ObamaCare, 23 million searching for work, failed stimulus spending and $16 trillion in debt, we are provided a painfully accurate overview of the past four years,” Jacobus writes.

“The Hope and the Change” does what the mainstream media, which is becoming more elitist, insular, and out of touch with America’s main streets, does not and may be incapable of doing even if they tried — ask Reagan Democrats and independents substantive questions, and let them answer honestly in an unfiltered manner.

Obama and Media Attack Free Speech

We used to live in a free country, a United States where our rights and liberties were protected. It is no accident that the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights includes the right to free speech.

Not any more. Not under the brutal fist of the Obama Administration. Not only are government officials right and left denouncing the film that supposedly catalyzed the Islamist attacks on our embassies and nation, but there is a massive effort to shift the focus in America away from the abysmal foreign policy of Barack Obama and toward Mitt Romney and the creator of the film.

Hillary Clinton: “To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and provoke rage.”

General Martin Dempsey, who recently threw Israel under the bus:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, spoke by phone this morning with Pastor Terry Jones. In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause. He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film.

Meanwhile, the media savaged Mitt Romney for stating the obvious truth, that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. But then, the MSM has never been interested in the truth; they have a clear agenda in running interference for Obama, and anything, anything they can twist and manipulate to that end they will pursue.

So the upshot of the last 24 hours has been the concerted attempt by the Obama Administration, its allies and the media, to suppress free speech, whether it be a film that makes Muslims angry, or a speech by Mitt Romney in which he speaks the badly needed truth that Barack Obama will do anything to hide.

The rightful guardians of free speech, our government and our military, have abandoned this core American principle for one reason and one reason only: to protect Barack Obama by redirecting attention away from his failures.

Egypt might still be on our side if Obama hadn’t signaled Islamists that he was sympathetic to them rather than confronting them. The entire Arab world is now being militarized against America. All because, just as with Jimmy Carter, the president of the United States is afraid.

more at Link-

Obama, Egypt, and Israel: None Dare Call It Treason, Fifty Years Later

Barely more than three years ago, President Obama traveled to Cairo, speaking to students and offering a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” Now, in the wake of the storming of the US Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday, Obama’s outreach policy is in ruins; the death of the US ambassador in Libya further underscores the reality that the “Arab Spring” is really an Arab winter.

Hell, as Thomas Hobbes said, is reality seen too late. And the hellishness of today’s Egypt seems manifest to anyone paying attention to Egypt today; after the embassy violence, Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi seems focused only on prosecuting the makers of the movie, even as Morsi’s own Muslim Brotherhood continues protests in front of the US embassy on Friday.

Confronted with all this bad news, the mainstream media seems to have made a key decision on its coverage–attack Mitt Romney. They will continue to defend their anointed champion, Obama, against attacks on his foreign policy record. A headline from The Business Insider sums up the state of play: “Mitt Romney Is Getting Completely Shredded For His Response To The US Embassy Attacks.”

Romney’s basic point was that Islamists are attacking us because we are weak; as a campaign document puts it, “We have seen a foreign policy of weakness and decline in American influence and respect. Yesterday, we saw the consequences of this perceived weakness.” And that’s what has sent the MSM into overdrive in defense of Obama. Romney is now being picked apart on minor timeline issues (issues on which he was correct), while the major thrust of what he said–his critique of Obama policy weakness–is ignored.

As Breitbart News’s Joel Pollak pointed out, it would have been just as easy, were the MSM so inclined, to take apart the contradictions of various Obama administration statements. Or, as Breitbart’s Tony Lee observed, the MSM could have made the Obama administration’s lack of preparation against possible attacks–it was, after all, the anniversary of 9-11–into an issue. But the MSM wasn’t interested in any of that. And of course, there’s the larger question hanging over all US Mideast policymaking: are we seeing, as Samuel Huntington suggested almost 20 years ago, a “clash of civilizations” that might be beyond the power of even the 44th President to solve? But none of those arguments fit the needs of the pro-Obama MSM narrative. So they are ignored.

Read the rest at Link.


September 13, 2012

“Jihad Is Our Path And Death In The Name Of Allah Is Our Goal.”

Today President Obama attempted to distance himself – at least publicly, from recently elected Egyptian President and longtime Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsy. The very same Barack Obama who only months earlier strongly endorsed Morsi’s victory in Egypt following the Obama-supported overthrow of longtime American ally Hosni Mubarak. This is not American leadership. This is foreign policy disaster by a man so detached from reality and so out of his depth he is putting all Americans at risk.

Slain Ambassador Chris Stevens – murdered at the hands of Muslim radicals in Libya.

Let’s just break it down real simple here folks. Barack Obama gave a speech in Cairo Egypt shortly after becoming President of the United States – welcomed then personally by Hasni Mubarak. In that speech President Obama promised a “new beginning” in relations between the Middle East and the United States based upon “mutual respect”. Within a year, forces were working to overthrow Mubarak, and the United States, a longtime ally of the Mubarak government, began to express a desire to see Mubarak removed from power even as some warned his absence could usher in the return of Muslim extremism to Egypt.

Those warnings were ignored by Barack Obama and his administration – and Mubarak fell from power and just as those warnings foretold, the Muslim Brotherhood did in fact assume majority control of the newly formed Egyptian government.

And now, on the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, two American embassies in the Middle East are attacked by Muslim radicals. In Egypt the American flag is ripped from the embassy and replaced with a flag of Islam. In Libya, embassy staff are captured and then killed, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, whose body is dragged for hours through city streets before finally being handed over to authorities.

As the body of Ambassador Stevens was trampled upon, President Barack Obama slept. In the days leading up to the attacks, Obama was also absent any security briefings – he has only attended about a third of those meetings this past year.

The same week of these attacks by radical Muslims against American embassies, Barack Obama also refused a requested meeting from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, citing scheduling conflicts. The “conflicts” of that schedule are television appearances and more campaigning.

Regarding Egyptian president Mohamed Morsy, shortly after assuming power he was granted a personal meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who communicated President Obama’s “strong support” of his new government. With that in mind, take this quote from Mohamed Morsy just after he was elected to power:

“The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.”

Soon after that quote, President Obama sent word of his strong support for the Morsy government via Hillary Clinton.

Within a year of that support, American embassies are being attacked, and U.S. ambassadors murdered in the name of Allah.

How much worse for America must things be for voters thinking of re-electing Barack Obama to another four years of this madness reconsider and help to remove this dangerous and neglectful president from office in November? How many more embassies must be attacked? How many more American civilians murdered?

How much longer before ALL Americans stand as one and simply say…ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

(ht/Ulsterman.. LINK

Despite Media Hype, No Bounce for Obama in Swing States

September 11, 2012

Electoral Map for the 2012 Presidential Race:

Politico’s “Unnamed Sources” say Ohio is lost for Mitt Romney. Like hell it is. They say Obama got a serious bounce from the DNC. Like hell he did.

Whatever bounce Obama got was in the blue states. In the swing states, it’s still way too close to call. Today’s Rasmussen poll results show that in the eleven swing states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, which total 145 electoral votes, it’s Obama 46% and Romney 45%. In 2008, Obama won these states 53% to 46%.

So how does the MSM try to spin the evidence so Obama looks like he’s unbeatable? Let’s look at Ohio, for example. Politico reported (using uncredited sources, of course), that Ohio is lost for Romney:

“Two officials intimately involved in the GOP campaign said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now.”

I didn’t know Axelrod and Plouffe were working for Romney, but hey, they’ll go where the money is.

But, as usual, Politico was relying on Obama-leaning polls to support their narrative; yesterday the PPP poll (which is always weighted toward Obama because of PPP’s affiliation with the SEIU) showed Obama up by five in Ohio.  Hmmm. According to the Gravis marketing poll taken last Tuesday, Romney was up three in Ohio. Who’s telling the truth?

Consider these:

Example #1.  On August 14, the PPP poll showed Obama up three in Ohio, while the same day Rasmussen Reports showed Romney and Obama tied.

Example #2: Last Monday PPP showed Obama tied with Romney in North Carolina, while the Elon University/Charlotte Observer poll, a local state poll, showed Romney up by four.

But Politico won’t be denied their mission to say whatever they can to disillusion Romney’s base, and they make no bones about using uncredited sources; as Politico reporter Jonathan Martin said last month when Politico quoted unnamed sources in a story about Republicans unhappy about the selection of Paul Ryan (what?????):

We were candid about the sourcing on that, as you mentioned, Howie, and basically say to our readers, ‘Look, folks don’t want to put their names [on] the charges. If you don’t want to read Politico, that’s fine.’

Every race in the swing states is close right now, and the unconscionable skewing of the polls by the MSM shouldn’t discourage Republicans. The MSM has lied before, they are lying now, and they will lie in the future. The Obama campaign has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Romney, they have the power of incumbency, and Romney simply is not going away. And all of this is before Romney has even attacked Obama in ads and the debates.

Hey, Dems, this show ain’t even close to over; we’re just getting warmed up.


Did CNN Rig Its Own Poll?

CNN is grabbing political headlines tonight with the release of its latest poll. It shows Obama surging to a 6-point lead over Romney, 52-46, among likely. Before the start of the Democrat convention, the candidates had been tied in the poll. Since it purportedly confirms a narrative the media is trying to build, i.e. that Obama is starting to pull away with the race, it is getting wide coverage. However, there are a couple of strange things within the poll that cast doubt on its veracity. And, at least one concern warrants a response from CNN.

First, this being a media poll, it has an obvious skew towards Democrats. The partisan breakdown is (D/R/I) 50/45/5. It perhaps isn’t surprising that Obama is leading a D+5 poll by 6 points. Throughout the campaign season, Obama’s margin usually is very close to the partisan skew in the sample. It is surprising, though, that Independents make up only 5% of the sample. Tellingly, Romney leads this group by 14 points.

I’ve seen others suggest that CNN pushes voters to identify with one party or the other, which may account for this. Although, CNN identifies the breakdown of sample numbers as X “registered Democrats” and Y “registered Republicans.” Other polls that push Independents to identify show their work. CNN should as well.

There is another, more serious concern, however, The second question of the poll asks Obama and Romney voters whether their vote is “for” their candidate or “against” the other candidate. The sample size for this question is reported to be (top of page 3):




Those numbers didn’t look right to me, considering the headline number reported in the poll. There were 709 Likely Voters in the sample. The 351 votes for Obama is 49.5%. The 340 votes for Romney is 47.9%. In other words, a 50-48 match-up. That’s a lot different than the 52-46 reported in the headlines. Consider: the question to Romney supporters samples more Likely Voters than he received in the head-to-head result.

What could be happening here is that these are the raw counts from the poll interviews, which CNN then “weighted” to reflect certain demographics, etc. Pollster do this often, but it usually results in very minor changes to the overall numbers. If this discrepancy is the result of CNN “weighting” their poll, it would reflect a 4 point swing in the overall results. That’s a very significant change in the outcome. Their weighting added 2 points to Obama’s support and erased 2 points from Romney’s. Combined with a D+5 sample, this is a 9-point edge for Obama, simply from the composition of the poll.

Again, it isn’t unusual to weight a poll, for very legitimate reasons. But if the weighting produces this big of a swing in the final results, you really ought to show your work. CNN doesn’t release its internal demos, but it absolutely needs to in this case. If they don’t, then they’ve just been caught with their thumb on the scale.


Did Michelle’s story about their marital beginnings go too far?

September 8, 2012

Let’s skip the petty picking of MO copying Ann Romney’s hairstyle to a T (you noticed it too?) and move on to something more substantial. Like using contrast in a story that can sometimes be considered outright lying- Where much depends on the venue where the story is being spoken; casual dining room conversation with friends or a televised political event spoken as the wife of the president asking for your vote relating a delusional memory to tens of millions of people. Shall we?

It was reported:

First Lady Michelle Obama’s pitch to voters Thursday night relied on the premise that she and her husband understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet. She spoke movingly about their early years–about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was “rusted out” and found his furniture “in a dumpster,” how they both came from families that had to “scrape by.” Her fairy tale–however well-delivered–was one great, big, colorful LIE.


“Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.”

“[B]elieve it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage,” Michelle said. That sounds like a raw deal–but in fact reflects their fortunate circumstances. They had both just graduated from a very expensive law school, and their combined income from cushy law firm jobs dwarfed the repayments. Barack also soon enjoyed a second salary from the University of Chicago.

“They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993–a high price even by today’s standards. Several years later, they moved into their $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park–with the help of fraudster Tony Rezko. Barack often told a story of hardship on the campaign trail in 2008 about having his credit card declined–once. The fact that he thought this counted as real hardship speaks volumes.

>>Now settle down- let’s not get all teary eyed reaching for a hanky thinking about Obama having his credit card declined ONCE- Oh the horror!  He didn’t say the waiter or the clerk used a pr of scissors cutting the card in half in front of him in a restaurant or is a store while people were watching did he?

No- for that matter, we don’t even know IF the story is true?

“As her husband moved onto the national political stage, Michelle Obama began to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense, directly and indirectly. When Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he obtained a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital–and his wife’s salary as Vice President for Community Affairs jumped from $121,910 to $316,962. Her job: pushing poor, uninsured patients to other hospitals.”

>>>How brilliant is that? Barack’s addiction to Tax payer money was learned at the gound floor level beginning with his first year as a Chicago State Senator finding ways of using tax payer money to line his own pockets benefiting their overall joint income..

“As First Lady, Michelle Obama has lived high on the hog while the rest of the country has suffered through an extraordinary recession. In 2010, she and her entourage decamped to Spain for a lavish vacation. That summer, the Obamas encouraged Americans to visit the Gulf coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which threatened tourism in the region. They promptly jetted off to Maine for their own summer holiday.”

>>>Do we really understand the meaning of the word “lavish”?   To some it could mean going on a spending spree to WalMart and spending $200.00 on flowers and yard art-

To others it could mean a NO holds barred family vacation for a week in DisneyLand, pretty pricy at $8 to $10K on the credit card and paying it off in 30 days. I think we need to see what the Obama’s consider necessary to their sensibilities for a “lavish” vacation in S- ‘pain’.

I Love my Golden watchdog- although, he is better suited as a Target greeter. Forget that for a moment… back to the point- Grab a chair, yes an ’empty” one and sit yourself down!

If you have a cocktail handy, yes it is appropriate-

Here it is:

Michelle spent… remembering this is OUR money.. $470K on her vacation with friends to Spain.

“First lady Michelle Obama’s 2010 trip to Spain cost taxpayers nearly $470,000, according to a conservative watchdog group that obtained Secret Service records from the overseas excursion.”

>>>Thankfully, Michelle and Barack have come to their senses and:

>>>Which demonstrated to the American people they are feeling our pain.. their thrift, spending a less hefty sum costing the Tax Payers only $83K for Michelle and her daughters Aspen trip playing in the Colorado snow. Does it not snow at Camp David? What a photo op it would have been- while Daddy was busy working hard on issues of State and International Affairs; Mommy and the girls were skiing and tobogganing in the snow in the back yard at Camp David at Z-RO cost to the Tax payers… a golden opportunity fumbled.

“This summer, the Obamas skipped their usual summer trip to the wealthy playground of Martha’s Vineyard–months after Michelle and her daughters had enjoyed an expensive winter skiing trip in Aspen. And, of course, there are the frequent pilgrimages to Hawaii,  Some of their family’s comfort, of course, comes from private income, principally Barack Obama’s book sales–yet even that wealth is a spin-off of Obama’s political career.”

“If, as the Democrats eagerly pointing out, Mitt Romney enjoyed the privilege of private wealth, the Obamas have enjoyed privilege funded by public money and public life. And until entering the national spotlight, they gave little to charity, contributing instead to a church that preached racial grievance.

“[T]ruth matters,” Michelle Obama told the nation last night. That, too, is a LIE–because so far, she has evaded it without consequence.



September 7, 2012


Voluntarily for the Good of the Country


U.S. Jobs Growth Slows In August

WASHINGTON — U.S. jobs growth slowed more than expected in August, setting the stage for the Federal Reserve to pump additional money into the sluggish economy next week and dealing a blow to President Obama as he seeks reelection in November.

Nonfarm payrolls increased only 96,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, it was largely due to Americans giving up the search for work.

The report’s weak tenor was also underscored by revisions to June and July data to show 41,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The labor force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent — the lowest since September 1981.

The lackluster report keeps the pressure on Obama ahead of the November vote in which the health of the economy looms large.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to rise 125,000 last month, but some had pushed their forecasts higher after upbeat data on Thursday.

The economy has experienced three years of growth since the 2007-09 recession, but the expansion has been grudging and the jobless rate has held above 8 percent for more than three years — the longest stretch since the Great Depression.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week said the labor market’s stagnation was a “grave concern,” a comment that raised expectations for a further easing of monetary policy as soon as the central bank’s meeting on Wednesday and Thursday.

The jobless rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, but progress reducing it stalled this year, threatening Obama’s bid for a second term. An online Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday gave Republican challenger Mitt Romney a 1-point edge on Obama, 45 percent to 44 percent.

The lack of headway putting Americans back to work has also put the question of further monetary stimulus on the table at the Fed. The central bank has held interest rates close to zero for nearly four years and pumped about $2.3 trillion into the economy through two bouts of bond buying.

The weak report makes it more likely that the Fed will launch a third round of bond purchases next week. Since the beginning of the year, job growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011.

Economists blame fears of the so-called U.S. fiscal cliff — the $500 billion or so in expiring tax cuts and government spending reductions set to take hold at the start of next year unless Congress acts — and Europe’s long-running debt problems, for the slowdown in hiring.

Job creation last month was weak across the board, with manufacturing payrolls down 15,000, the first decline since September 2011. Factory jobs were inflated in July because automobile manufacturers kept plants running when they would normally shut them for retooling, economists said.

There was little improvement in construction employment, which added 1,000 jobs. Temporary hiring fell 4,900, declining for the first time since March.

Utilities payrolls saw a snap back, adding 8,800 after being depressed by the strike of about 9,000 workers in July.


In Case You Missed the Show Last Night…

September 6, 2012

and the subtlety of Bill Clinton’s speech at the Dem Convention… Here are a few things you ought to know before you berate Bill Clinton for his glorious rabble rousing speech about Barack Obama. First of all- I have Bill Clinton’s speech here in it’s entirety. The Fact Checking has been done.

If you want a lesson from a master political strategist, politician, diplomat, statesman, former governor, former president, former leader of the FREE World… Here’s your chance.. Listen to the roar of the crowd and the speech while you read- you can do one or the other; listen to the speech first or read the FACT CHECKER Results tracking Bill Clinton’s statements in his speech…then listen to the speech, whichever you prefer-

Fact-Checking Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton mentioned  Fact Checkers last night in the above video @ 38:38  He said Romney’s campaign poster said “We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by Fact-Checkers.”  Well- here are documented facts that have been checked and verified pointing out ALL the things Obama DIDN’T DO-  that was the point.  A little reverse psychology exposing the TRUE Facts,  if you please-

The former president began his DNC speech mocking the the very idea of self empowerment and individual success. After seeming to imply that he could work better with compromise than the man he was nominating, he launched into his trademark rhetoric:

In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don’t believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.


We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

Unfortunately for Clinton, the facts work against him. Under Barack Obama, more people than ever before have been reduced to government dependency. Offering meager entitlements in exchange for a chunk of self sovereignty is not only bad for the economy, it’s antithetical to the spirit with which America was founded.

Clinton tried to claim credit on behalf of the Democrats concerning jobs and touted his own record — that wasn’t possible without a Republican controlled-congress which passed welfare reform and balanced the budget in spite of him, not because of him.

Clinton attacked the tea party:

Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.

I don’t get it: either the tea party is dead or it’s all-powerful and controls the GOP. If the Republican party is dominated by the tea party, why is their presidential candidate a moderate?

Clinton remarked that Obama has done wonders for our economy:

I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators. Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.

Let’s see:

a $16 trillion-dollar debt

740k women driven from the workforce

more Americans than ever on government assistance

shrinking workforce

devaluing the dollar

We’re better off ?  Really?

Clinton tried shifting the blame to Bush. Again, the facts do not support Clinton’s assertions:

In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 – which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

Now let’s consider Mr. Obama’s record: an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, with 131,000 jobs lost in July, during our so-called Recovery Summer (Vice President Biden promised us up to 500,000 new jobs a month back in April). The overall unemployment rate, incorporating people who want jobs but did not look during July, is now 16.5 percent.

Clinton claimed Obama saved the auto industry, another misspeak:

The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country

Except a number of Chrysler plants are now in Mexico and over 61% of Chrysler is owned by an Italian company. The auto bailout is widely considered a failure.

GM is once again flirting with bankruptcy despite massive government purchases propping up its sales figures. GM stock is rock-bottom. Losses continue to be revised in the wrong direction. According to the Detroit News, “the Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That’s 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.”

He also misspoke about domestic energy:

President Obama’s “all of the above” energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.

The fact? Oil production increased ONLY on private and state-owned land. Federally-controlled land?  Stagnant. That oil imports are low is due to these private and state-run producers, in spite  of  Obama, not because of him, a refrain you will hear repeated with regard to Democrat policies.

Democrats talk of alternative energy but are content to ship those jobs overseas, along with our stimulus money. Instead of enslaving us to Persian Gulf oil, they’ll enslave us to China’s rare earth metals.

On Obamacare, Clinton claimed:

More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including breast cancer screenings and tests for heart problems.

In his closing remarks, Clinton threw out a few new phrases which have become hallmarks of modern progressive, socialist-Democrats [my emphasis]:

If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a “we’re all in it together” society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

If you want a future of shared prosperity … As well as the phrase “fair and equal sharing” (my addition)” don’t vote for the Obama/Biden ticket.

Breitbart has helped expedite the necessary time and effort for fact checking and noting the corrections in Bill’s speech last night.

Why is Obama Using Chicago Police At North Carolina DNC Convention?

September 4, 2012

A Fox News reporter just shared information regarding a considerable contingent of Chicago police inside the DNC convention center in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Yet another Obama related act that makes one go hmm…


by Greta Van Susteren

Gretawire reporting she was e-mailed a note by FNC’s Chad Pergram

Saying Below:

Just an interesting note:

There are lots of police here from other organizations. But at the convention center, Chicago Police are here….not just folks from across the state or South Carolina.


What Greta’s commentators are saying: (exactly what we are thinking)

“How comforting to know they are using cops from the city with the highest murder rate in the nation.” 350 murders this year in Chicago, they can hardly lose their police to the messiah”

“They should stay home and patrol their own streets. They are the worst state for crime in the country.”

“Just watch the Democrats are playing this one up like they need security….they may have free speech problems. Remember Obama passed a bill after the shooting of Gabby Giffords that if anyone makes derogatory comments towards a politician will be charged with a felony!”
(so what is Obama’s definition of derogatory? Obama with the Chimpy Ears?)

“Fox report that the dems are busing Blacks in from poor area around Charlotte so the seats will look full to avoid comments from the right and do their usual lying image.”

“They have to do that because no one wants to be there. Look who is showing up. Real speakers are few and far between.”


As the Titanic is sinking Obama pushes men, women and children aside for the Mega-Me and his entourage, the only ones worthy of surviving the disaster he created. Heading for Hawaii, eh? Who’s name is on the title of the new home in Hawaii… certainly, NOT OBAMA’S!  nooooo!

(h/t Ulsterman

Clinton: Nothing Could Be More Frightening Than Four More Years

by Tellurian

Great headline- however the message beneath it from Breitbart misses the mark…We have a former duly elected president scheduled to speak on Wednesday evening forced into giving a rousing speech for the “Head” of the Democratic Party. Has anyone forgotten the man he will be promoting had his surrogates call the ‘President of Peace and Prosperity’ with an office residing in Harlem, a RACIST? The man he is looking to- to rescue his failing presidency using his influence and prestige expecting President Clinton to gloss over the warts and boils of the Obama presidency. We haven’t forgotten the Clintons were held hostage to the barbs and humiliating headlines blaring across the Tabloids with media ads launched against Hillary Rodham Clinton as she ran a “CLEAN” campaign telling potential voters the “TRUTH” coupled with a VIABLE PLAN running on the issues. Does Obama really expect this? How would Obama handle the same situation if the roles were reversed? We have read how Obama handles the people who gave him money and support when he wanted to open a campaign office for his first run for State Senator in Chicago- Fish Eyes! He gives them the look seen in dead fish eyes and treats them like lepers from Devil’s Island. Chummers-

Of course we can’t expect Obama to run on his record- Why further depress an audience that has been bussed in from around the country filling hundreds of potentially empty seats? OBAMA MAY BE A FAILURE- But he is NOT STUPID-

I fully intend to watch and listen to my favorite 20th century president’s speech tomorrow night. Why? To learn from him on how you deal with a dirty low down rotten piece of garbage who happens to be the president of the United States. I want to hear him planting zingers not kisses on the worst president ever to be elected in the history of the US and learn from the best  how it’s done.



TODAY is National Empty Chair Day- Clint inspires American Activism…

August 31, 2012


Hours after Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visited Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Isaac on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney announced President Barack Obama would call an audible in his schedule and visit Louisiana on Monday to assess the storm’s damage.

Obama’s leading-from-behind reaction to Romney’s visit reaffirmed Clint Eastwood’s empty chair analogy, which upset the mainstream media, the iconic actor used Thursday night at the Republican National Convention when discussing Obama and his presidency.

“The empty-chair analogy by Clint Eastwood might be far more accurate and impactful than the Obama campaign and its cheerleaders in the media care to accept,” the insightful Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus wrote.

The mainstream media juxtaposed images of Hurricane Issac hitting Louisiana next to images of the RNC throughout the week, and they continued to stress the seriousness of the storm. Mainstream media networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and PBS reminded their viewers of Hurricane Katrina, and blamed former President George W. Bush for his inaction during Katrina.

Yet Obama spent the week campaigning in crucial swing states like Iowa, Colorado, and Virginia (Louisiana is not a swing state). He even took some time to chat online, proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict political speech while on Reddit, an online link-sharing community. He never once visited Louisiana.

And the mainstream media gave Obama a complete pass.

“When somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go,” Eastwood said Thursday night, in comments that could resonate more in light of Obama’s inaction during and after Hurricane Issac.


MOVIE REVIEW by H. HAWKE of Dinesh D’Souza’s movie “2016”
here or at the Movie and Book Review Section at the top of the page

Is DOJ ‘Community Organizing’ Occupy Activists at the RNC?

August 30, 2012

What are uniformed field representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Community Relations Service (CRS) doing assisting Occupy/anarchist activists outside the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Tampa?


Exclusive video captured by Breitbart News during Occupy/anarchist demonstrations outside the RNC Tuesday shows CRS field representatives, wearing DOJ logo polo shirts and hats, conversing with Occupy protesters.

In one case, a CRS representative and protester are seen to high-five each other.

CRS representatives are also seen relaying specific instructions to the activists about the location of prearranged buses that were apparently taking them to their next scheduled demonstration.

CRS’s mission, as expressed on its website, is to be a “‘peacemaker’ for community conflicts and tensions.” CRS was created as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a conflict resolution body dealing specifically with community uprisings over racial issues. Its jurisdiction was later expanded as part of The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, signed into law by President Obama, which lists the areas in which the CRS can act as including issues of “race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.”

The purpose of CRS is to mediate in ongoing disputes–not to foment them, or to become participants. However, there is evidence that the Obama administration may be using CRS as a quiet community organizing force.

Read more at Breitbart

(ht/Michelle Malkin for alerting us to what was not for public consumption and swept under the rug…


RNC Rules Fight – After Action Report:

First let me say thank-you, thank-you to conservatives everywhere who spoke up and started a national firestorm over this issue. If you’re like me, you know just how important it is to the future of the conservative movement.

With the Rules meeting itself, the first problem was attendance. Many, many of our supporters simply didn’t make it there do to buses that were up to an hour late to pick them up, (Morton Blackwell of Virginia had this problems). Many of them who didn’t make it would have been additional signatures to our petition. But they started the meeting anyway, introducing a motion to ratify the final report of last Friday with the exception of the rule 16 compromise language taking out candidate veto power over delegates. This final motion passed.

As the meeting was going on, we were circulating our minority report petition. At one point, the male delegate from Massachusetts snatched it out of the hands ot the lady from North Dakota, refusing to give it back after repeated demands, resulting in a shoving match when the delegate from Colorado came to her defense.

After the final vote was over, according to party rules, we had one hour to file our minority reports, and, according to Rules, they have to be filed with either the committee chair, secretary, or convention secretary. Of course, after the meeting, they were no where to be found.

We continued to pick up signatures after the meeting, getting up to 24 for our Rule 12 minority report… but 4 shy of what would have been needed. Again, many people simply weren’t there. Others had their arms twisted. And others, as I learned, were simply “replaced” on the committee by their delegations.

On the Rule 16 issue, we had enough – IF we could have submitted something on paper – but again, no one there…or to be found. So our only option was to re-submit, via email, the pdf of what we submitted last Friday. We emailed this to Sunnunu and the convention secretary. The problem however would have been that it had 29 signatures, but since Friday, 2 members asked to have their names removed, so it would have been a no-go.

After the vote on the convention floor, it occurred to me that we probably should have just told everyone to “vote no” on the rules entirely…and yell “division” to force a head count…if the rules failed, a new motion substituting the old rules may have been in order… but hindsight is 20-20.

The upside is that as a result of shining a light on what was going on and alerting everyone to it, we were able to force a compromise to get the worst part of the proposed changes removed, (the change that would let campaigns have veto power over delegates).

The downside is that all of the rest of the garbage went through, (i.e. letting the RNC change the rules between conventions, removing a March proportionality rule that will result in a massive front-loaded national primary in 4 or 8 years, forcing some caucus/convention states to bind delegates against their own rules and state law, etc..).

Worst yet, due to the RNC’s new power to change the rules, the [genie] is out of the bottle and, who knows, a proposal for candidates to have delegate veto power may yet be in our future.

This whole debacle verifies what I call “Drew McKissick’s unified theory of political power” – Those who get involved and stay involved have the power. Even idiots eventually get promoted up the chain to their level of incompetence if for no other reason that there is so much apathy that “somebody” has to fill xyz position and “hey, this guy always shows up, give it to him”. And there you go.

The takeaway for conservatives is this:


Yes, those boring old precinct meetings matter. Going to county party meetings matters. Running for delegate matters. Who your delegates pick for Platform and Rules Committees REALLY MATTERS. Show up…support good people who can’t be bullied.

Right now we have a campaign – or many campaigns – to win this November. And conservatives should do everything they can to win. But after Election Day remember, the candidates represent the party, not the other way around.

Keep the heat on, and keep them honest. This shook people up. Keep them that way.

Thanks again for all of the support. You have no idea how much it meant.

Drew McKissick
Delegate, SC

We will continue watching this story for further developments and posting updates as they become available… STAY TUNED!

Floor fight: Grass-roots activists battle attempt to rig RNC delegate rules:

August 29, 2012

The fight that went unnoticed last night at the GOP Convention.. Instead, media focused on Ron Paul delegates

Updated: Palin: “direct attack on the grass-roots;” RNC power grab showdown; Rules Cmte votes 78-14 for deal; dissidents gather signatures for floor fight; Boehner/Sununu declare”no objections” over massive boos on the floor.

(ht/Michelle Malkin
Last night:
8/28… Rules Committee adopts compromises, floor fight squashed as Boehner/Sununu approve rules report over massive boos on convention floor.

Drew McKissick is a longtime conservative activist and blogger who is in attendance at the Republican National Convention’s Rules Committee meetings. He and others on the ground are sounding the alarm over rules changes that he and many other attendees believe will hurt grass-roots movement conservatives.

The battle is being cast by some observers as a narrow fight between Ron Paul advocates and the rest of the party. Drew says that’s NOT TRUE.

And many other state delegations who oppose top-down delegate choices are chiming in.

First, here’s Drew’s call to arms (my emphasis added in bold):

Fellow conservatives,

Those who are in Tampa working to maintain the influence of grassroots conservatives in the Republican Party need your help!

This past Friday, the RNC’s Convention Rules Committee voted – after several contentious votes – to change the party’s rules to allow future presidential candidates to have veto power over who can be delegates from any state – in other words, take power away from the grassroots and their ability to elect fellow conservatives as delegates.

This represents a brazen move by several Washington Beltway consultants and party insiders to diminish the power and influence of conservatives over the party.

At least 29 members of this committee are filing Minority Reports to the full convention to try and make sure that these changes are NOT adopted into the final changes the full convention will approve on Tuesday. But we need your help to spread the word. 28 members are required to issue a minority report for the convention to even consider…and you can be sure others are working behind the scenes to peel some of them off before the meeting…so we need to create pressure for others to join!

Let me stop here and say that this is NOT…REPEAT NOT a move by a bunch of disgruntled Ron Paul supporters. This is a group of long-time conservative activists, even “party regulars” and lots of Romney supporters, many who go back to the Goldwater days.

We need to generate enough PUBLIC PRESSURE from grassroots conservatives that they will back off before Tusday’s meeting and withdraw their changes so that we can avoid the need for a minority report and floor fight [altogether].

Here’s what we need before Tuesday’s session of the convention:
1) We need all conservative Republican grassroots supporters to contact their state GOP and let them know that they OPPOSE the rules change that will give future presidential campaigns control over who gets to be a delegate (current RULE 15, but is being renumbered to 16)…and OPPOSE the new RULE 12 which allows the RNC to change the rules at any time between conventions.

2) We need them to contact any DELEGATES to the convention they may know and tell them they OPPOSE the rules change and want them to support a move on the floor to amend this change via the MINORITY REPORTS – and support a demand for a ROLL CALL VOTE if necessary.

3) We need them to contact the CONVENTION RULES COMMITTEE members for their state (each state has two) and tell them they want them to SIGN THE MINORITY REPORTS before Tuesday’s session at 2:00PM. You can find a copy of the list here.

4) Finally, we would like them to help us spread the word that this is an insider power grab by a bunch of DC Beltway types who want consultants to be able to pick who the delegates are from their respective states in the future – AS WELL AS FUTURE PLATFORM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Post a link to this page on Facebook and Twitter…spread the word on the media…COMPLAIN. Let everyone know this is wrong, and that it is ANTI-GRASSROOTS!

Here’s a piece on the Texas GOP delegation revolting against the proposed changes:

Texans bristle at proposed change in selecting delegates

By Tim Eaton | Monday, August 27, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — Republican convention-goers have a light first day today thanks to an earlier threat from Hurricane Isaac that changed the schedule. As the storm took a track away from this Gulf coast town, one issue was causing concern among the Texas delegation.

It sounds pretty technical, but the national party leaders are trying to change a convention rule that would alter that way delegates are chosen. If approved in the coming days, the change would allow the presumptive presidential nominee to have the final say over each state’s delegates, said Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.

The Texas delegation is livid. At a morning meeting of Texas delegates, Munisteri and a boisterous crowd discussed how the proposed change would affect the way Texans might send delegates to future conventions.

We will be “told how to select our delegates,” Munisteri said.

Texas prides itself on being a state party whose members choose who will go the national convention. It’s a grassroots — versus top-town — approach, said James Dickey, an at-large alternate from Bee Cave.

Dickey said the result of the change, if it is approved, could be drastic.

“It would dampen enthusiasm a lot,” Dickey said. “It would dampen excitement about running to be a delegate.”

With the support of Texas’ delegates, Munisteri said he’s ready to take the fight to the floor of the convention.

In a letter to the national rules committee, the Texas delegation said: “The only way a floor fight can be avoided is if the rule is stricken.”

An email to the party was not returned, but Munisteri said the thinking behind the proposal was to ensure delegates vote for the candidate they are supposed to support in the nomination process.

The national party has been trying to dissuade states from objecting to what some people see as a power-grab by the national party, Munisteri said.

He added that it is ironic that a party that is supposed to be opposed to heavy-handed oversight would try to employ such a tactic.

“Somebody needs to wake up, and it’s not Texas,” said Butch Davis, a Texas representative to the national rules committee.

Supporters of the failed candidacy of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul are equally upset about the proposed rule change.

Tobey Pedford, an alternate from Oklahoma City, said after a Paul rally on Sunday that he too would fight the proposal by the national leaders.

“They’re trying to go back to the smoke-filled room,” he said. “We can’t allow it.”

Statesman link
The publication:

FREEDOM WORKSis on the scene. Many Romney supporters are now coming forward to disavow the Romney campaign-led effort:

“We’re asking activists to talk to every state party leader. The worry here is that you’re flipping the whole process on its head. It used to be that the grassroots chose the delegates, and the delegates choose the candidates. They’re essentially creating a rule where the candidate can disavow any delegate that doesn’t tow the line,” Kibbe said.”

Michelle Malkin has the rest of the story @ link

All of the above is a recount of what happened last night in Tampa that has gone Under-reported by mainstream media- Or should I say, covered up by MSM?

Chaos Erupts on Convention Floor Over Ron Paul Delegates…

August 28, 2012


Palin: Rules Change ‘Attack on Grassroots’ This story is NOT getting the play it deserves… Changing the Rules is a hybrid action mimicking what happened to Hillary Clinton in May 08′ resulting in stolen delegates.


Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joined a chorus of grassroots conservatives in calling for two proposed rule changes, backed by the top brass of Mitt Romney’s campaign, to be rejected on the floor of the Republican National Convention. Palin said the two proposed rule changes that would impact delegates and would allow the RNC to change the party rules in between conventions in the future were “very disappointing” and “must be rejected.”

“It’s a direct attack on grassroots activists by the GOP establishment, and it must be rejected,” Palin wrote in a Facebook note after spending a day in Arizona campaigning before thousands for Arizona House candidate Kirk Adams (R). “Without the energy and wisdom of the grassroots, the GOP would not have had the historic 2010 electoral victories. That’s why the controversial rule change being debated at the RNC convention right now is so very disappointing.

“We have to remember that this election is not just about replacing the party in power. It’s about who and what we replace it with.”

Palin then linked to Michelle Malkin’s thorough, real-time updates concerning the looming fight over the proposed rule changes.

On Friday, Republican officials associated with the Romney campaign strong-armed two rule changes into the draft platform. The first rule would have effectively allowed future presidential candidates — and not states — to choose the delegates that represent them. In what appears to be a compromise, the text of the rule has been changed to allow states to still select delegates.

Of more concern, though, is Rule 12, and the compromise on selecting delegates will be moot if Rule 12 remains in place.

Rule 12 would allow the RNC to change the rules between conventions if 75% of committee members agree to do so. Since committee members usually agree to what the RNC chair wants, this effectively is a rubber stamp that allows the RNC to amend the rules whenever it wants.

“As long as the proposed Rule 12 remains in place, this ‘deal’ or ‘compromise’ must be a no-go,” Malkin wrote. “Don’t back down, activists!”

Conservative talk radio host and author Mark Levin said: “the power grab was akin to something President Barack Obama would do.”


“Conservatives of all stripes, especially Tea Party activists, this is an attempt to destroy your ability to influence the presidential and vice presidential nomination process in the Republican Party,” Levin wrote. “It is an attempt to eviscerate the input of state parties. It is a brazen assault on the grassroots. And it is sleazy to the core.”

A Romney delegate from Georgia, Julianne Thompson, wrote that the Republican establishment was “essentially striking the first blow that chips” away at the freedoms Republicans have been fighting for by disenfranchising “the very people that turned the tide for the GOP in 2010 by returning power in the U.S. House of Representatives to Republicans.”

Thompson noted that this rule change would allow large campaign donors to be rewarded with delegate positions, which would be given out like ambassadorships.


In a letter to the national rules committee, the Texas delegation said: “The only way a floor fight can be avoided is if the rule is stricken.”

Prominent conservatives noted that these objections were not being made “by a bunch of disgruntled Ron Paul supporters,” but by “a group of long-time conservative activists, even ‘party regulars’ and lots of Romney supporters, many who go back to the Goldwater days.”

Morton Blackwell, an influential conservative from Virginia who worked in the Reagan administration, said the rules could “fundamentally change our Republican Party — and not for the better.”

“These rule changes are the most awful I’ve ever seen come before any National Convention,” Blackwell wrote. “This fight is too important to not make a stand.”

Six states’ delegations must insist on a roll call vote for Rule 12 to be stricken.

On an appearance on FOX News’ “Hannity” on Monday from Arizona, Palin talked about how important the grassroots are to the future of the party and country.

“We need people to agree with the sudden and relentless reform that is needed to tackle the problems in D.C.,” Palin said. “The status quo has got to go.”




So many books about Obama; So little time:

We have a book review in the offing of Richard Miniter’s book:

Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him-

by guest writer,  H. Hawke

See the NEW Book and Movie Review Page Section here


Sarah Palin Warns Conservatives Obama Must Go – Vote Romney

August 27, 2012

Conservative and Tea Party favorite Governor Sarah Palin makes it clear to any voters still sitting on the fence regarding who to support in the upcoming presidential election that in the choice between Romney or Obama – the choice is clear.  OBAMA MUST GO.  And to voters who are threatening to sit out this election – Palin makes it equally clear that such a thing is simply not an option during such an important election in America’s history.  Go to the 6:50 mark to see Governor Palin’s warning to those potential non-voters:

Exclusive: Next SEAL Ad Excoriates Obama for Bowing to Foreign Leaders


August 25, 2012


Neil Alden Armstrong August 5, 1930 – August 25, 2012

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade.

A number of political factors affected Kennedy’s decision and the timing of it. In general, Kennedy felt great pressure to have the United States “catch up to and overtake” the Soviet Union in the “space race.” Four years after the Sputnik shock of 1957, the cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin had become the first human in space on April 12, 1961, greatly embarrassing the U.S. While Alan Shepard became the first American in space on May 5, he only flew on a short suborbital flight instead of orbiting the Earth, as Gagarin had done.

In addition, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in mid-April put unquantifiable pressure on Kennedy. He wanted to announce a program that the U.S. had a strong chance at achieving before the Soviet Union. After consulting with Vice President Johnson, NASA Administrator James Webb, and other officials, he concluded that landing an American on the Moon would be a very challenging technological feat, but an area of space exploration in which the U.S. actually had a potential lead. Thus the cold war is the primary contextual lens through which many historians now view Kennedy’s speech.

The decision involved much consideration before making it public, as well as enormous human efforts and expenditures to make what became Project Apollo a reality by 1969. Only the construction of the Panama Canal in modern peacetime and the Manhattan Project in war were comparable in scope. NASA’s overall human spaceflight efforts were guided by Kennedy’s speech; Projects Mercury (at least in its latter stages), Gemini, and Apollo were designed to execute Kennedy’s goal.

His goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module’s ladder and onto the Moon’s surface.


“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” Armstrong said..July 20, 1969

The public policy issues behind the Apollo Space Program:

These are two documentaries, each an hour long, about aspects of the Apollo 11 Moon landing story that never get told. Apollo is always the story of the people at Mission Control and Neil Armstrong and the engineers that accomplished this incredible technological feat. Very few people then look at what happened in Washington, DC. We very nearly didn’t go for political reasons inside the Beltway. The political problems of maintaining a coalition of support to fund the program were just a difficult as were the technical problems that the engineers in the field were facing.

You can read the text or listen to the hour long audio of the Apollo 11 Space Mission Moon landing story that never got told at the above link.

Paul Ryan ‘To Do-Nothing Obama’: “PUT UP OR SHUT UP”

August 25, 2012

Congressman Paul Ryan, recently announced as Mitt Romney’s GOP running mate, is making it clear his views regarding Barack Obama’s do-nothing White House and the impending fiscal crisis and disastrous cuts to the U.S. military because of Barack Obama’s penchant for always playing politics even when endangering the near-term future of the United States.


Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday condemned President Obama in his harshest terms yet for forcing mandatory defense cuts into last summer’s agreement to raise the debt ceiling, saying that Congress has told the president to “put up or shut up” by disclosing how the cuts would be implemented.

Ryan was referring to the Sequestration Transparency Act, a bill that passed both the House and Senate by a bipartisan vote in late July. The president signed it earlier this month, though administration officials have said Congress should devote its energy to avoiding the so-called looming “fiscal cliff” instead of simply probing for details on the consequences.

“The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place, so we’re now waiting for that answer,” Ryan said during a roundtable in Fayetteville, home to Fort Bragg.


What Barack Obama is attempting is to force a budget showdown with Congress shortly before the Novembe election in the hopes the media will spin Obama favorably and the Republicans negatively. What the media is currently unwilling to share with the American public is just what Paul Ryan is pointing to in his most recent quote – a bi-partisan compromise has been reached already between leaders in Congress indicating, at least among some, a willingness to work together to avoid the fiscal disaster of a prolonged budget showdown.

It should also be noted that Barack Obama is threatening massive cuts to the American military while at the same time declaring the very real possibility of using that same military to act against Syria. Has there ever been a Commander in Chief so dismissive of the imporance of American defense while at the same time equally willing to use that military as a political propoganda to further his own re-election hopes?

Remember, it was then-candidate Obama who accused the American military of simply “air raiding villages and killing civilians” in Afghanistan.

(ht/Ulsterman for scouring the internet on his unrelenting fact finding mission.

Shocking: Obama Adds Military Heroes to ‘Enemies List’ (for an UP-date on Big Pink… read in comments)

August 22, 2012

President Barack Obama has added military heroes to his “enemies list,” singling out veterans’ groups such as Special Operations for America and Veterans for a Strong America on his campaign website, much as he singled out donors to Republican rival Mitt Romney for attack. Several veterans’ groups have spoken out against the Obama administration’s habit of taking credit for the Osama bin Laden raid and leaking military secrets for political gain–so the Obama campaign is trying to shoot the messenger.

The charge made by the Obama campaign is that the veterans’ groups are “Swift Boat 2.0”–referring to the group that launched a series of ads (never refuted) in 2004 contesting claims by then-Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry about his war record. Left-wing groups aligned with the Obama administration have even gone so far as to call the U.S. Navy Seals “gutless” for their participation in criticism of Obama.

Ryan Zinke, a member of the Montana state Senate and a U.S. Navy SEAL from 1985 to 2008, told Breitbart News: “It’s a sad time for America when a President has to resort to bully tactics, intimidation, and misleading personal attacks against anyone who dares to speak out and be heard. The good thing is Americans have a long history of defeating tyrants.”

Read more: @ Breitbart Link


Radical Muslims joining with DNC..

Starting at the end of this month the Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam.  20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they claim are non-political.  ”Jumah at the DNC” begins August 29 and will start with a Friday afternoon jummah prayer followed by other unnamed programs and events, leading up to the Islamic Regal Banquet. The following day will be an all day Islamic Cultural and Fun Fest which will include discussions on the topics of Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more.  The purpose, according to BIMA, is to attract national and international attention to the plight of American Muslims and to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect them.  However, not all Muslims feel that BIMA represents them and M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has expressed serious concerns.

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the “Jummah at the DNC”. The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims.  Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

This is not about their right of assembly; this group under a different name pulled the same stunt at the US capitol in 2009 claiming 20k and getting 2-3k. THIS IS ABOUT the DNC calling this an “official function” listing these radicals as typical of the DNC community and more importantly about this organization speaking out AS representing supposedly typical American Muslims (or “Mainstream”).

If that is who the DNC is consorting with then all Americans, Democrats should be concerned. There are many patriotic Muslims who are part of both parties, and when radical ideologues like this do a demonstration of “solidarity” in the name of our faith and choose an imam like Siraj Wahhaj who I saw with my own eyes in 1995 seditiously say it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran– then we need to speak up!

Their jummah (group) prayer is supposedly against the Patriot Act, the NYPD, and Islamophobia and is actually NOT about our democracy but about empowering their Islamist and MB (Muslim Brotherhood) sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

They use our American Muslim identity to speak as “one community” as a political unit or as a “bloc vote” – a political Islamist party when in fact most us Muslims don’t want that political unity and seek reform against their ideology that seeks to hijack our community. They do not represent us. (emphasis mine)


The inclusion of Muslims into the DNC should be a Big Enough turn off to Democratic Voters.. and shrink Obama donations down to Salvation Army status.

Romney raising cash from coast to coast from traditionally Dem cities-

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who is out-fundraising President Barack Obama by impressive margins, is attracting thousands of donors this summer from traditionally Democratic areas of the United States, collecting millions of dollars in even progressive communities from New York to Los Angeles, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of new campaign data.

Donors from tony neighborhoods of Manhattan to even the famously liberal Castro neighborhood in San Francisco helped Romney and the GOP outraise Obama by more than $25 million in July, beating him and the Democratic Party in contributions for a third consecutive month, the AP analysis showed.

Romney collected at least $630,000 by mid-summer from New York City, the home to major Romney fundraiser and New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. More than $100,000 of that came from investment bankers, who have cooled to Obama since he supported tougher regulations for Wall Street following the financial meltdown and housing crisis in recent years.

More than 2,000 miles away on the West Coast, Romney collected at least $350,000 since June in the San Francisco Bay Area alone, with average contributions of $400 apiece. The Bay Area is also the home of Dick Boyce, a former partner of Romney’s at Bain Capital and a GOP super PAC donor who is active in fundraising for Romney this election.

The money race has become a critical bellwether in the presidential campaign, which is expected to cost more than $1 billion. Obama is not only losing the money race but also is being outspent on the airwaves, thanks to millions of dollars in ads from independent “super” political committees funded by wealthy donors who oppose Obama and his policies.

Romney and the Republican Party are also making financial inroads in traditionally liberal cities across the nation, including Austin, Texas, and Obama’s hometown of Chicago. These include small and large contributions, from $200 to the maximum $30,800 allowed under federal law to political parties each year.

In Denver, the home of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Romney supporters this summer contributed more than $400,000 – enough to pay rent, utilities and staff for a campaign field office. And in Philadelphia, where Obama handily beat Sen. John McCain four years ago, Romney took in more than $250,000 since early June.

Romney’s campaign has made a furious effort in recent months to step up its fundraising against Obama, who came to office four years ago with a fundraising operation that brought in a record-breaking $750 million for his election. Romney’s campaign set an ambitious goal earlier this year of more than $100 million by summer’s end with a goal of $800 million by November.

But now, Obama and his advisors publicly acknowledge the president will likely be outspent by November. Romney and the GOP reported a combined $101 million in fundraising last month, while Obama and the Democrats together said they raised $75 million.

Romney supporters have pointed to a withered economy and have said failed promises are driving contributions to the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign for the last two months. A Florida donor for Romney, who raised $10,000 alone at a lunch this week, said donors represented to him they are mostly upset with the economy or are business owners unhappy with regulations. The donor spoke on condition of anonymity because he’s not allowed to speak for the campaign.

The AP’s analysis mapped addresses of a quarter-million donors to the GOP or Romney’s presidential campaign. It then cross-referenced those records with traditionally Democratic city or metro area boundaries and examined ZIP codes for which donors have seldom, if ever, contributed to the Republican candidate.

The analysis excluded supporters who gave fewer than $200 because, under federal law, campaigns aren’t required to disclose details about such small contributions. High-dollar donors have been essential to Romney’s election effort, unlike Obama, who relies on a greater share of smaller checks.

The Democratic National Committee and Obama both spent more than they took in last month as the president expanded his campaign operations and purchased millions of dollars in television advertising to compete with rival Mitt Romney and millions of dollars in super PAC ads working in his favor.

To be sure, while Romney for now has a significant financial advantage, he is trailing Obama in terms of paid staffers who in part coordinate the campaign’s ground operations. The new finance reports show Obama’s campaign paid about 800 staffers around the nation – not counting volunteers – while Romney had fewer than half that number.

Link to AP article


For a while now, and with some off-days, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has maintained a small but persistent lead in the two most reliable national polls, Gallup and Rasmussen. Swing state polls, however, have been less kind. Since Romney clinched the nomination, President Obama has consistently led in most of these crucial states, sometimes by wide margins that felt counter-intuitive when compared to the national polls.

Well, whatever caused that — Obama’s spending advantage, poorly weighted polls or both — the tide is turning and also doing so in two states Obama and his media minions probably felt were pretty safe.


[A] national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy, Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn, Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 general election voters to determine their voting preferences.

In what will be a significant blow to Democratic campaign efforts, native son Mitt Romney has climbed into the lead in Michigan’s Presidential contest.

Obama: 43.88%

Romney: 47.68%

And in my home state of Wisconsin two recent polls have Obama stuck at 47 and Romney ahead by one.

Over the past few weeks in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls, Romney has caught up to or passed Obama in Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and Iowa.

The trend is the thing and the trend is all moving Romney’s way.

It might just be that the American people know when a cynical, dishonest, failed president and his media minions are conning them with shiny distractions as the economy shrinks and the unemployment rate increases.

It might just be that Romney refusing to cave to the fact checker’s lies about welfare reform is allowing Obama’s gutting of that law to penetrate.

It might just be that New Media is also penetrating with our counter-narratives and our focus on real issues as opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, tax returns, and whatever other nonsense Obama’s pathetic MSM Palace Guards can dream up.

And it might just be that choosing a serious, ethical, brilliant reformer like Paul Ryan told voters that Romney takes them and the problems of this nation seriously.

My guess is that it’s a little bit of all that.

Since choosing Ryan last Saturday morning, Team Romney not only broke a six-week losing streak but have run a near-flawless campaign. Voters are seeing a competent nominee with a competent team and a potential president whose first hiring choice (Ryan) was the work of a confident leader.

All America needs is an acceptable alternative to the failed man currently in the job, and right now, Romney is proving himself to be that man and then some.

(ht/John Nolte @ Link

Obama Panic Attack – Romney Now Leading Wisconsin

August 21, 2012

This time last year the Obama campaign would not have considered Wisconsin to be a state requiring both time and money to be spent hoping to secure victory in 2012 – but recent polling suggests that is exactly what is happening. Remember – Barack Obama carried Wisconsin in 2008 by a whopping 14 percentage points! Polling data showing Mitt Romney now leading Wisconsin has to be sending the Obama campaign into a frenzy of concern.



Romney slightly ahead in Wisconsin

PPP’s first Wisconsin poll since Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan as his running mate finds him taking a small lead over Barack Obama in the state, 48-47. That represents a 7 point shift from PPP’s last look at the state in early July, which found Obama ahead 50-44.

…Choosing Ryan as his running mate isn’t giving Romney any trouble with seniors in Wisconsin. That’s actually where his greatest strength is, leading Obama 52-43 with them. Which isn’t to say the Ryan Plan is popular in Wisconsin- only 40% of voters support it to 46% who are opposed. But the concern with it is coming much more from young voters than seniors. LINK



OH MY! (ht/ To my good friend, Ulsterman

‘Fool Me Twice’ #2 on Amazon’s ‘Election Heat Map’ for Political Books in U.S.



Losing His Edge?

Florida’s Jews notice drop in support for Obama

August 21, 2012

President Barack Obama is in danger of losing a substantial part of the American Jewish vote, especially in the crucial swing state of Florida.

According to a report published on Monday by the Boston Globe, Jewish analysts and community leaders in Florida agree that Obama’s Israel policy has damaged his standing with Jewish voters, and this may be enough to cost him Florida, which could mean losing the upcoming election.

“Jews constitute only 3 percent of the state’s population,” the report notes, “but cast their ballots in such large numbers that they can account for 7 or 8 percent of the total vote.”

The report cites Ira Sheskin, director of the Jewish Demography Project at the University of Miami, as saying that, “Any significant erosion of Obama’s support among the 639,000 Jews who live in Florida would have an outsize impact because their turnout could be near or more than 90 percent.”

Florida proved decisive in the 2000 presidential election, and may very well do so again in 2012. Along with Ohio, it is a large and populous state that is almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The shift of a mere handful of votes can have an enormously outsize impact.

The “erosion” Sheskin mentions has been noted nationwide, with a Gallup poll showing a 10 percent drop in support for Obama among Jewish voters. An American Jewish Committee poll showed an even larger drop.

Jewish activists in Florida have noted the change on a local level as well.

“The 78 percent that Barack Obama got in the Jewish community four years ago is off the table,” said Sid Dinerstein, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party. “Barack Obama will get a majority of the Jewish vote, but he won’t get two-thirds.”

Dinerstein, the first Jew to lead the county GOP, predicted that Obama would win 60 to 65 percent of that vote. As a result, he said, “when you take 10, 15 points of the Jewish vote and flip them, the state’s gone, believe me.”

“In my congregation, there’s still lots of support for Obama,” said Rabbi Barry Silver, who leads a reform synagogue in Lake Worth, Fla., just south of West Palm Beach. “However, since the last election, I have noticed Obama’s support slipping across all denominational lines.”

The Globe report is unequivocal about the cause of this drop in support, Obama’s Israel policy. Professor Sheskin clearly states, “There are some people who are concerned about whether Obama really has his heart in Israel. There are people who are afraid that Obama will put undue pressure on Israel in his second term.”



Tell Admin to stick that in her pipe and smoke it!

Mitt Romney Calls For Audit Of Federal Reserve… All Eyes to the Front!

August 21, 2012

Leaving little doubt regarding his feelings on the growing influence of the Ben Bernanke led Federal Reserve, GOP candidate Mitt Romney says its time for an audit investigation into the FED:  (ht/ Ulsterman..


Romney supports audit of the Federal Reserve

Borrowing Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign push, Mitt Romney said Monday he thinks the Federal Reserve should face an audit.

“Very plain and simple, the answer is yes. The Federal Reserve should be accountable. We should see what they’re doing,” Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said at a town hall in New Hampshire.

Mr. Paul, the Texas congressman who is still technically in the running for the Republican nomination, though he does not have the delegates to win it at next week’s convention, made an audit of the Fed a chief part of his campaign.

The GOP’s platform committee begins meeting later Monday, and Mr. Paul is seeking to have a Fed audit included as an official position of the party. Gov. Bob McDonnell, the platform committee’s chairman, told The Washington Times last month that he supported accountability at the Fed, and said the committee was looking at a number of Mr. Paul’s ideas.

Washington Times

Wall Street Insider, over the course of numerous interviews, pointed both to the need to do battle against Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, as well as demanding I and others maintain respect for many of the ideals represented by the Ron Paul campaign.

It certainly appears something has taken place behind the scenes to bring those ideals into the Romney campaign and the GOP platform.

That kind of “something” normally takes influence – and that kind of influence normally only comes from those with considerable resources.




As the Obama campaign staff rehearse with Obama for a surprise press briefing capitalizing on the opportunity for gaining political points by reigniting the now old and tired “war on women” theme-

“Think on this though: is that the WH staff is divided on whether or not to run with this one. They are not sure some guy running for Senator is right to try and make a national campaign issue out of it and they fear the Romney team has a prepared response to create backlash. This shows a couple things. One, *Romney and Ryan are totally in the Obama team’s head.* Got them biting each other up pretty regular now. Second, they are losing confidence in how to run a national campaign big time.”

“Obama was pushed out onto the stage with some crib notes and instructions to wait for the abortion question. The question came and the president read from his notes. If you find a video of it, you will notice him looking down at those notes. I had to laugh when Obama tries to manufacture outrage when he gets to that word.”

You can see the little rodent in his head spinning around the wheel telling him to “act outraged” but the guy just can’t pull it off anymore.”


August 20, 2012

The other day, Newsweek had a cover story about Mitt Romney’s “Wimp Factor.” This week? The opposite: Niall Ferguson arguing that Obama must go in the new issue. That’s quite a cover that 1.5 million people will get in their mailboxes.

Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.


Ryan says: Obama raided $716B out of Medi-C for Obama-Care…

August 19, 2012

Paul Ryan says seniors have nothing to worry about when it comes to Medicare and Social Security if there’s a Republican in the White House. Don’t believe the GOP vice presidential candidate? Then just ask his 74-year-old mother. (Aug. 18)


“Fool Me Twice”

* Authors
* Blog
* Media Tour
* News & Reviews

Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed
August 19, 2012


‘Anti-Obama’ books by Kleins dominate NYT bestseller list. ‘Fool Me Twice,’ ‘The Amateur’ selling big across the nation
by Brenda J. Elliott

…………………………………………., August 18, 2012 — The New York Times bestseller list today [Week of August 26, 2012] features two books critical of President Obama, each penned by authors whose last name is Klein.

Ed Klein’s The Amateur, which has graced the bestseller list for weeks, including the top spot, shot back to #2 for hardcover nonfiction.

Debuting at No. 18 spot on the same list today is Fool Me Twice by radio host and WND reporter Aaron Klein. The book, written with co-author Brenda J. Elliott, purports to lay out the specific policy prescriptions Obama will attempt to enact if he is reelected in November.

[Note: The Amateur is at #3 for Combined Print and eBook Non-Fiction and Fool Me Twice is #25 in the same category. Fool Me Twice ranks at #26 in eBooks.]

The full title is Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed. The book is ranked at #24 in Amazon best sellers.

Klein, already a New York Times bestselling author, kicked off a busy national media tour by appearing on the Fox and Friends television program early last week. He was featured for two segments today on Huckabee on Fox News.

When asked by one of the hosts of “Fox and Friends” where he was able to find the information for Fool Me Twice, Klein pointed out that he and co-author Elliott only “did what a lot of people in the mainstream media could do if they only look at the progressive organizations and key individuals who wrote the stimulus bill and health-care legislation and what they have been writing since, which serve as a blueprint for Obama’s second-term agenda.”

Fool Me Twice claims to unveil all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught–jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,” electoral “reform,” national energy policy, Pentagon plans and more.

Ed Klein’s The Amateur, meanwhile, advertises that it pulls back the curtain on “one of the most secretive White Houses in history.”

Klein purports to reveals “a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant” president with “messianic dreams of grandeur” supported by a cast of true-believers, all of them “united by leftist politics and an amateurish understanding of executive leadership.”


Fool Me Twice is now available for download on iTunes.

The Paul Ryan Effect – It’s The Real Deal

August 18, 2012

More and more whispers of a seriously freaking out Obama campaign as Team Romney happily releases some numbers showing a significant surge in support for the Romney/Ryan campaign since announcing Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate:

How are things looking for Mitt Romney since the Ryan announcement last week? Good. Very good.

Online Fundraising

Donations: 124,800+
Amount: $10,157,947
Average Donation: $81
% New Donors: 68%

What is particularly impressive with this massive rise in online fundraising is that it signals a shift by younger voters away from Barack Obama and to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. That spells big trouble for Team Obama.

What about the social media battle – something that Barack Obama utilized to great effect in 2008? Uh-Oh…trouble for Obama there too…

Site Traffic – Total: 2,000,000
Mitt Romney Facebook: +510,000 — Now 4,360,000
Mitt Romney Twitter: +54,000 — Now 861,000
Paul Ryan Facebook: +860,000
Paul Ryan Twitter: +118,500

Volunteers 45,000+ sign up to volunteer online

When a VP choice results in a massive influx of both funds and campaign volunteers, that is a very good thing and a clear sign of some serious momentum favoring the GOP nominee. The campaign stop crowds have been huge for Romney and Ryan, while Vice President Joe Biden makes one pathetic gaffe after another and President Obama is playing to half full venues where people are being bussed in to see him.

With that said then, look for a major distraction attempt by Team Obama. They are afraid – and that makes them that much more dangerous.




Media Rushing Out White Guilt Political Campaign Again – To Criticize Obama Is Racist

If you don’t support Barack Obama, you are racist. So says MSNBC and Obama White House guest Touré who goes on to classify Republicans as the “all white party” that has been programmed to hate Black people. These comments come after it was Obama Vice President Joe Biden’s now infamous “back in chains” gaffe that has even Black Americans shaking their heads wondering what is going on with the Obama campaign. Watch the video below and as you do, keep in mind the warnings of Insider – this racism campaign is a very dangerous and volatile ploy that could result in harm to a great many Americans…

Romney seizes on defining Obama campaign as Angry, Divisive and Hateful..

August 15, 2012


Romney says: “Take your campaign back to Chicago-

Romney slams Obama in tough new speech:

Mitt Romney used a tough new campaign speech to personally blast the Obama campaign on Tuesday, saying comments earlier in the day from Vice President Biden are “what an angry and desperate Presidency looks like.”

“Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago,” Romney said while campaigning in Ohio.

Romney was responding to Biden’s suggestion that the GOP ticket’s economic policies would “put y’all back in chains.”

The vice president made the remark while campaigning in Virginia, during a discussion of Wall Street regulation.

“They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street,” Biden said. “They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing.”

Romney repeatedly and harshly criticized Team Obama for the remarks.

“His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency. Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower,” Romney said.

“This is an election in which we should be talking about the path ahead, but you don’t hear any answers coming from President Obama’s re-election campaign. That’s because he’s intellectually exhausted, out of ideas, and out of energy. And so his campaign has resorted to diversions and distractions, to demagoguing and defaming others. This is an old game in politics; what’s different this year is that the president is taking things to a new low.”

Romney’s remarks echo those of his campaign spokeswoman, who earlier in the day called Biden’s remarks a “new low.”

The counter-punches mark a much tougher tone from Team Romney, who have criticized the Obama campaign before, particularly over a controversial ad by pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action that links Romney to a woman’s death, but never in such blunt or harsh terms.

The commercial aired for the first time Tuesday on a television station in Cleveland. Romney made his remarks in Chillicothe, Ohio. The Buckeye state is one of the most important in the election. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Romney seemed “unhinged.”

“Governor Romney’s comments tonight seemed unhinged, and particularly strange coming at a time when he’s pouring tens of millions of dollars into negative ads that are demonstrably false,” LaBolt said in a statement.

Romney new tone could be due to the addition of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to the ticket, which was seen as energizing the GOP campaign. And it could be because the election is growing closer and polls show the race is neck-and-neck.

Biden himself explained his remark later on Tuesday, saying “I think I said instead of ‘unshackled,’ ‘unchained.’”

The vice president then criticized Romney’s campaign for arguing his comments were outrageous.

“If you want to know what’s outrageous, it’s their policies and the effects of their policies on middle class America. That’s what’s outrageous,” Biden said.

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter also defended Biden’s remarks, saying they “were a derivative of those remarks, describing the devastating impact letting Wall Street write its own rules again would have on middle-class families.”

Speaking on MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, she blasted the Romney response as “faux outrage.”

Asked by host Andrea Mitchell if she would say the vice president went too far, Cutter responded, “No, I’m not.”

“The bottom line is we have no problem with those comments,” Cutter added.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul then released a second statement criticizing the Obama campaign.

“In case anyone was wondering just how low President Obama could go in his campaign for reelection, we now know he’s willing to say that Governor Romney wants to put people back in chains,” Saul said. “Whether its accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, having been responsible for a woman’s tragic death or now wanting to put people in chains, there’s no question that because of the president’s failed record he’s been reduced to a desperate campaign based on division and demonization.”

In a statement released after her appearance on MSNBC, Cutter said the Romney campaign’s outrage was “hypocritical” given Romney’s stump speech that she said questioned the president’s patriotism.

The Hill

John Sununu Blasts CNN – “Put An Obama Bumper Sticker On Your Head”

August 14, 2012

Look again – just as WSI promised – the truth of Barack Obama’s “GUTTING” of Medicare is becoming mainstream. Watch as Romney campaign operative John Sununu absolutely shreds CNN’s Soledad O’Brien with the TRUTH.

Thanks to Ulsterman for having the Latest and Greatest News for US.. Here is the best example of another of Obama’s scams..”Fool Me Twice.”

OBAMA will pay you for destroying American values..

August 13, 2012




Romney to Obama – “Take Your Campaign Out Of The Gutter”-  Time to Talk Tuff for America..

TODAY’S Romney-Ryan rally in High Point, NC..

August 12, 2012


Update – Overflow crowds in Mooresville

statements from people in attendance:

Going into the doors. Holy- moly I can’t believe the people.

One picture is the front of the line, one picture kinda the back, EXCEPT my camera can’t capture two and a half blocks of people.

Many are actually women (the shock).

(Person) just emailed again:

I have never been to a rally, but the picture in my head did not include a line to get off the exit, a half mile walk to the line and then a multiple block line. Consider me heartened.

Comments from those in attendance:

Overflow crowds in Mooresville, as reported by reader Hope:

My 18 year old daughter and I attempted to go to the Romney/Ryan rally this morning in Mooresville , NC. This is a video [image below] of the crowd outside around 9 a.m. The crowd behind me was as big. We did not get in as the crowd was too large. The fire marshal turned the crowds away. This was as close as we got.

We saw about 12 protestors in 3 separate groups of 4 each. They were not convincing anyone that “Offshore Mitt” posed any threat to the country.

As one man said to me…we are the people that work for a living and the people that are protesting are the people that vote for a living. Be encouraged. There are many, many good people with us.

H/t) to Legal Insurrection for the story and pics at the R&R rally

Read the comments at the link if you wish- They are GREAT!
People are finally feeling uplifted with having Ryan as Romney’s VP

The BEST of Paul Ryan:

Romney introduces Paul Ryan as VP mate

August 11, 2012

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney introduced his choice as running mate, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, 42, Saturday morning at a campaign event in Norfolk, Va.

The Romney campaign earlier announced the choice in a press release Saturday morning.

In excerpts of the speech Ryan will deliver Saturday that were released by the Romney campaign, Ryan said, “We Americans look at one another’s success with pride, not resentment, because we know, as more Americans work hard, take risks, and succeed, more people will prosper, our communities will benefit, and individual lives will be improved and uplifted.

That theme is similar to ones Ryan has sounded in the past. He has been outspoken in saying that America must be “an upward mobility society.”

He told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow last February, “We don’t want a safety net that turns into a hammock that lulls people into dependency in this country. We want people to get up on their feet and grab that higher rung of the economic ladder.”

He said, “We don’t believe in class division. We believe in growth and prosperity, helping people when they are down on their luck get back on their feet, and pro-growth economic policies that put America in the lead, that make us competitive, that stop tearing people down in this zero-sum thinking.”

Ryan, first elected to the House in 1998, worked in college as staffer for Sen. Bob Kasten of Wisconsin, and later as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp and William Bennett and as an aide to Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

As the author of an ambitious plan to redesign the Medicare program for older and disabled Americans, Ryan has long been the target of Democratic attacks.

If enacted, Ryan’s proposal would be the most far-reaching change in Medicare since the program was created in 1965.

In 2011, one Democratic group ran an ad showing a man – presumably Ryan – pushing a terrified elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.

Ryan’s plan would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67. This phased-in increase in the eligibility age would start in 2023.

Ryan’s proposal would do away with Medicare’s open-ended payments for those born in 1958 and later, (that is, people who turn 65 in 2023 or later).

Instead, beginning in 2023, people in Medicare would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option.

Medicare would provide a payment to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior. The payments would be higher for low-income people and lower for high-income people. The payments would grow over time but would not necessarily keep pace with the increase in the cost of medical care.

The Congressional Budget Office, in an assessment last year, said Ryan’s plan would result in “much lower deficits and debt in the long run.” But the CBO also found that under Ryan’s redesigned Medicare, “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.”

One prominent Democrat, Sen., Ron Wyden of Oregon joined with Ryan last year on a proposal to redesign Medicare.

Wyden said in an opinion piece in the Huffington Post that the Wyden-Ryan proposal was not a finished piece of legislation, but “simply a policy paper intended to start a conversation about how Democrats and Republicans might work together to uphold the Medicare Guarantee.”

The Oregon Democrat also added, “Wyden-Ryan doesn’t eliminate the traditional Medicare plan, instead it guarantees that seniors who want to enroll in Medicare’s traditional fee for service plan will always have that option.”

He added that, “Wyden-Ryan doesn’t privatize Medicare because Medicare beneficiaries already have the option of enrolling in private health insurance plans. Wyden-Ryan makes those private plans more robust and accountable by forcing them to — for the first time — compete directly with traditional Medicare.”

But Wyden also said “some Republicans will undoubtedly declare their support for Wyden-Ryan without knowing what that means or believing in its principles. Mitt Romney, for example, claims to have helped write Wyden-Ryan even though I have never spoken to him about Medicare reform”

As part of its fiscal year 2013 budget resolution which it approved in March, the House supported Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. The vote was 228 to 191, with no Democrats voting for the proposal and 10 Republicans voting against it.



Obama Campaign LIES With Ease…

August 10, 2012


Obama Campaign LIE Caught On Tape – UPDATE – Obama Campaign Now Admits Lie

Yesterday the Obama campaign aggressively denied knowing the details of an anti-Romney campaign ad that is now being declared among the most vile and misleading ads in American political history. Today, it is being proven they LIED.


Oops? President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign washed its hands Wednesday of an independent group’s vicious (and misleading) ad effectively blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a laid-off steelworker’s wife from cancer. Campaign officials flatly denied any knowledge of the facts in the casebut it turns out the widower told the same story on an Obama campaign conference call in mid-May.

“We have nothing, no involvement, with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday.

…”I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance,” deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN on Wednesday.

But there’s a problem. As Politico first reported, Soptic told essentially the same story in a May 14, 2012, conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.


Here is the audio of Mr. Soptic telling his anti-Romney story to representatives of the Obama campaign back in May.  This audio is undeniable proof of the Obama campaign’s repeated lie regarding the now widely rebuked campaign ad, as well as further indicating the entire story was a well rehearsed product that likely had direct input from Obama campaign operatives.  Simply put – the campaign to re-elect Barack Obama appears quite willing to say and do anything to defeat Mitt Romney.  If they are so willing to so easily lie about knowledge of a campaign ad, what else will they lie about – and what other things have they lied about already?

Is this the kind of president America needs at this time – or any time?

Think on that as you prepare to cast your vote in November America



Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was no longer pleading ignorance about the story of a man who has appeared in both a super PAC ad and a campaign ad.

“No one is denying he was in one of our campaign ads. He was on a conference call telling his story,” Psaki told reporters on Air Force One.

Distancing themselves from the controversial ad, Obama campaign staffers initially denied knowledge of Soptic’s story — despite the fact that he was in an Obama campaign ad.

Adviser Robert Gibbs said he didn’t know “specifics,” while deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN: “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”

And yesterday on Air Force One, Psaki said, “we don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family.”

UPDATE: Amanda Henneberg, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign, said this in a statement: “President Obama’s campaign has been caught lying about its knowledge concerning a vicious smear run by his Super PAC.  And now, they have doubled down with another dishonorable and dishonest attack. In 2008, candidate Obama said ‘you make a big election about small things’ when you don’t have a record to run on.  Since President Obama can’t run on record unemployment, falling incomes, and massive debt, he has decided to run a dirty campaign that is an affront to everything he claims to stand for.”


Obama Administration Paves the Way for Sharia Law…

August 8, 2012

The most terrifying danger Americans face from a second Barack Obama term isn’t the economy, which is scary enough.

The most harrowing prospect is the Obama Administration’s passivity in the face of attempts to introduce aspects of sharia law into our legal system.  Now there is strong and open evidence of the Obama administration collaborating with Islamist activists to ensure the path toward sharia law is accelerated.

Just last week, Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, was asked this question by Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution: “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

Perez refused to answer. Four times.

And why would Franks target Perez?

Here’s why:

Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech. Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial in 2008, as well as functioning as a Muslim Brotherhood Front. The leader of the Islamist attack was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for:

  1. Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training
  2. Limits on the power of terrorism investigators
  3. Changes in agent training manuals
  4. A legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination

Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “racialized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”

And what was the response from Perez and the DOJ officials? 


That’s right: no objection, no defense of our first amendment right to free speech.

“FOOL ME TWICE” book tour and media blitz….

August 7, 2012


Media Tour

Fool Me Twice co-authors, Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, begin their book media tour on or before August 7, 2012.

Check local radio or internet live streaming listings for your area. Also check TalkStreamLive for all radio media. It is possible that some listed dates and times are for tapings aired later in the day. Due to the fast-moving nature of news stories, scheduled dates and times are subject to change. All Times Eastern.


Watch here for updated schedule.

Tuesday, August 7

. Aaron – Fox & Friends (in studio), Fox News Channel, around 8:45 AM.

. Aaron – The Sean Hannity Show, 77 WABC Talk Radio New York, time to be announced.

. Aaron – The John Batchelor Show (in studio), 77 WABC Talk Radio New York, beginning 10:00 PM

Wednesday, August 8

. Aaron – America’s Morning News with John Mccaslin and Dana Mills, Talk Radio Network Entertainment, 7:33 – 7:45 AM

. Aaron – Tom and Todd Morning Show with Tom Finneran and Todd Feinburg, AM WRKO, Boston, Massachusetts, 8:05 – 8:30 AM

. Aaron – The Brian Sussman Show, AM KSFO, San Francisco, California, 8:45 – 9:00 AM

. Brenda – Byers & Co. with Brian Byers, Newstalk 1340 WSOY, Central Illinois, 9:00 – 9:20 AM

. Brenda – Upfront with Rod Grams, KTLF AM, Little Falls, Minnesota, 10:05 – 10:30 AM

. Aaron – The Frank Beckmann Show, AM WJR, Detroit, Michigan, 10:20 – 10:30 AM

. Aaron – Frank Gaffney, Secure Freedom Radio, AM WTNT, Washington, DC, 10:50 – 11:00 AM

. Brenda – Stu Taylor on Business, Money Matters Radio Network, 11:30 AM – 12:00 PM

. Aaron – The Dennis Miller Show, Dial Global, 12:15 – 12:30 PM

. Brenda – Politics on the Edge with Melody Scalley, WESR-FM, Onley, Virginia, 12:30 – 1:00 PM

. Aaron – AFA Today with Dr. Buster Wilson, American Family Radio, 1:20 – 2:00 PM

. Brenda – The Bob Dutko Show, WMUZ Christian Radio, Detroit, Michigan, 1:08 – 1:38 PM

. Aaron – Dateline: Washington with Greg Corombos, Radio America, Washington, DC, 1:45 – 1:55 PM

. Aaron – Point of View with Kerby Anderson and Carmen Pate, National, 2:00 – 3:00 PM

. Brenda – Free America Radio with Steven Maggi, 2:00 – 2:30 PM

. Brenda – Kevin Doran, WLEA/WCKR, Hornell, NY, 2:30 – 3:00 PM

. Aaron – Andy Parks Live from The Washington Times, AM WTNT, Washington, DC, 3:47 – 3:58 PM

. Brenda – Active Christian Media with Stacy Harp, Salem Radio Network, 4:00 – 4:30 PM

. Aaron – The Rusty Humphries Show, Talk Radio Network, 4:35 – 5:00 PM

. Brenda – The Andy Caldwell Show, AM 1440, Santa Maria, California, 6:00 – 6:30 PM

. Aaron – Lou Dobbs Tonight (in studio), Fox Business Channel, between 7:00 and 7:40 PM

. Brenda – The Rick Baker Show, KCEO AM, Bonsall, California, 7:00 – 7:30 PM

. Brenda – The Barry Farber Show, CRN Network, 8:00 – 9:00 PM

Thursday, August 9

. Aaron – The Mancow Muller Show, WABC and Talk Radio Network, 7:15 – 7:45 AM

. Aaron – Sean & Frank Show, AM KCBM, Baltimore, Maryland, 8:37 – 8:45 AM

. Aaron – The Heidi Harris Show with Heidi Harris, Ben Shapiro and Brian Whitman, AM KRLA, Los Angeles, California, 10:35 – 11:00 AM

. Aaron – Balance Point with Perry Atkinson and Bob Just, KDOV The, Southern Oregon and Northern California, 11:45 AM – 12:00 PM

. Brenda – The Neal Larson Show, KID Newsradio AM 590/FM 92.1, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 12:15 – 12:30 PM

. Aaron – The Alex Jones Show, Genesis Communications Network, 1:00 – 2:00 PM

. Brenda – The Schilling Show with Rob Schilling, Newsradio 1070 WINA, Charlottesville, VA, 1:15 – 1:30 PM

. Brenda – Talk with Ron Williams, KCIT AM, Lima, Ohio, 3:06 – 3:30 PM

. Aaron – The Marc Bernier Show, WNDB and WFHG, Florida and Tennessee, 3:25 – 3:45 PM

. Brenda – The Lee Matthews Show, KTOK, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 4:00 – 4:30 PM

. Brenda – The Bob McLain Show, WORD / WYRD, Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina, 5:05 – 5:20 PM

. Brenda – Jiggy Jaguar Radio Show with James Lowe, KJAG Radio, 6:00 – 6:30 PM

. Brenda – The Bruce Collins Show, AM WWZN, Boston, Massachusetts, 7:00 – 7:30 PM

. Brenda – The Lou Desmond Show, AM 590, San Bernardino, California, 8:00 – 8:30 PM

. Brenda – Inside Education with Paul Preston, EdTalkRadio, Sacramento, California 10:30 – 11:00 PM

Friday, August 10

. Brenda – Issues & Ideas with Chris DeBello, Montague, New Jersey, 9:30 – 9:40 AM

. Brenda – Wake Up Monterey with Mark Carbonaro, AM 1460 KION, Salinas/Monterey, California, 10:10 – 10:30 AM

. Brenda – The Morning Meeting with Bryan Nichols, Talkradio 930 WTAD, Quincy, Illinois, 11:07 – 11:30 AM

. Brenda – Issues in Education, Bob & Geri Boyd,, 3:00 – 4:00 PM

. Brenda – Talk Back with Chuck Wilder, CRN Radio Network, Los Angeles, California, 4:30 – 5:00 PM

Saturday, August 11

. Brenda – The Randy Tobler Show, KFTK FM 97.1, St. Louis, Missouri, 8:15 – 8:30 AM

. Brenda – The REALLY, Real, Deal with Brother Craig the Hatchet Man, BlogTalkRadio, 9:55 – 10:30 AM

. Brenda – The George Maher Show, Newsradio 1490 WTTB, Sebastian/Vero Beach/Ft. Pierce/Port St. Lucie, Florida, 2:00 – 2:30 PM

Sunday, August 12

. Aaron – Fox and Friends Weekend (in studio), Fox News Channel, between 6:20 and 6:30 AM (time subject to change)

. Aaron – The Bob Grant Show, 77 WABC Talk Radio New York, 12:20 – 12:30 PM

. Aaron – Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, 77 WABC Talk Radio New York, 6:00 – 9:00 PM

. Brenda – Sunday Night Talk Radio with Jeremy Scott, Lifestyle WebRadio, 9:20 – 10:00 PM

. Aaron – Live on Sunday Night, It’s Bill Cunningham, Premiere Radio Networks, 10:00 – 10:30 PM

Monday, August 13

. Brenda – The Dr. Alvin Augustus Jones Show, WCBQ AM, Oxford, North Carolina, 7:45 – 8:00 AM

. Aaron – The Steve Gill Show, Nashville, Tennessee, 8:06 – 8:24 AM

. Brenda – Tron in the Morning with Tron Simpson, AM KCMN, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 10:30 – 10:50 AM

. Brenda – Dr. Rich Swier Show, Talk Suncoast Florida WWPR 1490 AM, 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM

. Brenda – The Rick Hamada Program, KHVH 830 AM, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1:35 – 2:00 PM

. Aaron – The Janet Mefferd Show, Salem Radio Network, 4:00 – 4:30 PM

. Brenda – The Mark and Dave Show, KEX 1190 AM/102.3 FM, Portland, Oregon, 4:35 – 5:00 PM

. Brenda – Rob Roselli, They Live Show, Geo Media Networks, 8:00 – 8:30 PM

Tuesday, August 14

. Brenda – The Gary Sheler Show, Cameron Broadcasting, Inc., Arizona, 8:30 – 9:00 AM

. Brenda – AM Colorado with Tom Lucero and Devon Lentz, 1310 AM KFKA, 9:20 – 9:30 AM

. Brenda – TEA Party Power Hour with Mark Gillar, BlogTalkRadio, 10:00 – 10:30 AM

. Brenda – The Josh Tolley Show, Genesis Communications Network, 11:15 – 11:30 AM

. Brenda – Butler on Business with Alan Butler, WAFS Biz 1190, Atlanta, Georgia, 11:34 AM – 12:00 PM

. Brenda – Mission: America with Linda Harvey, AM WRFD, Ohio, 2:00 – 2:30 PM

. Brenda – The Ken Hudnall Show, Soup Media Network, 8:00 – 8:30 PM

. Brenda – The Andrea Shea King Show, BlogTalkRadko, 9:15 – 10:00 PM

Wednesday, August 15

. Brenda – The Price of Business with Kevin Price, KTEK 1110, Houston, Texas, 10:30 – 10:50 AM

. Brenda – The Guetzloe Report with Doug Guetzloe, Phoenix Radio Networks, Arizona, 11:30 AM – 12:00 PM

Thursday, August 16

. Brenda – Messiah’s Branch Prophecy Hour with Pastor Dan Catlin, 8:00-9:00 PM

Saturday, August 18

. Brenda – Erskine Overnight with Erskine Payton, Genesis Communications Network, 2:45 – 3:15 PM

Monday, August 27

. Brenda – Livewire with Mike Thomas, KWRE AM 73, Warrenton/St. Louis, 10:00 – 10:30 AM

“We Got One Last Chance Here To Make It Right”

August 2, 2012

This is the latest Interview with the WH Insider:

The timing of this interview comes just days after a soon to be published book authored by Richard Miniter details how it is Valerie Jarrett and not President Barack Obama who makes the final decision in so many of the most critical calls from within the White House – even those involving the United States military. This knowledge is nothing new to readers of this blog, for that very information first originated from our own longtime D.C. political operative some two years ago. We talk to that figure again now, in person – White House Insider.


WHI: (BIG SMILE) Now you’re seein’ it. Romney got inside his head – Obama is rattled. The entire campaign is rattled. And Obama goes out and says what? You go ahead and tell me for a change. What does Obama say not two weeks after the Romney team slips that internal polling data over to them?

UM: “You didn’t build that.”

WHI: And that’s how you play smashmouth politics son. A mental castration of a sitting president. And the Romney team just did it as good as I’ve EVER seen it done right there. And the decision to make sure that polling data made its way back to Obama…that had to come from Mitt Romney himself. And when he did that…he balled up his fist and smacked Obama right up in his face. Right into that fake ass toothy fool grin of his. He let him know this ain’t gonna be 2008. This is gonna be a war. Barack Obama…Valerie Jarrett…Plouffe…Axelrod…they all got their asses kicked on this one.

Romney done good…

UM:  Are you saying Obama was so rattled he didn’t mean what he said?  The comments about “you didn’t build that”?

WHI:  Oh hell no.  No-no-no.  He meant it.  Every bit of it.  (Pause)  What I mean there is that he slipped up…the subject was burnin’ that little pea brain of his…so he slipped up.  He allowed what he really feels to come right out into the open.  He’s done that before…here and there.  But this was…this time it was really out in the open – he was shouting it.  The deal is…with Obama…like I’ve said – guy hates America.  Really does.  Thinks it needs…thinks there needs to be a reset button.  Thinks the free market is evil.  Thinks that only liberal government, Big Government, socialized government…whatever you wanna call it – he thinks that is the only real solution to how to reshape the country into his own image.

UM:  And you believe that perspective is different from the traditional Democratic Party in America – correct?

WHI:  You’re Godd-amn right it is – I’ll say it to you again and again – Obama ain’t no Democrat.  Never was.  Never has been.  He controls the party…people who think like him…people who placed him in power…they control the party…but they represent something far different than what the party was 20 odd years ago.

UM:  That change you suggest…it started during the Clinton years.

WHI:  You askin’ me or you tellin’ me?

UM:  That’s my opinion – it started during the Clinton years and accelerated during the Bush years.  At least on a national level…a concentrated level.  The Old Man says it started decades earlier – but the progressive thing…at least in my own lifetime…theClinton years seem to be where it really took root.

WHI:  Bill Clinton ain’t Barack Obama – don’t make that comparison with me son.

UM:  He has people from his administration who are now working – or were working, inside the Obama administration.

WHI:  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

UM:  Does that explain Eric Holder?

WHI:  What?

UM:  Holder – he came from the Clinton administration.

In this July 20, 1999 file photo, President Clinton shakes hand with Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, right, as Attorney General Janet Reno looks on at a American Bar Association Presidential Call to Action event at the White House in Washington. Holder is President-elect Barack Obama’s top choice to be the next attorney general and aides have gone so far as to ask senators whether he would be confirmed, an Obama official and people close to the matter said Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

WHI: You know how I feel about Eric f-cking Holder.

UM: Maybe Holder…Clinton…maybe they are all cut from the same cloth? And Eric Holder is still there…still running interference for Obama.

WHI: Yeah – he’s still there. For now. Let’s see if that stays the same this fall. Ok? We got the vote, right? Not many woulda thought that possible six months ago. Certainly not a year ago. I’ve done all I can on that – and then some. And then some. I got…I done every bit of what I could possibly do there – you know that. You know what – you seen the results of that work. Me and a few others…we got our asses hanging way out there on this.

UM: But where does that leave it? What now?

WHI: What now is this – either the Republicans succeed in getting the special counsel…prosecutor…whatever the hell they callin’ it these days…or they don’t. The vote…God bless them there…that was not an easy call. People watching from the outside…they might think it’s an easy thing…but the media…they can turn that into a weapon against them if it ain’t handled right. Somethin’ like that…you gotta roll it out real careful…real deliberate like. We ain’t finished with Holder – not by a long shot. There’s some more about to break on him…got a few loose ends…a few feet still draggin’ – but that’s about to change.

UM: How many people do you think Eric Holder has killed during his time at Justice with the Obama administration? How long are people willing to wait it out – to “role it out real careful” as you put it?

WHI: As long as it takes to get it done right son. You don’t know how…how difficult this kinda thing can be. This administration…these people around Obama – they got no fear on this stuff. Cold blooded. During the Clinton years…hell…things were done. Yeah…things that leave me wondering…we all got blood on our hands. Some more than others. How’d I put that to you before – you don’t ever wanna do the things I’ve done?

But these Obama people…they are different. A whole other level. Never seen anything like it. There’s stuff I won’t ever tell you. Never. You don’t want that kinda knowledge son. You throw out a question like how many people been killed under Eric Holder? Sh-t…you don’t even know what you’r askin’. You got no f-cking idea how far these people will go to keep pushin’ this agenda of theirs. Everything I told you was coming – now it’s here. The dismantling of the American system. The drones, the race riots, the promises to other countries…the open borders, the destruction of our domestic energy productions, the Obama government at war with the Catholic Church…the massive inflation that is just perched above us waiting to fall down on all our heads…so much sh-t they got ready to fire at us. That second term…that’s their moment. Obamacare, the deficit…cities going under…military cutbacks…I can’t keep track of it all it’s going on so damn fast now. This election coming up – people better know…they ain’t messing around now. This is the real f-cking deal right here. Right now.

Let me tell you somethin’ the Old Man told me…it was months back. Before all that sh-t that nearly put him in the ground. The stress of all this ain’t good for him…taking its toll. Can’t be good – he won’t share that with you…not all of it any ways.

So I’m asking him for help on about a thousand different fires I’m trying to put out – got Obama people everywhere. And I mean everywhere – and the Old Man…he’s brushing that all aside. “Just politics” he says. He don’t give a sh-t about that stuff. We are little people, right? And he don’t mean to demean us when he says that – that’s just his world. That’s his way – and he’s right. He’s godd—mn right. We are just cockroaches – it’s a sick business what we do. But it’s also a necessary one and that’s where I come in so f-ck it. It’s who I am. But the Old Man…he’s telling me…the words he used…the phrase was…”the entire system is terminal and I can’t save the patient.” Now he’s talking about the global economy here – that the entire system has been compromised to the point of collapse and he…and people like him who want to save it…they can’t do it alone. They might be able to…between them…maybe they got access to a couple trillion to move around here and there to try and stabilize things.

UM: A couple trillion? That much!

WHI: No – not personally. Hell no…he ain’t worth near that personally. But he’s got – and there’s others…they got access to that amount. In that neighborhood…he told me that some time ago. But that would be an all or nothin’ scenario for them…and…now I don’t understand how all that sh-t works…markets…he talks about capitalization…last summer he went on for about an hour about how out of whack the capitalization of something and somethin’ was…I don’t know. Just that it’s real bad. And I mean real bad and these Obama people – they are in on it big time. It ain’t that they are just ignorant or incompetent – it’s purposeful what they are doing.

And when they got rid of that IMF fella – the French guy…I never seen the Old Man so worried. He’s told the both of us…let us know how dangerous that woman at the IMF is…but he won’t say much about it – but it’s got him damn worried.

UM: I messed up that last interview – with the Old Man. My question to the Military Insider.

WHI: Bullsh-t – you didn’t mess up nothin’. You really think a guy like that…I don’t think they wanted to be there. It was a favor to the Old Man – nothing else. Don’t sweat it.

UM: They looked like they wanted to kill me.

WHI: Probably did! Sure as hell could – in about 2.2 seconds! (Laughs)

UM: Wasn’t funny at the time – not at all.

WHI: You did fine…and frankly…what you asked…I’ve wondered that as well. Guy like that…got tons of respect for the man. He’s solid. No worries. Been giving us the goods on a lot of stuff going way back – but he’s M.I. to the core. And those people…they think different. They have to – and they can be damn scary to be around some times. And he owes the Old Man – and the Old Man likes you. So it’s all good.

UM: Why haven’t more in the military – why haven’t they come out against this administration? You’ve told me, the Old Man has told me…the Military Insider hinted at it – that they know this administration is doing wrong. Why not come out against them?

WHI: (Long Pause) If they came out against the president…something like that – an openly public and deliberate move against the president…that would be a crisis. A domestic crisis of epic f-cking proportions. That’s now how these kinda things go down kid. That’s Hollywood bullsh-t stuff – that’s not reality.

The Joint Chiefs…those guys are politicians as much as Obama. And the ones right under them – they want that next step up, right? And the administration, they play that card to the hilt. Same thing with Congress. I know for a fact there are Senators – Democrats…who are appalled at what the administration is doing. Appalled at what they are hearing about the character and motivations of this so-called president. But to come right out against him…Reid won’t have it. I don’t know what kinda deal was struck between those two devils – Reid and Obama…but Reid has the Senate on lockdown. And he’s got most of those Democrats in the Senate too damn afraid to say anything – while the rest of them are happy to support the administration because they are cut from that same idiotic socialist progressive cloth as he is – and they think they will get a seat at the big table when all of this shakes out.

Why do you think I am doing it this way? Same damn thing. It’s easy to point the finger and tell somebody to risk everything – not just them but risk their family…everything they got…real easy to sit back and tell somebody they should stand up and do what’s right and go ahead and risk it. Right? Real easy?

Unless it’s YOU that’s at risk. Then it’s a different f-cking story ain’t it?

So I’m doin’ what I’m doin’. The Old Man is doin’ what he’s doin’. And you do what you do. And we hope it’s enough.

UM: Is it? Will it be enough? To defeat Obama?

WHI: The three of us? Hell no. Not even close.

UM: Then what? What will it take?

WHI: What it has always taken when the country is at risk – the American people. We need them. We always have. And God’s grace. If He still gives a sh-t about this country. If He still thinks we are worth the trouble. And I ain’t so sure we are – if we deserve to have another chance.

You’re askin’ what it will take to defeat Obama? Defeat the ones around him? Jarrett? Holder? All of them? It’s gonna take the American people to wake the f-ck up NOW. It’s getting to be go time here. August is when the real race is run…all the way to end. But Romney…he can’t do it alone. People out there who say they ain’t so sure about Romney…this ain’t the time to be talking that perfection sh-t. This ain’t the time to be talking 3rd party candidate bullsh-t. This ain’t the time to be sittin’ this one out.

This IS the time to pay attention…tell everyone you know…everyone you care about…vote out Obama. Vote the son-of-a-bitch out. We got one last chance here to make it right. That’s what I’m doin’ this for. I gotta try and make it right – 2008 was…I can’t leave it like this. I can’t have that be it for me. Just can’t do it. So 2012…hell it’s just a few months away now…we gotta do this together. All of us. Every last one of us. I need your readers help. I need them to speak out to everyone they know. Every last person they know. For the love of God get people motivated to do what’s right this election. None of us can afford to sit this one out. None of us.

T Party, Washington, DC

I’ll promise you this…if Obama is defeated this election… If the American people send him on his way…there is gonna be a whole sh-t pile of information coming out on what was really going on inside that White House of his and Jarrett’s. People will have the guts to speak out – openly. And they won’t be alone. They will be able to do it without the fear that hangs over them now – all of us…how scary sh-t is right now.

And when all that truth starts to come out…people…the ones willing to listen and understand…they are gonna realize just how close the country…how close we were to the darkness. The future that was gonna be ripped away from their kids and grandkids. And how their votes against Obama saved America. How they saved that future. In the end…like I told you…in the end when the country is in real crisis – it always comes down to the American people to save it.

Godd—mit then – let’s get to it. Let’s save America.

Part One Interview

Obama’s Illegals Charged with 19 Murders, 142 Sex Crimes..

July 31, 2012

Well, this seems fair — perfectly in line with Obama’s socialist drive to spread the wealth.

John Nolte @ Brietbart

After hundreds of innocent Mexicans died as a result of the Obama Administration flooding that country with thousands guns through the cynical and politically motivated Fast and Furious program, it’s only fair for the White House to allow Mexican citizens to wreak havoc and misery here in America:

The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.

All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.

They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.

The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.

Equality, it’s a beautiful thing.

By merely enforcing the immigration laws already on the books every single one of these crimes could’ve been prevented.

More blood on Obama’s hands– more blood the media will cover up because week seven  of whining about Mitt Romney only releasing two years worth of tax returns is much bigger news than 60,000 preventable crimes, you know, if all you care about is reelecting Obama.

Breitbart Link

Obama’s Plans for America in Full view…

July 30, 2012

What’s the agenda?

Our conversation turned to the agenda of the person in the White House. Short on time, my source stated that the current resident of the White House has been tasked to implement a “robust agenda of change” using the agencies and government infrastructure previously created for him.

“He’s been instructed to fully remove ‘God, guns and guts’ from America and Americans, to neuter our military, bankrupt our country, and force everyone into dependency through a well-planned economic disaster that was crafted long before he stepped foot into the Oval Office. The financial crash of September 2008 was one such well planned economic terrorist attack. It had the blessing of many bankers and politicians in the U.S. and now I’m finding, some overseas. It was an important part of the framework given to Obama to ‘grease the wheels’ for a complete financial collapse. And I’m sad to say that a lot of people I once thought were on our side played an important role in setting us up – all of us.”

“The objective, or the agenda, is much bigger than I think anyone can comprehend,” stated my source. “It’s global in nature, and it involves other governments, communist governments,” he added. It’s evil in its simplicity. It’s to destroy our country from within and take away our ability to fight what’s coming. It’s to change our way of life, and he’s got the people in place to do it, at least for the most part. And forget about the Republicans versus the Democrats, because nearly all of them are all playing for the same team. Both sides have helped to get us to this point. They’ve allowed Communists to enter every government institution inside the beltway, and just about everyone let it happen, helped it happen or watched it happen.”

“But O- I cannot even bring myself to call him by name anymore, and as we talked before, we’re not even sure what his real name is, made some serious mistakes, or became lazy and began enjoying his lifestyle a little too much. Not sure which, maybe both. His international handlers have been upset with him because it set the whole timetable back. And this is where I can offer you information about what’s going on at DHS, because it’s DHS that is tasked to be the enforcers. It’s like the old military saying, ‘hurry up and wait,’” said my source.


The Plan

“Look,” stated my source, “I’ve been told that the people with the real power are using the guy in the White House to implement the whole globalist power structure thing. They made certain that they had someone in the White House to go along and implement certain things by executive order, appointments, and other methods to bring about the deconstruction of the U.S., and making our Constitution irrelevant, or at least subservient to international law. I can’t say I know this for sure because it’s all second hand, but it makes sense from my perspective at DHS,” he added.

“Remember when I told you about DHS planning a response for chaos, civil war, rioting, insurrection or whatever you want to call it? Well, that’s not happening fast enough, and there are people who don’t think it can be accomplished in one term. That’s why a second term is critical, and that’s why there’s desperation sinking in. Napolitano is corresponding a lot with the White House, to Valerie Jarrett, to the Secret Service, and to others I won’t name. But there is some plan in place to assure the reelection of this guy so he can finish the job he was given,” he said.

“We’re talking about something taking place to make sure that Obama stays in office. I’ve been privy to ‘contingency plans’ ordered by Jarrett for one that defines the protocol for DHS response to the ‘temporary suspension of U.S. elections due to international and domestic crisis.’ It’s a real document, ordered by Jarrett and contains plans for travel restrictions, gun possession ban by citizens, and in general, ‘martial law.’”

“You know, I heard rumors about the same thing under Bush and laughed, calling it conspiracy nonsense. Now I’m not so sure, and think that maybe it was just too early and the wrong person. Anyway, I’m not laughing anymore.”

“Also, there are some mid-level people beginning to question the orders they are receiving. There’s a lot of talk, questions being asked now by a few people in key DHS positions about what is taking place, and that’s making Napolitano and the White House very nervous. Anyone who questions the ‘militarization’ going on is either transferred out or given [expletive deleted] assignments.”



I asked if the plans could be disrupted, changed or if anything posed a valid threat to the agenda.

My source responded: ”The Arpaio investigation hit on something critical. I don’t know what it is, and maybe they’re holding something back, back whatever happened in the last 2 or 3 months really upset things, got some people scrambling. The White House, and again, Jarrett, ordered ‘Justice’ to turn up the heat against Sheriff Arpaio.”

“It’s interesting how the media has laid down and not reported on this investigation. There have been threats made, and not so subtle ones, either.”

“Also, ‘Fast and Furious’ is huge and leads right to the White House and ‘State,’ but according to my sources, won’t be an issue because the politicians in charge of the investigations have been compromised and threatened. Napolitano knows everything about Fast and Furious and is working with Holder to impede the investigations. She’s using her political clout. But damage control had taken time and a toll,” added my source.

In the end, though, I don’t think there’s enough to stop a second term. And should there be any hint of it, well, I told you, there are contingency plans for 2012.



For my money… it’s up to the Republican held House to Save the country.  COUNTRY,  above… Party greed !  It’s that simple!

BREAKING NEWS: UN Arms Trade Treaty – Full Proposed Document

July 26, 2012

See link for those in opposition:

UN Arms Trade Treaty


The States Parties to this Treaty.

  • Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
  • Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
  • Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
  • Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
  • Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
  • Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
  • Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
  • Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
  • Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
  • Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
  • Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
  • Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
  • Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
  • Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
  • Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:


Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

  1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1

Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

–          For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

–          To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

–          Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability; Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering; Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

–          A. Covered Items

–          1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

–          a. Battle Tanks

–          b. Armored combat vehicles

–          c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

–          d. Combat aircraft

–          e. Attack helicopters

–          f. Warships

–          g. Missiles and missile launchers

–          h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

–          2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

–          3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

–          4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

–          B. Covered Activities

–          1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

–          2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

    1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
  • A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.
  • A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Article 4

National Assessment

  • Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
  • Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
  • Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
  • Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
  • Contribute to peace and security;
  • Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
  • In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

Article 5

Additional Obligations

  • Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
  • being diverted to the illicit market;
  • to be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
  • become subject to corrupt practices; or
  • adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6

General Implementation

  • Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;
  • The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.
  • Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;
  • Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.
  • State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users.  All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.
  • . If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.
  •  Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

Article 7


  • Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty.  State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.
  • Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export.  Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8


  • Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.
  • State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty.  State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.
  • Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9


  1. Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10

Transit and Transshipment

  • Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;
  • Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11

Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

  • Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible  of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
  • Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
  • States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
  • Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
  • Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.



  • Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.



  • This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
  • The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
  • The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
  • Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
  • Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
  • Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
  • Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
  • Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.



  • States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
  • States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4.   Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

  • In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
  • States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
  • Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

  • This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
  • This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
  • This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7.  At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty.  Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8.  References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17

Entry into Force

  • This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.
  • For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.
  • For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18

Withdrawal and Duration

  • This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
  • Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention.  It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary.  The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
  • A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19

  • Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

Article 20

  • At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.
  • Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.
  • Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
  • A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

Article 21
Conference of States Parties

  • The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:

a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

  • States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
  • States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
  • States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

  • States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

  • States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

  • The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
  • The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

The book Obama doesn’t want you to read: video

July 25, 2012

“FOOL ME TWICE”: A must read for Obama’s Blueprint for America…if re-elected

July 22, 2012

This is the game changing book reveals the blueprint for a second term that President Obama and his progressive backers don’t want you to know. Months of painstaking research into thousands of documents have enabled investigative journalists and New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott to expose the secret template for Obama’s next four years — the one actually created by Obama’s own top advisers and strategists.Just as Obama concealed the true plans for his initial term behind rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the Federal deficit, Obama’s re-election theme of creating jobs conceals more than it reveals about his real agenda for a second term. All the main areas of domestic policy are covered — jobs, wages, health care, immigration overhaul, electoral reform, national energy policy. Each of the plans exposed seek to permanently remake America into a government-dominated socialist state.Here are just a few samples from dozens upon dozens of specific schemes unveiled herein:

Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the Federal government regardless of any Supreme Court decision to overturn Obamacare;

The recreation of a 21st century version of FDR’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new Federal jobs;

Further gutting of the U.S. military in shocking ways, while using the savings for a new green stimulus program and the founding of a Federal green bank to fund so-called environmentally friendly projects;

The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat global warming, fight global poverty, remedy injustice, bolster the United Nations and step up use of peacekeeping deployments;

An expansive new amnesty program for illegal aliens linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol and plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-1B visas and green cards.

“Fool Me Twice” is based on exhaustive research into the coming plans and presidential policies as well as the specific second term recommendations of the major progressive groups behind Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help to craft the legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.While many have general concerns about Obama’s second-term ambitions, Fool Me Twice lays bare the devastating details of a second Obama presidency. If he wins re-election in 2012, the America of equal opportunity for all, Constitutionally-limited government, economic freedom and personal liberty will be but a distant memory.

ORDER YOUR COPY.. “FOOL ME TWICE”: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.

MILITARY INSIDER: President Obama – “By Any Means Necessary”

July 20, 2012

For the first time in over two years of ongoing interviews, a powerful and highly influential Wall Street insider allows for direct interview participation of a figure we will simply call “Military Insider”.  What follows is the first of a two part interview with both of these individuals who are warning of an impending manufactured crisis within the United States by powers desperate to secure a second term for “the man calling himself Obama”.  For those who have followed  these insider interviews from the beginning – you know just how accurate they have proven to be.  Please remind yourself of that as you read this latest discussion.


UM: Can we begin?

WSI: (Broad smile) Yes – and might I just say this before we do…it is so very nice to see you again in person.

UM: I’m just as glad to see you looking so much better. Out of the woods?

WSI: No-no…at my age one is always “in the woods” if you will. But at this point, I’m not helping to fertilize the trees just yet! (laughs)

UM: Why did you decide to invite him here? I’m glad – honored, to have them here, but can you explain…briefly explain why you’ve done this?

WSI: Certainly. I invited…I guess that term is sufficient…I invited them here for no other reason than to have what they know and what their experience tells them – I wanted that perspective to now be included in this from the first person. I…we…-name deleted- and I decided it would be best, when possible, to have this information come to you without the filter of our own interpretations.

UM: How long have you known each other?

WSI: (Looks over at MI) That would be…nearly twenty years? Perhaps a bit more?

MI: Twenty three years.

WSI: That long? Really?

MI: Just over twenty-three years. That’s correct.

UM: Have you known –name deleted- that long as well?

MI: No.

WSI: I introduced them…it wasn’t more than a few years ago. Shortly after the election…in 2008. Shortly after –name deleted- told me there had been a terrible mistake made. That Obama being elected had been a terrible mistake. Then I began hearing similar things from him…the concern that was…mounting within the military and intelligence community regarding the new president.

UM: Can you expand on that? Those concerns. What were they?

WSI: You’ve already – we’ve already been down that path. A number of times.

UM: I’d like to hear it from him. If that’s ok. Their perspective. Unfiltered. Like you just said you wanted.

(Military Insider looks at WSI)

WSI: If they wish to share that with you…that is certainly fine. But I would caution there is a great deal of information that this interview is to…coordinate with your own efforts…you may not want to spend too much time rehashing what was. I would rather concentrate on what I now know that is going to be…or what some hope is to be.

UM: We’ve got time – I really want to hear them describe these concerns. It’s those concerns that pushed us to this point, right? So if you’re comfortable with that – please…you can be brief if you want…but tell us a bit about those concerns back then. After 2008. Or before 2008 if there were concerns before then.

MI: There were.

UM: Concerns? Before 2008? About Obama?

MI: Yes.

UM: What were they?

MI: The first real warning was Mr. Obama’s carpet bombing villages comment against the military. That…I apologize for the term…that pissed all of us off – or most of us. At least those of us not put in place by the communists. The pro-union…the pro-Big Labor faction.

UM: Did you just say communists? In the U.S. military?

MI: Yes.

UM: Please – can you please explain that.

MI: Communists. Communist supporters. Sympathizers. Or socialists. Or globalists might be the right…a more accurate term. Big government…One World…that whole concept. It’s real. As real these chairs. That wall. The air in your lungs.

UM: Agenda 21? That conspiracy theory? And the United States military?

MI: Yes – not a conspiracy. It’s real. It exists. And it’s happening right now.

UM: Agenda 21 is non-binding.

MI: That is…not accurate.

UM: No – it’s a non-binding agreement. It’s…it was more a show than anything of substance.

MI: No sir. You are wrong. Your dismissal…that was the outcome…that was the intended outcome of calling it that.

UM: What?

MI: Non-binding. Voluntary.

UM: But that’s what it is – it was a non-binding bullsh-t agreement for the environmentalists.

MI: It’s only as non-binding as the executives who will use the authority granted within that document choose to act on that authority.

UM: What?

MI: That document was a blueprint. Have you actually read it?

UM: Not…not all of it. No.

MI: Then why are you presuming to know what it is – or isn’t?

UM: I wasn’t presuming – or…I was trying to get around the idea of communists running the United States military.

MI: That’s not what I said.

UM: You just did – that’s…yes, that’s what you just said.

MI: No.

UM: Ok…you explain to me what you just said. About the communists, the globalists…all of that. What did you say?

MI: You posed a question about warnings regarding Mr. Obama? Before the 2008 election.

UM: Yeah – and you said that pissed off the military – at least those not put in place by the communists. That’s what you said. Right?

MI: Yes.

UM: So – what’s the problem?

MI: What I did not say was that communists were running the United States military. You said that. Not me.

UM: What’s the difference?

MI: Communists, Big Labor, globalists…those factions have infiltrated the U.S. military. They are not running the U.S. military. That is a distinction of epic proportions. You may not fully appreciated the difference but in my world – all due respect…in my world…BIG DIFFERENCE.

WSI: And this plan…the globalization of the American military…it’s been planned, slowly implemented…for a long time. It’s been happening right under our noses.

UM: It began with Agenda 21 – during the Clinton era?

MI: Incorrect.

UM: What?

MI: Agenda 21 did not begin during the Clinton era. It was developed long before that. In fact, it culminated under President Bush. HW.

WSI: But it goes back much farther than that. I only learned of this more recently myself.

MI: Yes sir – much farther. Decades of planning. A multiple series of five year plans.

UM: Five year plans?

WSI: Just like Stalin. A slow progression…a creeping monster that comes in five year increments. Cutting away at freedom and liberty and individuality.

MI: Yes sir. Just like that.

UM: So how far back does this Agenda 21 go?

MI: You are admitting you don’t know – but you were just attempting to explain to ME, what Agenda 21 was really about.

UM: Fair enough – I apologize for that.

MI: Accepted.

WSI: He’s like me – getting up to speed as it were. Please – continue.

MI: Yes sir.


Decades ago. The first official mark goes back to the early 1970’s. The birth of the modern environmental movement. Are you aware that the protection of the environment was placed as the most important issue – more than freedom, sovereignty of nations…environmentalism became the fixture of a full on assault against any nation’s own self determination.

Those who have spoken out against Agenda 21 – and there have been members of the military and intelligence communities who have…they understood the implications. These people are not conspiracy nuts. These people are patriots who understand the threat. The country – the United States, is under siege. It has been going on for a long time. Decades of planning. And now the planning stage is being transitioned into the implementation stage. Right now. It’s happening now.

WSI: And you are absolutely convinced of that? It’s happening now – the election of Barack Obama was the signal? Implementation of this globalization plan commenced at that time? Fully commenced? Right?

MI: Yes sir.

UM: How? (Pause) The…implementation? How does that work. By force? Using our own military against us?

MI: No. That would be too much of a risk…most of our military personnel are good men and women. They signed up. They took an oath. And they are doing their job. Remember, I indicated some inside the military were part of this globalization movement. Not all. Not most. But some.

UM: But some of these inside the military – they have influence?

MI: Yes. Appointed to positions of authority. By this administration.

UM: The Secretary of State? Panetta? I thought he was the real hero of the Bin Laden raid?

MI: He acted outside his direct authority. That action had little to nothing to do with the best interests of the United States.

UM: What do you mean?

MI: (Looks toward WSI)

UM: (Repeats question) What do you mean?

WSI: What they mean to say…if I may interject…is that Mr. Panetta’s motivations were…perhaps, a bit more… uncertain than many of us are comfortable admitting to. The fact he is a Clintonite means a great deal to –name deleted-. It means nothing to me. Nothing.

UM: So you don’t trust him?

WSI: No – I do not. I’ve never trusted any of them.

UM: Who?

WSI: Politicians. That’s much of my reason for never voting in an election. I find them all distasteful to some degree. Even the best of them.

UM: But you’re voting this time – in 2012.

WSI: That’s correct. While I find most politicians distasteful…I find the man calling himself Obama to be something else entirely.

UM: And what’s that?

WSI: Dangerous.

UM: So you’ve said – but getting back to the Agenda 21 thing…this whole globalization concept…it’s difficult to wrap my head around all of it without coming off…without sounding…

WSI: Crazy?

UM: Yeah – crazy.

WSI: That’s how it’s intended. Do that which you intend, and if any oppose that which you intend…mock them into submission while continuing on with your work. Call it outlandish, crazy, ridiculous, preposterous, all the while – continue doing the very thing they accuse of.

These Obama people are quite good at that.

UM: So the globalization thing…the plan…Agenda 21…it’s not just a Democrat thing?

MI: Correct.

UM: Republicans have gone along with it too?

MI: Correct. Let me clarify that a bit. If that’s ok?

UM: Please do.

MI: The architects are embedded within the various liberal sub groups, all of which are under the umbrella of today’s Democratic Party. They have been the ones to push this agenda – THE AGENDA…for the past several decades. There are Republicans…there have been Republicans, sympathetic to the superficial aspects of the plan.

(Long pause)

UM: You lost me. I get the liberal groups…I will assume the unions, the environmental groups…they are all in on the globalization plan. I get that. What do you mean by the superficial aspects of the plan? The…that part of it that attracts some Republicans?

WSI: If I may?

MI: Yes sir.

WSI: This is where the big money comes into play. Take for example, General Electric. A huge corporation with multiple subsidiaries…it is itself, a working, breathing, functioning, ever-evolving manifestation of this globalization movement. Massive amounts of dollars are spent developing public relations campaigns that infest the very fabric of the public conscience. Movies, television, music, fashion, consumable goods…it all becomes part of the implementation plan. Global cooling becomes global warming becomes climate change becomes sustainable resources…each of those are reading from the very same script.

And so as these concepts grow in popularity among the public…politicians bend their own vision to those concepts. They may do so not knowing of course the true motivations of those who have invented said concepts, but nevertheless, they become tools of the plan. They become that all-important “bi-partisan” support of those plans.

UM: So what’s the purpose of all of it? The plan? Globalization? Why? What’s the end goal?

WSI: First, and for us at this very moment, most important – is the total and irreversible transformation of the United States. If that is achieved – as the man calling himself Obama and all those who support him and have placed him in the White House…if that is achieved, then we are looking at a true one-world government ruled by a small group of elite who will control all aspects of production, dissemination of resources, how you are born, how you live, and how and when you are to die. There is a group who believes they will have a seat at that table of power – Big Labor, particular globalized financial institutions, certain business entities, they all share in a belief that the individual is simply too dumb, too un-evolved, to have to suffer through life on their own. They want to be told what to do. What to think. How to live.

UM: (turning to MI) Do you agree with that – it’s really that far-reaching? That’s where President Obama wants to take America? Take the world?

MI: Yes. I know it.

UM: How?

MI: (Looks to WSI)

WSI: Go ahead.

MI: Approximately two years ago…not quite two years ago…I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan. For 2012. After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives…specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership…indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama. That document’s title was…(pauses)

WSI: He can be trusted – I give you my word. Please proceed.

MI: That document’s title was “By Any Means Necessary”. It was unofficial – but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration. We confirmed that.

UM: What channels? Who are you talking about?

MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein. Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett. Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with…with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security…and…the U.S. military.

UM: Leo Gerard? The union leader? How would he play a part in this?

The seldom seen or mentioned Leo Gerard with President Obama

WSI: Mr. Gerard has direct experience in toppling a government working directly with similar forces that would be in play here in the United States. You did some work on that…perhaps look more closely at what exactly happened in Brazil. It was a coup. An overthrow of government. A joint effort between Big Labor and certain business groups in which law enforcement helped facilitate the final push.

Brazil was a regime change orchestrated by Leo Gerard and soon after personally and financially congratulated by the President of the United States.

What is now being planned for the United States is not regime change – but the final implementation… and to use the words of the man calling himself Obama, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America that can only be assured by a second presidential term.

That plan to ensure a second Obama term as it has been titled, is to take place “By Any Means Necessary”.


Look for comments in our comment section:

Iranian Arabic News Channel Reports Clinton Assassination Attempt in Israel

July 18, 2012


NOTHING Reported here on MSN…

Iran’s Arabic language al-Alam news channel reports that there was an assassination attempt on Secretary of State Hilary Clinton during her recent visit to Israel. Clinton’s motorcade was allegedly fired upon while traveling on a road to Jerusalem.

Read a translation of the al-Alam page here.

The attempted attack was not reported by the establishment media in the United States or Europe.

During the trip to Israel during the last leg of a 12-day, eight-nation tour, Clinton met with President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli leaders talked with the U.S. Secretary of State about Iran, its alleged nuclear weapons program, and the response to it by the United States and Israel.

Clinton also addressed Syria and said the United States is working on a new sanctions resolution in the United Nations “with consequences.” She again said that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad must step down.

Barack Obama Suffers From “Presidential Shrinkage”

July 14, 2012

Perhaps the 2012 presidential waters are too cold for Barack Obama?


The most telling moment of the campaign this week was not Mitt Romney or Joe Biden’s speech to the NAACP convention, but President Obama’s Tuesday appearance in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Nor was it the content of Obama’s message that made his utterances noteworthy. It was the small venue: yet another community college. Now, Kirkwood Community College is no doubt a fine place, but Sports Authority Field at Mile High it is not. And one is unlikely to come across a better indicator of presidential shrinkage.

The White House took desperate pains to note that the president talked to an “overflow crowd.” What it did not mention was that an overflow crowd in a community college gym could not fill the seats in, say, the OSU stadium. There was a time when Obama regaled audiences of 30,000, 75,000, 80,000 people. Now he speaks to true believers at high schools. By the end of the campaign he may well find himself, like Spinal Tap, playing to a threadbare crowd at Themeland Amusement Park in Stockton, California (a city which, fittingly enough, is bankrupt). The sign outside: “PUPPET SHOW AND PRESIDENT OBAMA.” …


Muslims: ‘Wipe Christianity from the face of the earth.’

July 10, 2012

Threatens to place those who resist Islamic system of world government ‘under a police state.

Michael Carl is a veteran journalist with overseas military experience and experience as a political consultant. He also has two Master’s Degrees, is a bi-vocational pastor and lives with his family in the Northeast United States.

A Muslim group has released its plan to “wipe Christianity from the face of the earth,” Islamize the West and establish an Islamic system of world government – placing those who resist “under a police state.”

The 23-page booklet, “The Global Islamic Civilization: The Power of a Nation Revived,” is the brainchild of the United Muslim Nations International, a group led by Sheik Farook al-Mohammedi. The document outlines a plan for Muslim world domination and the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

Al-Mohammedi leaves no doubt about his view of Christianity.
“Christianity should be destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth,” al-Mohammedi said. “It is an evil demonic and Anti-Christ system, all Christians are in complete Ignorance.”

The sheik includes a veiled threat in his remarks.

“Islamic Power has returned upon the face of the earth and the Revived Global Caliphate has set eyes on the West to once and for all rid the world of Christianity and there is nothing you can do about it,” al-Mohammedi said.

He makes his objective clear.

“I have pledged and made a firm promise to the Caliphate of the United Muslim Nations International organization that I will do my utmost to Islamize all of the West within a short period of time,” al-Mohammedi said.

Al-Mohammedi’s views are reflected in the book, which calls on all Muslims to, “listen attentively (to the teaching in the booklet) so they may be able to feel the spirituality of an Islamic revival within themselves and they will be able to achieve the much needed upliftment (sic) and also a means in gaining the closeness of Allah Subahanhu wa-ta’ ala.”

The document is a clear statement on the organization’s objective. Page 2 explains that the emergence of an Islamic Caliphate is the ultimate goal of all Muslims.

“Firstly we will deal with the matter of the Global Islamic Civilization, its honored status, the unrivaled Universal Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Muslim Ummah,” the document states.

“Islam the only true religion enjoins upon mankind Total Submission to the will of Allah, which means that you are to live a life that is Totally Devoted to the Almighty Allah by serving Him in the manner which He has prescribed for us through the example of the Holy Prophet Mohammed Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Wasallam,” the booklet said.

Al-Mohammedi declares that Western resistance to the worldwide Islamic movement is futile.

“Today as I breathe the air of our newly found Islamic State of America before my trip this week to Eurabia I leave behind me an Internationalist Islamic Ideology which will be the future of America and Europe Inshallah,” he said.

“None will resist, you will submit! Islam will conquer the hearts of all Christendom, this is a definite reality. Every government has surrendered to the Revived Global Caliphate and those nations who resist will be placed under a police state within their realm.”

Al-Mohammedi added that non-Muslims have no place in his vision for the world.

“The Dhimmis have no empire and no right to rule anywhere in the world. Earth belongs to us, all of it,” he said.

Al-Mohammedi didn’t respond to WND’s subsequent requests for an interview.

WND previously reported that al-Mohammedi complained about WND’s reporting and threatened to shut down WND.

“‘If you do not comply then WND and it’s (sic) employees will become targets for our UIA agents who will eliminate you within America,’ said an email today from Faarooq al Mohammedi, who has said he is working on behalf of a Muslim organization called United Muslim Nations International organization,” the WND story said.

Islam analyst, WND columnist and Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller said the document has one aim: global Islamic supremacy.

“This document is dedicated to a ‘revival of Islamic culture,’ by which is meant a restoration of ‘the Global Islamic Civilization, its honored status, the unrivaled Universal Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Muslim Ummah,’” Geller said.

She also noted that the booklet is completely in line with the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“This refers, of course, to the restoration of the caliphate, the pan-national unity of the Muslims (which is also the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood),” she said.

Geller added that even though there are references to personal faithfulness in the document, it’s really a battle cry.

“So while the document speaks largely of matters of individual piety, marriage law, etc., it actually amounts to a call to warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims under the Sharia,” Geller said.

She added, “In Islamic law only the caliph is authorized to declare and wage offensive jihad against infidel states. If the caliphate is restored, the present jihads worldwide will look like a time of peace compared to the wars that will be unleashed.”

American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin agreed, confirming, “the document is very much in line with jihadi philosophy.”

Islam analyst and Jihad Watch publisher Robert Spencer noted, “The document is pretty standard. However, it’s somewhat incoherently presented.”

George Soros: Early Elimination from the Founding Fathers Team of Jefferson, Franklin, Webster and George Washington- Here’s Why!

July 9, 2012

Soros Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership

Joe Wolverton, II
The New American
Saturday, July 7, 2012

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.

In a blog post published on July 3, Timothy Johnson of Media Matters describes the notion that the United Nations would ever try to take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms “laughable.”

Johnson goes on to promote the passage of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as a means of “curtailing the illicit arms trade” and thus cracking down on those who use these weapons to deny others their “human rights.”

The blog post assures citizens concerned about the potential eradication of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution that they have nothing to fear from the UN’s gun control treaty.

Top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone’s “freedom to own” a gun.  Indeed, the UN General Assembly’s resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will “exclusively” maintain the right within their borders to “regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships.”

Constitutionalists will instantly notice a couple of red flags raised by Media Matters’ word choice.

First, there need be no quotation marks around the phrase freedom to own a gun. Americans should enjoy the unqualified right to bear arms and it is not some antiquated idea or some unicorn-like mythical creature that requires special punctuational treatment. Americans are well aware that an unarmed citizenry is easier to subdue and will rightly resist all efforts to abridge that right.

Second, the citizens of the United States do not need the permission of the United Nations to maintain the “exclusive” right to own a gun. This right, as with all others protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, comes from God, not man, and may be neither given nor taken away by any government.

Undaunted, however, Soros will continue to use his mouthpieces to promote the globalist agenda, including the incremental dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty it protects.

The current draft of the ATT mandates that the governments of member states petition the United Nations for approval of any contract to sell weapons to any nation where there exists a “substantial risk of a serious violation” of human rights.

While the end of reducing the abuse of human rights is laudable, the means to achieve that cannot lawfully include the requirement that the Congress of the United States ask for permission from the UN overlords before it passes a law, including one authorizing the sale of arms to another country. That is a direct assault on American legislative sovereignty, and an indirect attack on the sovereignty of the American people who elect the members of Congress who vote on such measures.

In the text of the ATT, the United Nations specifically calls for the passage of a legally binding instrument that will impose international standards for the ownership, trade, and transfer of weapons.

In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.

In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs

• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

On this point, in 2011, the UN’s General Assembly declared “that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation are essential.” In other words, if world peace, the protection of human rights, and the disarming of violent regimes could be achieved through the confiscation of personal firearms, then so be it.

Make no mistake, however, Soros and his fellow globalist gun controllers don’t have in mind (at least at first) to march blue-helmeted UN soldiers into the homes of Americans with orders to seize their guns and ammunition. Rather, through the passage of binding international treaties and UN resolutions, they will force the national governments of the world to do the dirty work for them.

Sadly, officials of our own federal government, including President Obama, are pushing Congress to sign off on this treaty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the Obama administration is working with the UN to lean on Congress to consent to the ATT.

Clinton has pushed the treaty as an “opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.”

There is little doubt that the scope of those “legitimate purposes” will be determined by Soros, Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the globalist gang who have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.

For now, the resistance to ratification of such a treaty is strong in the United States. Last July Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and 44 other senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton encouraging them to stop pushing for passage of UN gun control treaties. In the letter, Moran wrote: