Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon
#SaveOurVets
Posted on May 14, 2014
http://conservativebyte.com/2014/05/saveourvets/
By Clash Daily / 13 May 2014
In 2013, ICE freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings, according to a document obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies. This group included aliens convicted of hundreds of violent and serious crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The list of crimes also includes more than 16,000 drunk or drugged driving convictions. The vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law (in fact, in some instances, apparently contrary to law), nor the result of local sanctuary policies.
The document reveals that the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody in many instances had multiple convictions. Among them, the 36,007 had nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

This enumeration of FY 2013 criminal aliens freed and the criminal convictions tied to these individuals was prepared by ICE in response to congressional inquiries following a report published by the Center for Immigration Studies. That report, “Catch and Release” <http://cis.org/catch-and-release>, showed that ICE officers declined to bring immigration charges in 68,000 cases of criminal aliens they encountered in 2013.
It is important to recognize that the 36,007 criminal aliens counted in this document are a different set of cases from the 68,000 releases reported earlier. The 36,007 criminal aliens counted here are aliens who were being processed for deportation and were freed while awaiting the final disposition of their cases, or afterwards. The 68,000 releases were cases of alien criminals encountered by ICE officers, usually in jails, but who were let go in lieu of processing them for immigration removal charges in that year.
“Here is a thought to consider. Could the Obama Administration want these criminals on the streets so crime will INCREASE, justifying greater efforts to register, then confiscate our guns? If that happens, enslaving that unarmed citizenry with Socialist laws and tyranny is a very easy job.” JB
The 36,007 criminal aliens itemized in this document were released by means of bond; order of recognizance (unsupervised); order of supervision (which can consist of nothing more than a periodic telephone call to a designated ICE telephone number); an alternative to detention (such as an electronic ankle bracelet, or other form of tracking device); or parole (a form of legal status). The ICE document does not specify the number or type of criminal aliens released according to the form of release.
Separate information obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals that the vast majority of these releases were discretionary, or even contrary to the requirements of various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Only a small share of these criminal aliens (fewer than 3,000) were released in accordance with a 2001 Supreme Court decision, Zadvydas v. Davis, which prevents ICE from indefinitely detaining certain aliens whose countries will not accept them back. (See “Reining in Zadvydas v. Davis” <http://cis.org/stopping-release-of-criminal-aliens>.) Another small number may have been offered parole or legal status, either in exchange for their cooperation with ICE or another law enforcement agency in connection with a criminal prosecution, or because of another compelling public interest.
This document raises questions about the Obama administration’s management of enforcement resources, as well as its enforcement plans and priorities. For instance, a series of directives to ICE agents and officers known as “prosecutorial discretion”, and the implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, have made certain broad categories of illegal aliens off-limits for enforcement. These policies have forced ICE officers in the field to avoid or cease deportation action in thousands of cases, even in cases of aliens charged with or convicted of crimes <http://cis.org/vaughan/lawsuit-documents-criminal-alien-releases-decline-enforcement-cooked-statistics>.
ICE officers have testified in federal court that some arrested aliens have claimed to be eligible for DACA knowing that they likely will be released from custody and from immigration charges without verification of their claims.
ICE should be asked to disclose how many and which of the 36,007 criminal alien releases occurred due to these recent policy changes.
In addition, over the last year certain advocacy groups have called for the Obama administration to scale back the number of deportations or halt them altogether. A number of criminal aliens in detention while awaiting completion of deportation proceedings have been the subject of petition campaigns, prayer vigils, demonstrations, and other forms of protest against enforcement. Typically these protests occur on behalf of a criminal alien who has family members in the United States. ICE should be asked to disclose how many of these releases came after such appeals were made on behalf of criminal aliens.
“Fantastic. Let’s let illegal aliens protest the sovereign laws of the United States, and give into them so the Leftist, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Liberal Left maintain their illegal voter numbers so they can continue their sinister efforts to “transform” America into a Socialist nation. Yeah. Makes a lot of sense.” JB
These figures call into question President Obama’s request to Congress for permission to reduce immigration detention capacity by 10 percent in favor of permission to make wider use of experimental alternatives to detention.
These alternatives already are subject to serious questions about their efficacy and cost, and ICE’s methodology for evaluating the results needs to be carefully scrutinized. The reduced detention bed-space request, submitted as part of the executive branch’s budget plan, comes at a time in which ICE’s detention space needs are expanding due to rapidly increasing illegal arrivals along parts of the southwest border and continued high numbers of criminal aliens encountered by agents in the interior.
The news that ICE released so many criminal aliens convicted of so many serious and violent crimes suggests that ICE could use more detention capacity, not less, in order to prevent further harm to the public from these individuals. ICE should be asked to track and disclose what additional crimes may have been committed by these individuals after their release.
“YOU THINK???” JB
ICE devotes very few resources to victim assistance and notification programs, and these meager efforts are focused primarily on helping victims of human trafficking rather than those who have been harmed by alien criminals. In fact, the only “ombudsman” type of position ICE has established – and maintained even in the face of specific congressional de-funding of the position – focuses on aiding illegal aliens, not their victims. ICE should establish a notification system, modeled on the most successful federal, state, or local victim-witness assistance programs, to alert the victims of alien criminals, local law enforcement agencies, and the public when violent or dangerous criminal aliens are released from its custody.
The criminal aliens released in 2013 had more than 300 convictions for “flight escape,” indicating that they had a prior history of fleeing from authorities. Experience (and common sense) suggests that such individuals would be poor candidates for release while awaiting possible deportation. Studies have shown that fewer than a quarter of aliens who are released from custody <http://cis.org/justice-on-the-run> while awaiting the outcome of immigration proceedings will show up for immigration court to finish their case. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice should be asked to disclose how many of these criminal aliens became fugitives after their release from ICE custody.
The revelation that 36,007 criminal aliens were released from ICE custody in 2013, an average of nearly 100 per day, is shocking, and could further shake public faith in the effectiveness of current immigration enforcement policies. This information is sure to raise concerns that, despite professions of a focus on removal of criminal aliens, Obama administration policies frequently have allowed political considerations to trump public safety factors and, as a result, aliens with serious criminal convictions have been allowed to return to the streets instead of being removed to their home countries.
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is on the verge of announcing the results of a review of deportation policies, ordered by the president in response to immigrant advocacy group protests. Most observers believe this review will result in policy changes to further expand the number and categories of illegal aliens who effectively are exempt from immigration enforcement and, if experience is a guide, will further increase the number of criminal aliens who are released instead of deported. Lawmakers and the public must insist that DHS fully disclose and be held accountable for the public safety impact of any additional deportation policy changes.
“….in response to immigrant advocacy group protests, instead of listening the vast majority of American citizens who want these people out of here.” JB
It’s unimaginable that any government would do this, but it seems like the Obama administration is constantly breaking new ground. The disturbing details of this secret initiative were made public this week by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who has obtained DHS electronic mail discussing what could be a terrorist “hands off” list. The exchange includes a 2012 email chain between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking whether to admit an individual with ties to various terrorist groups. The individual had scheduled an upcoming flight into the U.S., according to an announcement issued by the senator.
The person was believed to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a close associate and supporter Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, according to the mail exchange obtained by Grassley’s office. The terrorist suspect had also been in secondary inspection “several dozen times of the past several years,” the agency emails reveal, but had not undergone a secondary inspection since 2010. This seems to imply that the suspect has been on the U.S. government’s radar for some time.
It gets better. The DHS emails also reveal that this particular terrorism suspect has actually taken legal action against the U.S., presumably because authorities violated the hands off policy. The subject “has sued CBP twice in the past and that he’s one of the several hands off passengers nationwide,” according to the DHS emails obtained by Senator Grassley’s office. The documents go on to say that the terrorist’s records were removed and that the DHS Secretary (at the time Janet Napolitano) was involved in the matter.
This is pure insanity and the senator has tried for months to get answers from DHS. In February he wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson saying this:
“I’m puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of [redacted], say that the US is staging car bombings in Iraq and that [it] is ok for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted. It doesn’t appear that we’ll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow but maybe we could re-evaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago.”
The agency’s response, dated April 10, apparently frustrated the senator enough to make the whole thing public this week. DHS let CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske get back to Grassley. His letter says the agency does not have the authority to ignore information that renders an individual alien inadmissible because CBP does not have the discretionary authority to admit an inadmissible alien. “Accordingly, CBP does not have any list or other mechanism which would render an individual free of the grounds of inadmissibility or from any other inspection requirements, including secondary inspections,” Kerlikowske writes.
He goes on to pass the buck to another agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ). “The Terrorist Watchlist is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which was created by the Attorney General and is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations,” the CBP commissioner writes. “All questions related to the watchlist should therefore be referred to the Department of Justice for response.” Kerlikowske also offers to provide the senator with a “more detailed briefing on the particular case cited in your letter, in the appropriate setting.” That means nothing will be put in writing so as to avoid any sort of future incrimination in the event the scandal blows wide open.
Could you imagine the uproar in the mainstream media that we would see if a member of a politically favored class of people was crucified for who or what they are? There would be front page headlines for weeks. But because members of a politically favored class (Muslims) are doing it to members of a non-politically favored class (Christians), it is not newsworthy at all according to the media. In many instances, Christians are being crucified by jihadists that are actually being assisted and funded by the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia. Yes, our tax dollars are being used to help arm and supply radical jihadists that are beheading and crucifying Christians. And yet none of the big media organizations considers this to be news.How sick and twisted do you have to be to crucify a little child for being a Christian? Of course you never heard about this from the mainstream media, but that is exactly what happened in Syria recently…
Sister Raghida, former head of a Christian school in Damascus explained the horrific event. “Islam or death” was the choice given to many Christians in Syria on Tuesday during the height of the conflict in Syria. She said many Syrian Christians have been affected by the atrocities taking place in the Christian population of the Middle Eastern country, an area once known for the harmonious coexistence of Muslims and Christians.
According to Sister Raghida, the Muslims came to the two youths and said, “So you want to die as a teacher in whom you trust? Please choose: either to renounce (faith) or you will be crucified!”
The boys both refused to renounce faith in Jesus Christ and were martyred because of it. One of them was crucified in front of his father, who was then killed. The nun went on to tell the radio station that the Jihadists entered the city of Maaloula and started killing men, women, and children. According to her report, they killed and played football with the heads of those murdered. Sister Raghida also said the killers took pregnant women and pulled out the babies from their wombs and hung them from a tree by their umbilical cords.
Who has ever heard of such a thing being done to pregnant women and children?
You would think that crimes of this magnitude would be front page news all over the globe.
But instead, there is mostly just silence.
About the only mainstream news outlet in the U.S. that will even touch this stuff is Fox News. And even they don’t give it front page treatment. Usually you have to really dig to find a brief story about the slaughter of Christians that we are seeing all over the planet.
The following is an excerpt from a Fox News story about another incident of crucifixion that just happened recently…
Al Qaeda-backed jihadists are hanging the bodies of executed enemies on crosses crucifixion-style in a town in Northern Syria, according to a Syrian opposition group.
The executions reportedly took place Tuesday in Raqqa, where the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, an Al Qaeda-linked network, has taken over the city, according to Abu Ibrahim Alrquaoui, who identifies himself as a founder of a group called Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently.
The brutality against Christians by U.S.-backed fighters has been going on for month after month with very little notice by the outside world. Just check out what has been going on in one little village in the middle of the war zone…
For a major part of the past year, it was occupied by Islamist Syrian rebels associated with al-Qaida who took advantage of its commanding position over Maaloula to help keep their grip on this Christian village. During the occupation of the village by the Saudi- and U.S.-supported rebels, strict Shariah law was enforced. Those Christians not able to flee were treated as slaves. Several Christian men were beheaded, and many of the women were forced into “temporary” marriages with multiple Islamic fighters.
And of course Syria is far from the only place where we see this kind of brutality on a consistent basis. For example, Christians are regularly slaughtered by radical jihadists in Nigeria. The following is just one recent example…
While many of us were enjoying our Friday evenings, a massacre was taking place in Nigeria that left between 100 and 150 Christians dead and around 200 homes burned to the ground.
At around 10pm Nigeria time last night while villagers were asleep, more than 40 Fulani herdsmen attacked the Ungwan Gata, Me-Sankwai and Tekum villages in Manchok (Kaura Local Government), which is located in Southern Kaduna, Nigeria. Southern Kaduna is a predominantly Christian.
These jihadi attackers first set fire to homes and when the Christians attempted to escape their homes, they were shot dead or butchered with machetes. The ones who could not escape their homes burned to death.
No one attacked was spared, including women and children. A pastor, his wife, and their children, of one of the villages, were said to be among the butchered.
Have you heard about that incident before now?
Probably not.
You see, the truth is that the elite control the “matrix” known as the mainstream media, and they don’t consider such stories to be important.
You probably haven’t heard about the young Christian woman that was dragged out of her car and beaten to death by a Muslim mob in Egypt either. Fortunately, there are some non-mainstream outlets that are covering this…
Eyewitnesses have given a harrowing account of the murder in Cairo of a young Coptic Christian woman, hauled out of her car and beaten and stabbed to death by a Muslim mob, apparently targeted because of a cross hanging from her rear-view mirror.
Protestors climbed onto her car, collapsing the roof, then hauled her from the vehicle, beating and mauling her – to the extent, he said, that portions of her scalp were torn off. She was stabbed multiple times, her throat was slit and when she was dead, the mob torched her car.
This is evil to the highest degree.
But even in the midst of the slowest news year in ages, the mainstream media still won’t touch this stuff.
There is an extreme hesitance in the western world to report anything that will put Muslims in a bad light or put Christians in a good light.
Meanwhile, as Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims all over the globe, the western world is doing all that it can to shut down criticism of Islam.
For instance, the leader of a political party in the UK could be facing up to two years in prison for the “hate crime” of quoting Winston Churchill…
Political party leader Paul Weston was arrested by police and faces up to two years in jail for criticizing the religion of Islam during a public speech in the United Kingdom.
Weston’s “racially aggravated” hate crime consisted of him quoting Winston Churchill.
Weston’s arrest reveals the chilling implementation of thought crime in Britain and how political correctness is being used as a weapon with which to destroy the edifice of freedom of speech across the western world.
The following is what appears to be the quote that got Weston in trouble…
“The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”
And in the U.S., great efforts are being made to make Muslims as comfortable as possible in our schools. Even as Christian prayers are being banned, entire prayer rooms are being set aside for Muslim students in schools all over the country. In addition, many school systems are now giving students days off during major Muslim holidays. In fact, this will soon be happening in New York City…
New York City is moving to close school for two Muslim holidays and the Lunar New Year — but Mayor de Blasio isn’t so sure about the Hindu festival Diwali.
Appearing on WNYC’s “Brian Lehrer Show” on Monday, the mayor said he hadn’t taken a position on whether Diwali, the festival of lights celebrated in India and other South Asian countries, should be a day off from school.
But he said he’d move forward with closing schools for Lunar New Year and for Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, Muslim holy days.
The principal at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, is facing a hailstorm of criticism from some very angry parents and residents.
The school recites the Pledge of Allegiance weekly, on Mondays. Last Monday, a member of their “Cultural Arms Club” led the student body in an Arabic version of the pledge, replacing the words “under God” with “under Allah.”
Principal Tom Lopez denies any attempt to push an Islamic agenda, saying, “These students love this country. They were not being un-American in trying to do this. They believed they were accentuating the meaning of the words as spoken regularly in English.”
Amidst new revelations concerning emails that show the Obama administration conspired to create a phony narrative around the Benghazi attacks, the true purpose behind the cover-up is being obfuscated – the fact that an annex near the U.S. embassy was being used by the CIA to transfer surface to air missiles to terrorists in Syria.
Image: Barack Obama (Wiki Commons).
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today issued a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before the committee on May 21 about Benghazi following the release of emails by Judicial Watch which show that the White House crafted a deceptive policy to falsely frame the attack as a spontaneous protest sparked by a YouTube video in order to protect Barack Obama’s image.
Lost in the haze of claims and counter claims is the real reason why the White House is desperate to prevent the attack from coming under any further scrutiny – because it would likely reveal an arms smuggling scandal that could rival Iran-Contra.
In May last year, Senator Rand Paul was one of the first to speculate that the truth behind Benghazi was linked to an illicit arms smuggling program that saw weapons being trafficked to terrorists in Syria as part of the United States’ proxy war against the Assad regime.
“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” Paul told CNN, adding that he “never….quite understood the cover-up — if it was intentional or incompetence”.
Senator Paul was vindicated less than three months later when it emerged that the CIA had been subjecting its operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an effort to keep a lid on details of the arms smuggling operation being leaked.
Although the Obama administration is now openly arming the Syrian rebels, it has been keen to stress that such weaponry has been restricted to so-called “moderate” fighters, despite the fact that it is now widely acknowledged that Al-Qaeda is by far the most potent fighting force in Syria and indeed commands all the other militant groups.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Friday, May 2, 2014 at 11:53 am

LESLIE E. KOSSOFF/AP – Vehicles travel southbound on Virginia’s Interstate 395 inside the Capital Beltway during rush hour near the King Street exit in this file photo.
The proposal, contained in a four-year, $302 billion White House transportation bill, would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.
Though some older segments of the network — notably the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes and Interstate 95 in Maryland and Interstate 495 in Virginia — are toll roads, most of the 46,876-mile system has been toll-free.
“We believe that this is an area where the states have to make their own decisions,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We want to open the aperture, if you will, to allow more states to choose to make broader use of tolling, to have that option available.”
The question of how to pay to repair roadways and transit systems built in the heady era of post-World War II expansion is demanding center stage this spring, with projections that traditional funding can no longer meet the need.
That source, the Highway Trust Fund, relies on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, which has eroded steadily as vehicles have become more energy efficient.
“The proposal comes at the crucial moment for transportation in the last several years,” Foxx said. “As soon as August, the Highway Trust Fund could run dry. States are already canceling or delaying projects because of the uncertainty.”
While providing tolling as an option to states, the White House proposal relies on funding from a series of corporate tax reforms, most of them one-time revenue streams that would provide a four-year bridge to close the trust-fund deficit and permit $150 billion more in spending than the gas tax will bring in.
The corporate tax reform proposal has gotten a lukewarm reception even from Democrats in Congress, and Foxx emphasized that the administration is open to any counterproposal that wins bipartisan support.
With the trust fund about to run into the red and the current federal highway bill set to expire Sept. 30, Congress cannot — as its members often note — keep “kicking the can down the road.”
Even a temporary extension of the current bill would require them to authorize a transfer of money from the general fund.
Details of the president’s proposal, which he first outlined almost two months ago, were welcomed as a sign of growing momentum toward a resolution, even by those who couldn’t fully embrace his plan.
“While we may not agree with all aspects of the administration’s proposal, we look forward to the continuing dialogue with Congress and the administration on charting America’s transportation future,” said Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said the bill helped “advance the discussion” but said a federal gas tax increase should be used to fund it.
“The gas tax remains the most tested and logical way of meeting our critical investment needs,” O’Sullivan said.
“For too long, Congress’s duct-tape approach has made our roads and bridges unsafe, destabilized the construction industry and slowed our economy.”
The federal tax last was raised in 1993 and has not been adjusted for inflation.
Another advocacy group, the nonprofit Transportation for America, spelled out its concerns Tuesday in a report, “The looming financial disaster for transportation.”
The report provided a state-by-state accounting of the percentage of transportation funding that came from Washington. In most cases, it amounted to about half, though some states were far more dependent on federal dollars. (Federal funds accounted for 52 percent of the District’s funding, 49 percent of Maryland’s and almost 59 percent of Virginia’s.)
It also broke down the funding that would be lost by each major metropolitan area without federal revenue, pegging the Washington region’s loss at $424 million.
“Congress has an opportunity to not only save the transportation program, but to recommit to investing in the repairs and improvements our communities and businesses need,” said James Corless, the group’s director.
Corless predicted that most Americans would accept tax increases to fund transportation.
“When people understand where the dollars are being spent, the direct impact to their lives, they support paying their fair share,” he said.
Foxx said the highway trust fund would face a $63 billion shortfall over the next four years.
“What our proposal would do is [use] pro-growth business tax reform to backfill in the highway trust fund,” Foxx said. “We would put that $63 billion back in place to stabilize the highway trust fund, and then the additional $90 billion would be spent on new programs.”
He said the $302 billion bottom line for the proposal would be reached “through a combination of existing taxes that go to the highway trust fund that would equate to $152 billion on their own, and then $150 billion in transitional revenues from pro-growth tax reform.”
The proposal emphasizes a fix-it-first approach that would give funding priority to existing roads, bridges and transit systems rather than expanding their network.
It would expand reforms intended to streamline environmental reviews and project delivery that were begun in the current federal highway bill.
It also would expand popular loan-guarantee programs that have been used by state and local governments to fund projects. The White House plan would almost double funding — from $12.3 billion to $22.3 billion — for transit systems and intercity passenger rail.
In addition, the plan would increase the fine an automaker could face for a safety violation from the current $35 million to $300 million.
Though that proposal is not new, it takes on greater significance amid the debate over General Motors’s delayed recall of 2 million cars with faulty ignition switches that are alleged to have led to at least 13 deaths.
More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:
“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.
“The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president’s policies,” he said.
The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May — after Republicans refused to move forward with the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director until the so-called “talking points” emails were made public.
The email is also significant because in congressional testimony in early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell told lawmakers it was Rice, in her Sunday show appearances, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis.
“My reaction was two-fold,” Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee, regarding her appearances. “One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.”
Incidentally, three leading Republicans on Monday night sent letters to the House and Senate foreign affairs committees asking them to compel the administration to explain who briefed Rice in advance of the Sunday talk shows and whether State Department or White House personnel were involved.
“How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor,” said the letter, from Sens. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina; Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire; and John McCain, of Arizona.
The Sept. 14 Rhodes email does not indicate whether there was a “prep call” for Rice, as it suggests. If the call went ahead, it does not indicate who briefed her.
National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan played down the Rhodes email, telling Fox News in a statement: “There were protests taking place across the region in reaction to an offensive internet video, so that’s what these points addressed. There were known protests in Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum, and Tunis as well as early reports of similar protests in Benghazi, which contributed to questions of how the attack began…. These documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time.”
The statement did not address Fox News’ specific questions asking whether White House personnel, particularly Rhodes, briefed Rice before the Sunday shows, and what intelligence Rhodes relied on when he referred to the video.
The newly released emails also show that on Sept. 27, 2012 a Fox News report — titled “US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm” — was circulated at the most senior levels of the administration. This included going to then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough; then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan; Morell; and Rhodes, among others, but the comments were redacted, citing “personal privacy information.”
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

The president’s Chicago bullies have defanged true advocates for integrity in government in D.C. from day one. So the latest report by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Operations Committee on corruptocrat Charles K. Edwards, the former Department of Homeland Security inspector general, isn’t a revelation. It’s confirmation.
Investigators found that Edwards compromised the independence of his office by socializing and sucking up to senior DHS officials. “There are many blessings to be thankful for this year,” the sycophantic Edwards wrote to the DHS acting counsel on Thanksgiving 2011, “but one of the best is having a friend like you.” Geez, get them a room.
Whistleblowers outlined how Edwards cozied up to multiple DHS execs and legal staffers, who directed him to alter reports on immigration enforcement, TSA screening and the Secret Service’s dalliances with prostitutes in Argentina. Edwards failed to obtain independent legal analysis of ethics issues. The IG counsel was cut out of the loop. Edwards ordered reports to be doctored or delayed. He failed to recuse himself from audits and inspections that had conflicts of interest related to his wife’s employment.
The probe among DHS employees also discovered that Edwards’ apparent retaliatory actions against staff dissenters “contributed to an office environment characterized by low morale, fear and general dissatisfaction with Mr. Edwards’ leadership.”
The Obama White House was quite happy, however. The administration installed this 20-year career bureaucrat as acting DOJ senior watchdog despite the fact that he had zero experience conducting audits, investigations and inspections — the three fundamental duties of an inspector general. They got exactly what they needed: A do-nothing, know-nothing, toothless lackey.
Edwards’ main non-accomplishment was carrying water for the Obama corruptocracy as he dithered on the internal investigation of Alejandro Mayorkas, who was confirmed late last year as the No. 2 official at Homeland Security. As I’ve previously reported, veteran internal whistleblowers told Capitol Hill about fraud, reckless rubber-stamping and lax enforcement under Mayorkas’ tenure as head of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Put on your shocked faces: The DOJ’s IG probe into Mayorkas’ role on fast-tracking visas for wealthy Chinese investors on behalf of GreenTech — the crony company with ties to Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton’s other brother, Anthony — has yet to be completed after more than a year.
Former DHS crook-in-chief Janet Napolitano continues to deny any wrongdoing. Conveniently, Napolitano’s longtime aide and crony pal Suzanne Barr, former chief of staff to former DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement head John Morton, left office just after whistleblower allegations about Barr’s lewd conduct and sexual harassment of underlings surfaced. Guess who was “in charge” as the scandal broke open? Whitewash puppy Charles K. Edwards.
As always, the fish rots from the head down. Remember: Team Hope and Change sacked former Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold and former Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin for exposing financial improprieties and calling out Obama officials’ interference with their probes.
And the current kennel of Obama cover-up enablers masquerading as watchdogs includes Interior Department acting IG Mary Kendall. She remains under investigation for allegations that she potentially helped White House officials cover up their doctoring of scientific documents that led to the fraudulent, job-killing drilling moratorium of 2010.
Then there was former DOJ acting inspector Cynthia Schnedar, a longtime employee and colleague of now-Attorney General Eric Holder, who recklessly released secret Operation Fast and Furious audiotapes to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix before reviewing them. She resigned in 2012 to avoid the heat.
When the Senate panel called Charles K. Edwards to testify last December about his own hot ethics mess, the White House promptly whisked Edwards out of the job and transferred him to the “science and technology” division of DOJ.
Funny how the “most transparent administration in American history” loves to play hide and seek with its dirty watchdogs. Heels, the whole lot of them.
Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010).

Harry Reid isn’t backing down from his claim that rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters are “domestic terrorists.”
Democratic rhetoric is become ever more desperate and overheated as we approach the November midterm elections. Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that GOP positions on immigration were motivated by racism. She was followed by Representative Steve Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said, “To a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements animated by racism.” Even some leftists, such as Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, have rebuked the excess of these attacks. Referring to Democrats’ use of the “equal pay” issue to buttress claims that Republicans are waging “a war on women,” Marcus wrote, “The level of hyperbole — actually of demagoguery — that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting.” What is going on? Increasingly, journalists who cover the White House are concluding that the smears are part of a conscious strategy to distract voters from Obamacare, the sluggish economy, and foreign-policy reverses; the attacks are intended, the thinking goes, to drive up resentment and hence turnout among the Democratic base.
Major Garrett, the CBS White House correspondent, has talked with White House aides who confirm that the administration is working from the theory of “stray voltage,” as developed by former White House senior adviser David Plouffe. “The theory goes like this,” Garrett wrote. “Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness,”
Deliberately misstating information about key issues in order to keep certain issues before the public is often a premeditated strategy. “The tactic represents one more step in the embrace of cynicism that has characterized President Obama’s journey in office,” John Dickerson wrote at Slate. “Facts, schmacts. As long as people are talking about an issue where my party has an advantage with voters, it’s good.”
Frank James of NPR is another mainstream journalist who has concluded that the use of incendiary rhetoric is part of an electoral strategy. “Social scientists who have studied voters have found that voter participation rises when voters are emotionally engaged,” he noted. “For some voters, suggestions that some of the opposition to Obama and his policies is more than just honest disagreement — and is indeed racially based — could help do the trick.”
I’m not so sure. Democratic consultants may not care in the short term that such tactics diminish the office of the president and undermine trust among the American people. But Dickerson suggests that presidents are right to “worry that people won’t think they aren’t honest or trustworthy if they keep using facts that don’t pan out.” A new Fox poll finds that 61 percent of Americans now believe that President Obama lies some or all of the time on “important matters,” while only 15 percent say Obama never lies. But among his base voters, 37 percent of African Americans and 31 percent of Democrats say he never lies: These are the people Democrats hope can be brought to the polls with overheated rhetoric.
Some political scientists think the White House is playing a clever game, but not necessarily a successful one. Michael McDonald, an expert at George Mason University on voter turnout, is dubious that Democrats can successfully drive base voters to the polls by cherry-picking Dem-friendly issues. “They’re basically trying to reengineer the electorate,” McDonald said last week. “History is not on their side.” Indeed, in special election after special election this year, Democratic turnout has been down and Republicans have won surprising victories — from San Diego to Connecticut to Arlington, Va. As Abraham Lincoln is credited (probably erroneously) with saying: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Democrats may not be able to fool enough of the people this time — we’ll find out in November.
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist at National Review Online.

<img width=”665″ height=”385″ src=”http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BLM-texas-ranch-665×385.jpg” data-attID=”1212016″ class=”single-leader wp-post-image” alt=”red river BLM” />
Tommy Henderson is locked in a property rights fight with the BLM. Although many students are taught in geography class that the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River, the issue is far more complicated than that, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM used an ongoing debate over the border to nab 140 acres of land Henderson’s failed lawsuit against the agency three decades ago.
BLM is now using the Tommy Henderson lawsuit ruling as a precedent to seize even more of his land along a 116-mile stretch of the river which the agency claims never belonged to Texas in the first place. Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years.
Henderson had this to say about the emerging Red River range war in Texas:
“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us.”
If the BLM is successful in its bid to seize the 90,000 owned by the Texas rancher, it would substantially alter the boundaries between the two states. The fight boils down to the difference between avulsion and accretion. The river has moved over time and the boundary is supposed to be noted as the vegetation line along the south side of the waterway. Both states use different semantics to define the boundary, according to the Americas Freedom Fighters website. The BLM has allegedly been able to capitalize on the confusion in the bid to seize Henderson’s land. Oklahoma state statute defines avulsion in a different manner than both the United States government and Texas.
A statement from the BLM about the possible land seizure in Texas reads:
“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If the land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.”
The BLM also contends that in the Red River there is always accretion – the gradual accumulation of sediment, to the south. The federal agency also stated that avulsion, the rapid formation of a new river channel, occurs on the north side of the river. The Bureau of Land Management believes that since the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma only moves in one direction – and that direction has not favored the ranchers working the land along the Red River. If the agency is able to redraw the Red River boundary it will include Tommy Henderson’s 90,000 acre ranch. If the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option – but will come at a price.
Tommy Henderson also had this to say about the very real possibility of losing his ranch:
“How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours.’ Even though its patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours. Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north.”
A boundary change could land families who have be considered Texans for generations on the other side of the line and actually suddenly find themselves Oklahoma residents.
How do you feel about the ongoing actions by the BLM which could impact Texas ranch owned by Tommy Henderson?
[Image Via: Google Maps]
Read more at

Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.
A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.
The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.
The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.
“The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,” said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.
Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. (???????????????????)
The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.
“I knew this research would be contentious,” said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I’m amazed it has not come out more solidly until now.”
The Environmental Protection Agency’s own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.
Cellulosic biofuels that don’t meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn’t earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn’t meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”
But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.
The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programs with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programs if too much corn residue is removed.
A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department’s Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95 percent better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions. That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s unclear whether future biorefineries would do that.
Liska agrees that using some of the residue to make electricity, or planting cover crops, would reduce carbon emissions. But he did not include those in his computer simulation.
Still, corn residue is likely to be a big source early on for cellulosic biofuels, which have struggled to reach commercial scale. Last year, for the fifth time, the EPA proposed reducing the amount required by law. It set a target of 17 million gallons for 2014. The law envisioned 1.75 billion gallons being produced this year.
“The study says it will be very hard to make a biofuel that has a better greenhouse gas impact than gasoline using corn residue,” which puts it in the same boat as corn-based ethanol, said David Tilman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has done research on biofuels’ emissions from the farm to the tailpipe.
Tilman said it was the best study on the issue he has seen so far.
The following article is disturbing on so many levels. It is one more piece of evidence that the Obama Administration is setting up multiple scenarios whereby they can declare Marshall Law and do a military style takeover of our freedom. They love to stir the pot. This is more stirring.
Jerry Broussard
![]()
In a speech earlier this week, Lisa O. Monaco, President Barack Obama’s assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, insisted that
American parents must be vigilant because their “confrontational” children could be on the verge of becoming terrorists.
Monaco’s full, prepared text is at the end of this article. She presented the speech, entitled “Countering Violent Extremism and the Power of Community,” at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government on April 15.
Monaco began her remarks by eloquently describing the lives tragically lost last year during the Boston Marathon bombings. Interestingly, the Harvard grad failed to mention the religion or the motive of brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Muslim terrorists behind the Boston bombings.
In the very next paragraph, Monaco specifically noted racist and disgustingly anti-Semitic beliefs of Frazier Glenn Miller, the 73-year-old former Ku Klux Klan leader accused of gunning down three people at a Jewish Community Center in Kansas last Sunday. (RELATED: Guess what college the Jewish Community Center shooter lectured at)
The White House bureaucrat then settled into the heart of her speech: That Obama “has been laser-focused” on preventing “violent extremism” “by homegrown violent extremists” right here “in the United States.”
The president can’t do it all, though. He needs “local communities” to assist in observing “warning signs a person” is becoming “radicalized to violence.”
This is where the American parents of American children in America’s towns, cities and countryside can provide the greatest assistance, Monaco said.
“For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational,”
she asserted.
Schoolteachers and community members can help as well.
“Teachers might hear a student expressing an interest in traveling to a conflict zone overseas,” she added—in an ambiguous allusion to various religious conflicts around the world.
“Or friends might notice a new interest in watching or sharing violent material.”
Monaco then went on to explain some of the localized initiatives that various government entities have initiated to thwart terrorist activities in the United States.
As Prepared for Delivery
“Countering Violent Extremism and the Power of Community”
Harvard Kennedy School Forum
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Thank you so much, Farah [Pandith], for your kind introduction, and for your service to our country as the first Special Representative to Muslim communities during your time at the State Department, and as a leading advocate for a community of voices to counter extremism.
I want to thank everyone at the Harvard Kennedy School for doing so much to develop our future public servants and political leaders, and I’m honored to be with you today. It’s an honor to be part of the great Forum tradition. I’d like to thank my colleague Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, as well as Jeffery Brown from the Ten Point Coalition and Haris Tarin from the Muslim Public Affairs Council for joining me for what I am sure will be an excellent discussion.
Of course, we’re here today because of a tragedy. This morning I joined Vice President Biden at the memorial service marking the anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings – marking one year since we were shocked by those awful images at the finish line; one year since we lost Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu, eight-year-old Martin Richard and Officer Sean Collier – all innocent lives and all lost far too soon. It’s been one year since we saw how Boston responds in the face of terrorism—with resilience and resolve and unbending strength.
When the bombs went off, I had been President Obama’s chief advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism for just a few weeks. It was a deeply personal introduction to the demands of this job. I was raised a few miles from here—in Newton. I went to high school in the shadow of Fenway Park and then made the long trek down Storrow Drive to come here for college. Growing up, I spent every Patriot’s Day lining that marathon route – usually at the crest of Heartbreak Hill – cheering on the runners and taking part in a great Boston tradition. And last year, my twin brother was there in the crowd, alongside thousands of other Bostonians. It was not only an attack on the homeland; it was an attack on my hometown.
We’ve faced violent expressions of extremism throughout our history, including 19 years ago this week in Oklahoma City. And, sadly, we continue to face it, as we saw just two days ago in Overland Park, Kansas, when a gunman—allegedly a white supremacist with a long history of racist and anti-Semitic behavior—opened fire at a Jewish community center and retirement home, killing three. And, while the American people continue to stand united against hatred and violence, the unfortunate truth is that extremist groups will continue targeting vulnerable populations in an effort to promote their murderous ideology.
That’s why stemming domestic radicalization to violence has been a key element of our counterterrorism strategy from day one. President
Obama has been laser-focused on making sure we use all the elements of our national power (….national power??????????) to protect Americans, including developing the first government-wide strategy to prevent violent extremism in the United States. At the same time, we recognize that there are limits to what the federal government can do. So we must rely on the partnership of those who are most familiar with the local risks, those who are in the best position to take action—local communities.
Local communities are the most powerful asset we have in the struggle against violence and violent extremism. We’ve crunched the data on this. In the more than 80 percent of cases involving homegrown violent extremists, people in the community—whether peers or family members or authority figures or even strangers—had observed warning signs a person was becoming radicalized to violence. But more than half of those community members downplayed or dismissed their observations without intervening. So it’s not that the clues weren’t there, it’s that they weren’t understood well enough to be seen as the indicators of a serious problem. (Sounds like Nazism – turning in your neighbor to the government. NO MENTION OF RADICAL ISLAMIST)
What kinds of behaviors are we talking about? For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.
(How many American teens ARE NOT confrontational??????) Religious leaders might notice unexpected clashes over ideological differences. Teachers might hear a student expressing an interest in traveling to a conflict zone overseas. Or friends might notice a new interest in watching or sharing violent material. (And the primary religious group to do this has been _____________?????????)
The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals, so we need to do more to help communities understand the warning signs, and then work together to intervene before an incident can occur, while always respecting our core commitment to protecting privacy and civil liberties. During the past several years, that’s what we’ve attempted to do.
We’ve built partnerships and expanded our engagement with communities across the nation, especially those that may be targeted by extremist groups. We are working to improve our understanding of how and why people are drawn to violence.
And we have made it a priority to uphold and defend the qualities from which we draw strength—our openness, our diversity, and our respect for the equal rights of all Americans.
We know all too well that Muslim-American, Sikh-American, Arab-American communities and others, including Jewish-Americans, have been victimized by violence (BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PERPETRATORS OF THE VIOLENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.) that is rooted in ignorance and prejudice, in suspicion and fear. American Muslims and Americans of all faiths have enriched our way of life –
contributing to our safety and security as patriotic service members,
police, firefighters, first responders. Violent extremism is not unique to any one faith. And, as Americans, we reject violence regardless of our faith.
Here in Massachusetts, over the past decade, government and law enforcement officials have built a dialogue to reinforce that shared commitment to non-violence and to build trust with a range of Boston-area communities. The local U.S. Attorney’s office brings together representatives from federal agencies with community leaders, some of whom I just had the opportunity to meet. I can tell you, the benefits go both ways. Law enforcement is better able to understand the specific challenges these communities face, and community participants can bring their concerns directly to the government. We all care about keeping our families and neighborhoods safe.
These connections were critical in the chaotic days after the bombing – helping to minimize the potential for backlash against Muslim and Sikh communities. In Malden, after a local Muslim woman was assaulted, purportedly in retribution for the bombings, the Department of Justice Community Relations Service worked with local officials to request additional security for the local mosque. The Malden Chief of Police personally stood watch the first night.
Still, despite the broader security improvements we’ve put in place since 9/11, despite our outreach to reduce the risk of radicalization to violence, more work remains. We need a comprehensive prevention model that allows us to work with communities and intervene with at-risk individuals before violent extremism takes root. And we need to meet the evolving challenge, including terrorists’ use of the internet to recruit those who are most vulnerable to violent extremist ideologies, whether it be from neo-Nazis or groups like al-Qaeda.
So today, as we honor the memory of all those who were killed and injured one year ago, we recommit ourselves to building greater resilience into our communities to resist the pull of violent extremism. We will continue to work closely with community leaders, local law enforcement and partners outside government who work with at-risk populations every day. Faith leaders, school teachers, police chiefs – and especially mothers and fathers and families – will always be the best positioned to identify individuals in a community who might be susceptible to radical messages and violence—and to help them resist hateful ideologies. So we must do more to connect those leaders to resources they need to be part of a comprehensive approach. Let me just briefly describe a few of the steps we’re taking along those lines.
First, the Department of Homeland Security is building partnerships with key cities across the country to establish a locally-based envoy dedicated to coordinating government engagement on the threat of homegrown violent extremism. Piloted in Los Angeles, this effort has already helped focus our resources and strategic efforts by streamlining federal, state, and local outreach. And tonight I’m proud to announce that the next such DHS envoy will be based in Boston.
Second, DHS is also going to make more resources available to officials countering violent extremism in their communities. Every year, DHS offers hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money to local law enforcement to bolster homeland security at the municipal and county level. Now, in addition to preparing to respond to an attack once it’s happened, state and local officials can apply for these grants to explicitly develop models for preventing violent extremism in their communities, drawing on the expertise of social service providers, education administrators, mental health professionals, and religious leaders.
Finally, I want to mention the expertise developing right in your backyard. With support from the Department of Justice, the Children’s Hospital of Boston is studying why some Somali refugees embrace violent extremism, while others move towards gangs and crime and still others channel their energies into non-violent activism. The answers to these kinds of questions will be essential to developing more effective models of intervention. ![]()
And here at Harvard, the Berkman Center is establishing a new research network dedicated to understanding and ultimately preventing radicalization to violence on the internet. (Here we go. Now we are getting to the REAL motivation of the Obama Administration; SILENCING SPEECH THEY DO NOT LIKE) Hate speech and extremism (Based ONLY on the definition of the Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist/Communist mindeset) take on complex new dimensions and dangers when conducted online, and this will be a valuable asset as we strive to identify more effective ways to intervene and to address violent extremism in the internet age.
During the past year, Boston has been a crucible for our nation-wide efforts to counter violent extremism and enhance our focus on resilience. The bombings brought into sharp relief what we have been doing well and where we still need to hone our efforts. The programs that are operating here set the example for cities across the nations. And—as a Boston-girl, I say this with absolutely no surprise—the strength of the people of Boston made it wicked clear that this city and this country cannot be intimidated by the ideologies of hatred and violence that poison the hearts of a few disturbed individuals. We reject that thinking. And when people gather next Monday—in numbers as great and as proud as ever—to celebrate the running of the 118th Boston Marathon, it will also show that we reject the fear terrorism seeks to breed. It will show the true depth of what it means to be Boston Strong. Thank you.
Is there anything the U.S. government doesn’t take taxpayer dollars to do?
Here’s a lesser-known function of your hard-earned money: providing backing for people in other countries to buy things from America.
Come again? Yes, that’s right. Let’s say Air China wants to purchase some Boeing jets. To encourage that purchase, America’s Export-Import Bank could loan Air China the money. If Air China were to default on the loan, U.S. taxpayers would be left on the hook.
Put simply, taxpayers should not be financing this kind of “bank”—which is “little more than a fund for corporate welfare,” as candidate Barack Obama described it in 2008.
The Ex-Im Bank, as it is called, is scheduled to expire in September—giving Congress an opportunity to end this program and focus on issues that matter to Americans, like lowering taxes and reducing burdens on businesses here at home.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently wrote that the Ex-Im Bank primarily helps big businesses that have friends in Washington.
Most of the benefits go to large corporations that are perfectly capable of securing private financing anywhere in the world. That is to say, Congress allows Ex-Im Bank to risk taxpayer money unnecessarily to subsidize well-connected private companies.
This kind of public policy privilege, best described as “crony capitalism,” is a threat to the free market and its moral underpinnings.
It matters where the money is going, too. A look at the countries getting loans shows that they’re not all America’s biggest fans: They include Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and China.
Ex-Im loans can subsidize purchases by foreign governments as well as businesses in their countries—and those businesses may be competing with U.S. firms. This doesn’t help the U.S. economy. Heritage expert Diane Katz explains:
Ex–Im officials assume that the economic activity they subsidize would not occur absent bank financing. That is an absurd notion, but it is prevalent among bureaucrats who cannot fathom that business actually functions without them.
American taxpayers don’t need to fund any more cronyism, much less loans to hostile nations. We don’t need the Export-Import Bank.
If this correlation were not so well-documented, I would be hesitant to make such a blanket statement. But I’m actually not exaggerating in the least. A report in Frontiers of Freedom outlines just a few of the most egregious examples of Obama’s crony capitalism at work: from Solyndra to Quality Software Services to Big Labor, the Obama administration has been perfectly faithful to reward its big donors and supporters. And, on the other hand, Obama has been equally faithful to punish its detractors.
Processing of the application by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice was expected to take at least twelve months. But five months later, the Department of Justice announced it would file a lawsuit blocking the friendly merger.
Leading the merger quest was AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson. Mr. Stephenson is well known to be a Bible Belt, pro-free market, Republican with a reputation as a fierce executive with a head for numbers. He is a proponent of tax reforms that include broadening the tax base and lowering tax rates as a formula for economic growth, rather than the Administration’s position of making the rich pay more of their “fair share” while government makes subjective decisions about redistributing the wealth of the working class.
If only Stephenson had been an Obama supporter, he would been assured the success of his merger. Just look at Comcast and Time Warner. The merger looks like a shoe in, in spite of the fact that the merger is worth a few billion more dollars than the AT&T merger and would also result in a 40% market share for one company. The only significant difference between the cell phone merger and the cable company merger (aside from the fact that the Comcast merger has even more severe consequences to consumer choice) is that AT&T is led by a Republican and Comcast/Time Warner are headed by Democrats.
Last week, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee held a hearing provocatively titled “Is Al-Qaeda Winning?” The answers that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade received were profoundly unsettling.
Former Senator Joseph Lieberman (I–Conn.) testified that Syria had become a key focal point of al-Qaeda’s efforts. He noted that there are more foreign militants fighting in Syria today than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past 10 years: “Put very bluntly, Syria has become the most dangerous terrorist sanctuary in the world today—and the United States has not coherent or credible policy for dealing with it.”
>>> Read More: The Arab Spring Descends into Islamist Winter: Implications for U.S. Policy
Frederick Kagan, director of the critical threats project at the American Enterprise Institute, warned that the Obama Administration has underestimated the threat posed by al-Qaeda’s ideology, which has inspired a global insurgency. He assessed that al-Qaeda’s “brand is spreading like wildfire, the groups affiliating themselves with it control more fighters, land and wealth than they ever have, and they are opening up new fronts.”
Heritage Foundation analysts long have warned about the more permissive environment that al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups have exploited in many countries destabilized by the “Arab Spring” uprisings. Syria, in particular, has been a magnet for foreign militants and a rich recruiting ground for al-Qaeda.
>>> Read More: A Counterterrorism Strategy for the “Next Wave”
Al-Qaeda has made a comeback in Iraq, and gained followers in Egypt, Libya, Mali, East Africa, and Yemen
Related:
Al-Qaeda Seeks American Recruits in Syria
Al-Qaeda Resurges in Iraq
These Words from Obama Are Frightening—and Revealing
Judicial Watch, in its Corruption Chronicles file, said that after the 35-minute “tense confrontation,” Jan. 26, the Mexican soldiers retreated south across the border “as if nothing ever happened, and the Obama administration just let it slide.”
Judicial Watch, which keeps an eye on government behavior, such as the mega-million dollar vacations for the Obamas, said that incident was , which obtained government documents with details of the incident.
According to a Border Patrol foreign military incursion report and a letter from Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, the Mexican soldiers retreated when the U.S. agents drew their weapons and summoned assistance.
The report said the Mexicans “misidentified themselves to border agents, claiming to be pursuing drug smugglers.”
Judicial Watch said, however, the Mexican soldiers aren’t chasing drug smugglers but instead are protecting cartels as they transport their cargo into the U.S. through the desert.
Records from the Department of Homeland Security show Mexican military incursions occur often and go unpunished by the U.S., Judicial Watch said.
DHS documents reveal 226 incursions by Mexican government personnel into the U.S. occurred between 1996 and 2005. In 2007 alone, there were 25 incursions.
The fact that guns were drawn makes the January incident one of the most serious incursions in recent years, the Times said.
The report said Mexican embassy officials denied soldiers were involved. But they changed their story later to say the camouflage-wearing personnel were “part of a counter-narcotics operation.”
Mexican officials told the newspaper soldiers from both countries occasionally cross the border, and “both countries understand that this is something that happens as part of normal activities.”
U.S. officials in the Mexico City embassy said the incursions by the military are “unintentional,” and Kerlikowske announced no action was needed.
But Judicial Watch previously has documented Mexican police officers who had been warned not to enter the U.S. crossed the border and “arrested” two subjects.
During that incident, the officers also “threw rocks at a group of people.”
Judicial Watch described another previous incident in which a resident of Arivaca, Ariz., saw five men land a helicopter and get out, dressed in black and wearing masks and body armor.
“They had the word ‘Mexico’ on their sleeves and on the back of their shirts was some lettering starting with the letter ‘A.’ Three of the men had automatic fire rifles and the other two were armed with pistols.”
They eventually left.
The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.
That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the nearly two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.
What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.
Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.
Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.
One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”
“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.
Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.
Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.
A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.
“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”
One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.
“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.
While the testimony is expected to focus on Benghazi, the hearing arrives at a time of growing tensions between Congress and the CIA over such matters as the Bush administration’s interrogation rules and mutual charges of spying and illegality between the Senate intelligence committee and the agency.
Lawmakers are likely to press Mr. Morell for a reaction to reports this week that a classified Senate intelligence report has concluded that harsh interrogation methods used in the years after Sept. 11 provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and that the CIA misled Congress on the matter.
The CIA disputes that conclusion. The Senate panel is expected to vote Thursday on sending the Obama administration a 400-page executive summary of the “enhanced interrogation” report to start a monthslong declassification process.
One of the key issues likely to come up during the House hearing involves what was said during a series of secure teleconferences between CIA officials in Washington and Libya from the time of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, to the completion of Mrs. Rice’s talking points for dissemination on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16.
Multiple sources confirmed to The Times on Monday that the station chief’s email to Mr. Morell was written after one of the teleconferences during which senior CIA officials in Washington — Mr. Morell among them — made clear to the Tripoli station chief that they were examining alternative information that suggested there was a protest before the attack.
After the exchange, Mr. Morell signed off on the CIA talking points given to Mrs. Rice promoting what turned out to be the false narrative of a protest. The development ultimately triggered an angry reaction from Republicans, who have long claimed that the Obama administration, with an eye on the November elections, was downplaying the role of terrorists in order to protect the president’s record on counterterrorism.
Documents since released by the White House show that administration officials boasted in internal emails at the time about Mr. Morell’s personal role in editing and rewriting the talking points.
“Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” an Obama administration official wrote Mrs. Rice on the morning of Sept. 15.
What is not clear is whether the email was in any way referring to the conflicting intelligence streams about a protest in Benghazi.
Alternatively, the email notes that Mr. Morell was uncomfortable with an initial draft of the talking points batted back and forth between White House and CIA officials “because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack” in Benghazi.
During interviews with The Times, several former senior intelligence officials have lamented the whole “talking points” issue, saying the CIA was caught in the middle of the White House, Congress and the reality on the ground in Benghazi while crafting the points.
The reason the CIA ended up taking the lead on the talking points was because, as news of the attack was breaking around the world, lawmakers on the House intelligence committee were seeking guidance from the agency on how to respond to media questions without revealing classified information.
Specifically, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and the committee chairman, and ranking Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland asked for the guidance.
One former senior intelligence official told The Times that as word circulated through the inner circles of the intelligence community that the CIA was working on the talking points, officials within the Obama administration steered the mission toward crafting something Mrs. Rice could say on national talk shows.
“In essence, the talking points got repurposed,” the former official said. “What it turned into — and I don’t think Michael ever knew this, it’s something to watch for in his testimony this week — was, ‘Let’s hand this thing to the U.N. ambassador and make it what she should say.’”
“That’s a big deal,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to prepare something for lawmakers so they don’t make a mistake or say something inaccurate. It’s quite another matter to have that feed the administration’s then-current, definitive account
of what had actually happened in Benghazi.”
“There are a lot of twists and turns in this,” added another former intelligence official. “A lot of it hangs on the fact that the agency thought they were crafting these talking points for Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers, not the White House.”
New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- No one gets elected President by being stupid, unless of course the election is stolen in cities controlled by the Democratic Party, but one must also factor in the intelligence of nearly half of the voters who pull the Democratic Party lever no matter who the candidate may be.
America is seriously divided between liberals and conservatives, but there are indications that even those who self-identify as liberals are having second thoughts as the result of the havoc Obamacare has inflicted on their lives and the economy.
Voters who self-identify as “independents” are the deciding factor in most elections. They reflect disenchantment with both parties.
I have been thinking about whether Obama is stupid because he has been in Europe with the leaders of the nations who are grappling with the seizure of Crimea by Russia. I keep wondering, given his record at this point, whether they too think he’s stupid. He has taken the most powerful and respected nation in the world and reduced it to ridicule and disdain. When he leaves the room do they shake their head and roll their eyes?
The question of whether Obama is stupid would seem to be disputed by the fact that he is a Harvard Law School graduate and one has to have some degree of intelligence to navigate that. His undergraduate college is Columbia University, one of the most liberal in the nation. In neither case do we know how Obama did academically because he took care to have his records kept from public review.
Indeed, most public records regarding his life, including his birth certificate have been kept hidden. The one he provided has been deemed a forgery. There are claims as well that his Social Security number is questionable.
So, one could argue that he was not stupid enough to let people know the truth. What we do know is that he is a complete stranger to the truth, uttering lies on a daily basis. That is a serious character flaw in anyone, but in a President it is a threat to the nation.
What we do know is that Obama is so devoted to a Marxist ideology that it warps his view of the world and that he has devoted his two terms in office to the “transformation” of America; another way of saying that he embraces issues, foreign and domestic, that do not reflect the history or values of the nation.
America has now twice elected a Communist to its highest office and the result has been a failure, deliberate or the result of his ideology, to lift the nation out of a recession by lowering taxes, reducing spending, and other means well known to previous presidents.
The result has had a cataclysmic effect on the lives of millions of Americans. What growth has occurred has not been due to anything the White House or Congress has done, but in spite of both.
The overthrow of tyrannical governments in the Middle East and most recently in Ukraine reflects a desire for democracy and justice in these nations. Obama sided with the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian uprising. One has to wonder what the king of Saudi Arabia has to say about that. His nation and others in the Middle East have banned the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. There is no nice way of describing his action or inaction regarding the Middle East and elsewhere.
The opening of negotiations with Iran and reductions of sanctions against it simply gave it more time to pursue its intent to create its own nuclear weapons. This isn’t just stupid, it’s insane. The time wasted on securing peace from the Palestinians after decades of their open hatred of Israel is also stupid.
Obama’s failure to work closely with Congress reflects his indifference to the Constitution and, having lectured on it, it cannot be said that he is ignorant of its limits on the executive office and its division of power between the three branches of government He doesn’t seem to care much what the Constitution says. That’s stupid. The result has been a very meager legislative record and that is a good thing given his ideological inclinations.
We all know of men and women in high office or CEOs of major corporations that offer ample evidence of stupidity, but the latter can be removed by their board of directors. Americans have no options for the removal of Obama. Impeachment will not likely occur even if the GOP gains control of both houses of Congress. Obamacare and the economy have been his greatest gift for their renewal of political power.
Obama’s “war on coal” and other efforts of his administration to keep America from tapping huge reserves of energy that would greatly improve our economy with jobs and exports is both stupidity and ideology. You have to be stupid to keep talking about “climate change” aka “global warming” when the only change of the past 17 years has been a planet that is cooling,
The danger the nation faces is real and present. The reduction of our military strength has not gone unnoticed by totalitarian and rogue regimes. Obama’s deliberate withdrawal of the nation from its position of global leadership is a threat of major proportions.
History hangs on questions of leadership and Obama has shown none, nor evidence of caring about the results of his failures. That’s a pretty good definition of stupid.
About:
Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at “Warning Signs” his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews.
MOSCOW – Russia’s deputy prime minister laughed off President Obama’s sanction against him today asking “Comrade @BarackObama” if “some prankster” came up with the list.
The Obama administration hit 11 Russian and Ukrainian officials with sanctions today as punishment for Russia’s support of Crimea’s referendum. Among them: aides to President Vladimir Putin, a top government official, senior lawmakers, Crimean officials, the ousted president of Ukraine, and a Ukrainian politician and businessman allegedly tied to violence against protesters in Kiev.
It remains to be seen whether the sanctions will dissuade Russia from annexing Crimea, but one an early clue that they will not be effective came just hours later when President Putin signed a decree recognizing Crimea as an independent state, perhaps an early step towards annexation.
U.S. official have warned of additional sanctions for Russian action, hoping it will deter Russia from any further aggression towards Ukraine, but it didn’t appear to upset the often outspoke Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin is seen in this July 17, 2012 file photo during a meeting with Indian Minister for External Affairs, S.M. Krishna in New Delhi. Raveendran/AFP/Getty Images
Rogozin, a friend of actor Steven Seagal, took to Twitter to tweak Obama, tweeting he thinks “some prankster” came up with the sanctions list
In a later tweet addressed to “Comrade @BarackObama,” he asked, “what should do those who have neither accounts nor property abroad? Or U didn’t think about it?”
Another Russian on the sanctions list, Vladislav Surkov, also seemed unconcerned.
Surkov, a top Putin ideologue often called the Kremlin’s grey cardinal, reportedly told a Russian newspaper, “It’s a big honor for me. I don’t have accounts abroad. The only things that interest me in the U.S. are Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock. I don’t need a visa to access their work. I lose nothing.”
U.S. officials said that, among the sanctioned individuals were the “key ideologists and architects” of Russia’s Ukraine policy, while adding that some of the Russian officials were included in the list for their role in curbing “human rights and liberties” in Russia.
The sanctions freeze any assets under American jurisdiction and prevent American banks from doing business with the named individual, essentially freezing them out of the international banking system. The sanctions also impose a ban on their travel to the United States. Separately, but in coordination with the White House, the European Union announced sanctions today on 21 individuals that it plans to name later. U.S. officials told reporters that the American and European lists “overlapped” in some area, but declined to say how.
While some of the sanctioned officials are bold faced names, the White House move is unlikely to affect Russia’s decision making with regard to Crimea’s bid to join the Russian Federation. Russia’s stock market actually improved on the news that so few officials were included on the list. U.S. officials warned that, if Russia does go ahead with annexation of Crimea, additional penalties will follow, with more, harsher measures to come if Russia attempts to enter eastern Ukraine.
Vladislav Surkov – An aide to President Vladimir Putin, he was once considered one of Russia’s most powerful men. He has been called the Kremlin’s “gray cardinal” for his role as a power broker behind the scenes. He’s also credited the architect of Russia’s political system, with power concentrated in the presidency. In the past he was credited with shaping the ideology of the ruling United Russia party. He has also written rock music lyrics and is rumored to have authored a book.
Sergei Glazyev – An economic aide to Putin who oversaw relations with Ukraine. He frequently blasted the protest movement in Kiev and was outspoken in his criticism of American and European support for the protests.
Dmitry Rogozin – An outspoken, hawkish Deputy Prime Minister, he’s known to have a close friendship with Hollywood actor Steven Seagal. As a member of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s government, Rogozin is responsible for the armed forces and arms industry.
Elena Mizulina – A senior lawmaker, she is considered one of the Kremlin’s morality enforcers in the parliament. She is perhaps best known as the co-author of last year’s homosexual “propaganda” law which sparked outrage overseas. She also proposed a measure to give Ukrainians Russian passports.
Leonid Slutsky – A lawmaker in the lower house of Parliament. He is the chair of the Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration, and Relations with Compatriots. He was one of the Russian observers attending Sunday’s referendum in Crimea.
Andrei Klishas – A member of the upper house of Parliament, the Federation Council, who proposed retaliatory action in case of Western sanctions on Russia. He is chairman of the Federation Council Committee of Constitutional Law, Judicial, and Legal Affairs, and the Development of Civil Society.
Valentina Matviyenko – The head of the Federation Council, she is the most senior lawmaker on the sanctions list.
Sergey Aksyonov – Once an obscure pro-Russian politician in Crimea, he has now been declared the prime minister.
Vladimir Konstantinov – The newly declared speaker of Crimea’s parliament.
Viktor Medvedchuk – A pro-Russian politician, he is being sanctioned for having “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support” to impeached President Viktor Yanukovich. Ukraine’s opposition has accused him of orchestrating or aiding a crackdown on protesters and opposition.
Viktor Yanukovich – The ousted president of Ukraine. He was elected in 2010 but was chased from office by protests last month.
On Monday, long time CBS reporter and five-time Emmy award winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson followed in the footsteps of RT host Liz Wahl by resigning her position at CBS, claiming that the pressure from the pressure that her reporting was overly critical of the Obama administration.Politico reports:
Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsized influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt like her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air.
At the same time, Attkisson’s own reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — which addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the Obama administration.
Obviously the executives at CBS believe she is biased because the truth is everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutrality and we all no it. It’s a myth. The real issue they don’t like is that Attkisson is biased towards truth, not propaganda.When the majority of major news outlets bailed on the Fast and Furious scandal, followed by the Benghazi scandal, Attkisson was there, digging in and trying to discover the truth. In those reports, she didn’t just deal with the Obama administration and Democrats though; she packed some punches in at Republicans as well.
There is no doubt the Obama administration doesn’t like Sharyl Attkisson or reporters like her. Last year the White House and FBI denied her access to Benghazi details and photos in a Freedom of Information Act request. Her computer was discovered to be compromised following the revelation that the Justice Department had been secretly monitoring reporters and editors at the Associated Press.Sonya McNair, the senior vice president for communications for CBS News, said in a statement: “CBS News veteran Sharyl Attkisson is leaving the news division to pursue other endeavors. We appreciate her many contributions and we wish her well.
“It’s no secret that Sharyl has been unhappy about CBS’s lack of interest in investigative reporting, especially when it comes to stories about the Obama administration,” a source close to Attkisson said. Again, of course CBS is biased. It’s part of who they are.
While many believe that Wahl’s resignation was a pre-planned stunt, in order to push for a job at CNN (oh the irony after her statements), Attkisson’s appears to be genuine.
My hunch is that there was quite a bit of pressure, and that pressure has been very heavy recently, considering the report that the Obama administration is planning to use the FCC to put monitors in America’s newsrooms.
I for one wish her the best, hoping that she might even send our small outlet an email looking to contribute (and yes, I did tweet her an invitation). I won’t hold my breath.
The Obama administration and the hotheads in Congress are threatening to hit Russia with “economic sanctions” for moving troops into Crimea. Yes, those sanctions would sting a little bit, but what our politicians should be made aware of is the fact that Russian officials are promising “to respond” if economic sanctions are imposed on them. As you will read about below, one top Kremlin adviser is even suggesting that Russia could abandon the U.S. dollar and start dumping U.S. debt. In addition, he is also suggesting that if sanctions are imposed that Russian companies would not repay the debts that they owe U.S. banks. Needless to say, Russia could do far more economic damage to the United States than the United States could do to Russia. The U.S. financial system relies on the fact that the rest of the planet is going to use our currency to trade with one another and lend gigantic piles of it back to us at super low interest rates. If the rest of the world starts changing their behavior, we are going to be in a massive amount of trouble. Those that believe that the United States is “economically independent” are being quite delusional.
In order for U.S. economic sanctions against Russia to be effective, Europe would also have to get on board.
But that simply is not going to happen.
As I noted yesterday, Russia is the largest exporter of natural gas on the planet. And Russia is also Europe’s largest supplier of energy.
There is no way that Europe could risk having Russia cut off the gas, especially considering the economic condition that Europe is currently in.
To get an idea of just how incredibly dependent the rest of Europe is on Russian natural gas, check out the chart in this article. A whole bunch of European nations get more than half their natural gas from Russia.
And according to the Telegraph, even the UK has already completely ruled out economic sanctions…
Europe would be pushed back into recession, Russia into financial meltdown. This is not the sort of self harm Europe is prepared to contemplate right now. Indeed, thanks to the indiscretion of a UK official, who was snapped going into Downing Street with his briefing documents on display for all the world to see, we know this to be the case. Trade and financial sanctions have already been ruled out.
So the U.S. can do whatever it wants, but Europe is not going to be any help. Perhaps Canada will stand with the U.S., but that will be about it.
On the flip side, the Russian Foreign Ministry is promising “to respond” if the United States does impose economic sanctions…
Russia said on Tuesday that it would retaliate if the United States imposed sanctions over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.
“We will have to respond,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement. “As always in such situations, provoked by rash and irresponsible actions by Washington, we stress: this is not our choice.”
So what would the response look like?
Lukashevich did not say, but top Kremlin adviser Sergei Glazyev is suggesting that Russia could abandon the U.S. dollar and refuse to pay back loans to U.S. banks…
“In the instance of sanctions being applied to stated institutions, we will have to declare the impossibility of returning those loans which were given to Russian institutions by U.S. banks,” RIA quoted Glazyev as saying.
“We will have to move into other currencies, create our own settlement system.”
He added: “We have excellent trade and economic relations with our partners in the east and south and we will find a way to reduce to nothing our financial dependence on the United States but even get out of the sanctions with a big profit to ourselves.”
Glazyev also stated that Russia could start dumping U.S. debt and encourage other nations to start doing the same. The following comes from a Russian news source…
“We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner,” he said. “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.“
Clearly Russian officials understand the economic leverage that they potentially have. In fact, Glazyev seems fully convinced that Russia could cause “a crash for the financial system of the United States”…
“An attempt to announce sanctions would end in a crash for the financial system of the United States, which would cause the end of the domination of the United States in the global financial system.”
On that last point Glazyev is perhaps overstating things.
On their own, the Russians could do a considerable amount of damage to the U.S. financial system, but I doubt that they could completely crash it.
However, if much of the rest of the world started following Russia’s lead, then things could get very interesting.
Just yesterday, I wrote about how China has chosen to publicly stand in agreement with Russia on the Ukrainian crisis.
If China also decided to abandon the U.S. dollar and start dumping U.S. debt, it would be an absolute nightmare for the U.S. financial system.
And keep in mind that the Chinese were already starting to dump a bit of U.S. debt even before this latest crisis. In fact, China dumped nearly 50 billion dollars of U.S. debt in December alone.
The only way that the current bubble of debt-fueled false prosperity in the U.S. can continue is if the rest of the world continues to lend us trillions of dollars at ridiculously low interest rates that are way below the real rate of inflation.
If the rest of the world stops behaving in such an irrational manner, interest rates on U.S. government debt would rise dramatically and that would also mean that interest rates on virtually all other loans throughout our financial system would rise dramatically.
And if that happened, it would be a complete and utter nightmare for our economy.
Unfortunately, most Americans have no understanding of these things. They just assume that we are “the greatest economy in the world” and that nothing is ever going to threaten that.
Well, the truth is that we are rapidly approaching a “turning point”, and after this bubble of false prosperity pops things will never be the same in the United States again.
Get a look at the future of America: The Beginning of the End

If the US military doesn’t know better, then who are we to trust with our defense? Ourselves. Remember that.
There have been over 22,000 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11 — each one with imprimatur of a Muslim cleric. You would have thought Anwar Awlaki, Pentagon darling and leading jihad cleric, might have taught the Department of Defense a thing or two.
“U.S. Military Hires Chaplains from Muslim Brotherhood Entity,”By Creeping via Ryan Mauro, February 28, 2014
As Obama plans to reduce the size of the military, he’s simultaneously increasing imams in the military.
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is proudly announcing that the U.S. military is again using their chaplains for active-duty service after a 15-year lull.
ISNA has a well-documented extremist history. In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood listed ISNA as one of its main fronts. Declassified FBI memos said ISNA is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood, who sees its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”
In 2007, the U.S. government labeled ISNA a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial involving the Holy Land Foundation funneling money to Hamas. The label was upheld in 2009 because of “ample” evidence linking ISNA to Hamas. Last year, ISNA’s Canadian affiliate lost its status as a charity because of its accounting discrepancies and links to Pakistani terrorists.
…
Here’s what’s really “problematic”: The U.S. government says ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood entity and labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism trial. That same government is using ISNA to pick military chaplains and is a top outreach partner of the U.S. government.
Last week, Reporters Without Borders dropped America in the World Press Freedom Index 2014 from 33rd to 46th. James Risen of The New York Times rightly explained, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.” And he’s right. The violation of press freedoms has been egregious under this administration, even as the press fetes President Obama as an honest and effective commander-in-chief.President Obama has regularly granted special access to reporters who give him preferential coverage. CBS’ Steve Kroft admitted as much after a late-2012 interview with the President during which CBS clipped Obama’s explicit refusal to label Benghazi an act of terror: “(Obama) knows that we’re not going to play ‘gotcha’ with him, that we’re not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid.”
Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, got special access for a profile of Obama for Vanity Fair – but Obama insisted on redlining his quotes. Lewis explained that “the White House insisted on signing off on the quotes that would appear.” A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle was threatened for covering an anti-Obama protest. As early as 2008, candidate Obama was kicking dissenters off planes after their outlets endorsed John McCain.
In May 2013, the Associated Press dropped the bombshell that the Department of Justice had grabbed phone records for its reporters and editors of the course of two months. Records for 20 telephone lines belonging to the AP and reporters for it were seized between April and May of 2012. Those seizures affected over 100 journalists.
The AP’s President and CEO Gary Pruitt stated, “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” Fox News’ James Rosen was also targeted by the DOJ after running a story about North Korea nuclear development. His State Department visits were tracked and his movements were followed. His parents’ phone records were even grabbed.
Last week, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai revealed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that the FCC will be sending employees into media workplaces to monitor how and what stories are chosen. The goal: to “ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters” concerning “the process by which stories are selected.”
Pai explained, the FCC “plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their ‘news philosophy’ and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.” Reporters will also be asked whether their stories were killed by management in an effort to elicit “specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decision.”
President Obama held fewer press conferences than any president since Reagan. He held ten less than George W. Bush, 54 less than President Clinton, and 64 less than George H.W. Bush. And during those press conferences, questions were largely scripted and chosen. He held just 107 Q&As with the press during his first term, as compared with 354 by George W. Bush. In fact, Obama considers tough questions “unfair,” as he told Bill O’Reilly during his pre-Super Bowl interview.
According to Bloomberg News, Freedom of Information Act compliance under the Obama administration has been abysmal. Bloomberg reported that “19 of 20 federal agencies did not comply within 20 days to a request for travel expenses made under the Freedom of Information Act.” Obama’s record on FOIA requests in his first two years was worse than George W. Bush’s in his last three – an odd pattern, given that administrations tend to tighten up on transparency as time goes on. When Obama was given an award for open government, it was not open to the press.
Here are Obama’s stats: 38.4% denied in 2009, 37.7% denied in 2010, 35.3% denied in 2011. In his last three years, Bush’s stats were 23.5%, 24%, and 40.6%. In 2009, the Obama administration asked Judicial Watch to praise the administration’s transparency, but then refused to hand over Secret Service logs Judicial Watch requested. The Obama administration has said that documents about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not subject to FOIA.
The White House infamously put restrictions on journalists taking some videos and photos of the President, but has simultaneously released administration-produced content that is little more than propaganda. In November 2013, news organizations sent the administration a letter protesting the treatment: “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”
The Obama administration’s actions, the letter stated, have “a direct and adverse impact on the public’s ability to independently monitor and see what its government is doing.” The letter asked news organizations to stop using White House produced photos. The White House banned independent photos of events including a meeting between Obama and black faith leaders and between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and Vice President Joe Biden, as well as a meeting with Hillary Clinton. AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll stated, “are now recorded only by photographers who work directly for the White House, resulting in images that are little more than visual press releases.” The White House also prefers to use non-profit group Media Matters to distribute its spin on the news.
The Obama administration is the leakiest administration in history. The IRS leaked information about a conservative 501(c)3’s donors; Joe Biden leaked the identity of the team responsible for killing Bin Laden; the Obama administration leaked information about Israeli national security repeatedly in order to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran, among other major leaks. But when it comes to prosecuting press members for cooperating with whistleblowers, the Obama administration’s use of the Espionage Act has been historically heavy handed.
In 2009, the Justice Department initiated an investigation into James Rosen, after which Attorney General Eric Holder lied, “With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material: that is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be wise policy.” Overall, the administration has used the Espionage Act six times to prosecute whistleblowers. Leonard Downie of The Washington Post wrote in October 2013, “The war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”
The Obama administration has been curtailing press freedom – but that hasn’t ended the press’ drool-cup worship for their beloved president. Despite occasional flare-ups, the relationship between the Obama White House and its press lackeys remains strong. Which is not only a testament to the tyrannical tendencies of the Obama administration, but to the cowardice of those who cover it.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
So Iran all of the sudden feels threatened? After all, the United States has had its armed forces fairly close to Iran for quite some time.
Meanwhile, Iran plans to send its naval forces as far as Antarctica.
Just what are the Iranians’ intentions? Are their actions part of a training exercise? It is saber rattling? Is it a bluff in order to provoke an American response? Or are they trying to start a war?
* If it is a training exercise, then why send the ships so far from home?
* If the intention is saber rattling, then what does Iran hope to achieve? To force the United States to withdraw its fleet? That would be an unlikely scenario. To become a world power? After all, Iran is trying to be the dominant nation within the Middle East. And given Iran’s nuclear ambitions, we might wind up having a Cuban Missile Crisis II (with Venezuela taking the place of Cuba) or worse if the situation is not kept in check.
Perhaps it is a bluff- just to see how America reacts. After all, the Iranians abducted several British sailors in 2007, but released them soon afterwards. By doing so, Iran was basically taunting the British, hence they were asking “what are you going to do about it?” Given Obama’s disregard for national security, that might be the case.
But then again, maybe Iran is wanting war with the United States. Actually, they have been doing it for years. From the storming of the American Embassy in Tehran to sponsoring Hezbollah (e.g. the 1983 suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon) Iran has been at war with America. Now, they seem to want an actual confrontation instead of using proxies.
Now the question remains: how will America react? Will the Obama Administration force Iran to back down, or will it take the same approach it is doing in regards to Iran’s nuclear program?
I heard that not too long ago China announced its plans to hold a series of war games in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama had no objections, but when Rick Perry found out, he threatened to mobilize the Texas National Guard, Home Guard, etc. to drive out the Chinese. As a result, Obama rescinded his permission to China.
In conclusion, such actions by Iran (and inaction by the Obama Administration) demonstrate the threat posed by Iran, as well as the lack of leadership we have in Washington, especially when it comes to national security. Strong leadership is needed in order to protect our nation. Because without strong leadership, then no one in America (or the world for that matter) will be safe.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/iran-beating-war-drums-america-respond/#7HdyqeDz0JAcIy6S.99
The following statistics come from various surveys and opinion polls that have been conducted recently. Without a doubt, these numbers show that Americans are angrier and more frustrated than ever…
#1 65 percent of Americans are dissatisfied “with the U.S. system of government and its effectiveness”. That is the highest level of dissatisfaction that Gallup has ever recorded.
#2 66 percent of Americans are dissatisfied “with the size and power of federal government”.
#3 70 percent of Americans do not have confidence that the government will “make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”
#4 Only 8 percent of Americans believe that Congress is doing a “good” or “excellent” job.
#5 Only 4 percent of Americans believe that it would “change Congress for the worse” if every member was voted out during the next election.
#6 60 percent of Americans report feeling “angry or irritable”. Two years ago that number was at 50 percent.
#7 53 percent of Americans believe that the Obama administration is “not competent in running the government”.
#8 An all-time low 31 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats.
#9 An all-time low 25 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans.
#10 An all-time high 42 percent of Americans identify themselves as Independents.
#11 Barack Obama’s daily job approval numbers have dipped down into the high thirties several times lately.
#12 Only 38 percent of Americans approve of the way that Obama is handling the economy.
#13 60 percent of Americans believe that the “economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy”.
#14 70 percent of Americans do not “feel engaged or inspired at their jobs”.
#15 Two-thirds of U.S. teens “admit to having anger attacks involving the destruction of property, threats of violence, or engaging in violence”.
#16 36 percent of Americans admit that they have yelled at customer service agents during the past year.
#17 73 percent of Americans believe that Obama’s efforts to “reform” the NSA “won’t make much difference in protecting people’s privacy”.
#18 77 percent of Americans believe that the state of the economy is either “not so good” or “poor”.
#19 65 percent of Americans are either “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the direction of the country.
Are you starting to get the picture?
We have never seen anything like this in the United States during the post-World War II era. People are fundamentally unhappy, and that has tremendous implications for the future of our society.
So what is causing all of this anger and frustration?
Well, of course the economic struggles that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing on a daily basis play a huge role. The following is an excerpt from a recent local Fox News report…
Some are describing this as “America’s anger epidemic.” And there are a few reasons: uncertainty in the job market and the economy, working long hours — on average about one month more now than they did in the 1970s and with less vacation.
So if it seems like Americans are angrier these days it’s because we are.
And it is easy to understand why people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the incompetence and rampant corruption in Washington D.C.…
Grim findings have been coming thick and fast. Most Americans no longer see President Barack Obama as honest. Half think that he “knowingly lied” to pass his Obamacare health law. Fewer than one in five trust the government in Washington to do what is right all or most of the time. Confidence in Congress has fallen to record lows: in America, as in Italy and Greece, just one in ten voters expresses trust or confidence in the national parliament. Frankly straining credulity, a mammoth, 107-country poll by Transparency International, a corruption monitor, this summer found Americans more likely than Italians to say that they feel that the police, business and the media are all “corrupt or extremely corrupt”.
Americans are also turning on one another. Since 1972 the Chicago-based General Social Survey (GSS) has been asking whether most people can be trusted, or whether “you can’t be too careful” in daily life. Four decades ago Americans were evenly split. Now almost two-thirds say others cannot be trusted, a record high.
In addition, there are certainly other reasons why people are so angry these days as well…
The “Knockout Game” grows more popular. Athletes throw tantrums that would embarrass most 3-year-olds. Race relations simmer at a constant near-boil, while our leaders engage in enough posturing and name-calling to look more like a modern version of “West Side Story” than the servant-citizens who should inspire peace and mutual respect.
An executive order issued by President Barack Obama that was designed to “cut red tape” has added $10.2 billion in regulatory costs to the economy, according to a new report.
Tuesday was the third anniversary of Executive Order 13563, prompting the American Action Forum to examine the effects of the order. It was intended to reduce “redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping” regulations.
The order was hailed as “unprecedented” by the president and former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Cass Sunstein. However, Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at American Action Forum, found that the action was hardly unique and has had the opposite effect of its intended purpose. “Has Washington actually cut red tape? On net, final rules from Order 13563 have added more than $10.2 billion in costs, mostly from new regulations labeled as ‘retrospective,’” Batkins said. “Final rules have cut 7.9 million hours of paperwork, but Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act have easily outpaced those deregulatory gains.”
The “deregulatory measures” resulting from the executive order actually add over $10 billion in costs to the economy. For example, a final rule imposing energy standards for transformers carries a $5.22 billion cost to comply and 58,320 hours of paperwork.
President Obama promised that the order would reduce paperwork in a January 2011 Wall Street Journal editorial.
“We’re also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money,” he wrote. “We’re looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent, and redundant regulation.”
The order has added 1.5 billion hours of paperwork to comply with its regulations. “As for the aggregate level of red tape, in fiscal year 2010, the federal government imposed 8.8 billion hours of paperwork,” the report said. “Today, that figure is 10.3 billion hours, a 17 percent increase, despite this ‘unprecedented reform.’”
“It would take more than 750,000 employees working full-time to complete the new annual paperwork added since 2010,” Batkins said.
Regulations under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) take 653 million hours of paperwork to comply, a 26 percent increase since the executive order was issued.
Other rules intended to save regulatory costs have resulted in millions of hours of extra paperwork. A “Positive Train Control” rule that removed some regulatory provisions for rail safety saved $645.7 million but resulted in 3.9 million additional hours of paperwork.
The report also found that the administration is recycling regulations in order to achieve savings, citing at least 39 proposed or final rules that were initiated before the executive order, and 15 that were introduced under the George W. Bush administration.
Sunstein claimed in 2011 that the executive order would achieve $10 billion in savings. Batkins did note that the effort has led to cost cutting, including $940 million in savings and 9.8 million less paperwork hours from a Medicare and Medicaid hospital reform rule.
Overall he found $8.7 billion in savings, still short of the regulatory burden that has resulted from the administration’s plan to cut red tape.
“The White House has repeatedly claimed that Order 13563 is unprecedented, but a cursory review of the record proves there is nothing unique about their efforts,” the report said. “Every President since Jimmy Carter has issued an executive order on regulatory reform, and even President Carter urged agencies to ‘periodically review’ existing regulations.”
“President Obama’s deregulatory measures have actually resulted in more than 1.5 billion hours of paperwork and $10.2 billion in new net costs,” Batkins said. “The only aspect of recent regulatory reform that is unprecedented is that the administration has the temerity to recycle old regulations and claim them as part of a historic ‘retrospective review.’”
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
In a shocking move that makes counter-terrorism measures worthless, the Obama Administration is working to secure the “resettling” of some 30,000 Syrian Islamists within the United States. Syria’s civil war has displaced thousands of people. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that thousands of Syrians need new countries of residence, and the International Rescue Committee is making sure this happens. With this, the IRC made the audacious statement through Vice President for Public Policy Sharon Waxman, calling on the “US and other countries to open their doors to vulnerable Syrian refugees and notes that resettlement must be an integral part of the humanitarian response.” Forget all counter-terrorism measures that are put into place for the protection of this country. The Muslim Obama Administration will make sure that Syrian Islamists have a new home in America, that no jihadi will be turned away.
The gates of Hell have been opened, thanks to President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and radical progressives across the country. In successfully working to end “racial” profiling, albeit Muslim profiling, the next move is to secure the “settlement” of 30,000 Syrian Islamists within the United States. It won’t be done all at once, but if Obama and his minions of Muslim lovers have there way, at least 30,000 Islamists, and many more, will be calling America their home. For a President that has so openly supported Al-Qaeda in Syria recently, this is their open invitation to make a permanent home in the U.S., all under the guise of a “humanitarian outreach.”
The Wall Street Journal article, which was published on January 10, 2014 and written by Miriam Jordan reports:
U.S. plans to resettle thousands of Syrians displaced by their country’s civil war could hinge on those refugees receiving exemptions from laws aimed at preventing terrorists from entering the country.
A U.S. official stated publicly for the first time this week that some of the 30,000 especially vulnerable Syrians the United Nations hopes to resettle by the end of 2014 will be referred to the U.S. for resettlement.
More than two million Syrians have fled their country since the war erupted in 2011, creating the worst refugee crisis since the Rwandan genocide, advocates say. About 20 countries, mostly in Europe, have agreed to take 18,000 Syrians, according to United Nations High Commission for Refugees, or UNHCR, the agency charged with referrals.
The U.S. has not set a specific target for how many refugees it will resettle. But at a Senate hearing Tuesday, State Department Assistant Secretary Anne Richard said, “We expect to accept referrals for several thousand Syrian refugees in 2014.”
Post-9/11 immigration laws designed to keep out terrorists have had the unintended consequence of ensnaring some innocent people. For example, some of the provisions treat providing food or services to rebels—even those supported by the U.S.—as “material support” to terrorism.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), a key proponent of refugee resettlement, said the “overly broad” provisions would prevent a Syrian who gave a cigarette or a sandwich to a Free Syrian Army soldier from coming to the U.S. as a refugee.
If the idea of an influx of Syrian Islamists doesn’t send the American public into a full scale uproar, nothing will. This is an open Al-Qaeda immigration invitation. The great myth of the Left is that these people are simply “refugees,” and pose no harm. They are Syrian Islamists and they will wage jihad. Interestingly, nothing is ever brought up about the plight of Syrian Christians. All anyone is worried about are the lethal Islamists.
Jordan went on to add:
Molly Groom, acting deputy secretary for the Office of Immigration and Border Security at the Department of Homeland Security, acknowledged that “broad definitions” of terrorist activity under U.S. law were “often a hurdle to resettling otherwise eligible refugees who pose no security threat.” She said agencies were consulting to develop exemptions for the Syrians.
In recent years, DHS and the State and Justice Departments have exercised their authority to offer exemptions to some applicants, such as ethnic Burmese who provided food to guerrillas, and Iraqis who paid ransoms to groups for the release of kidnapped family members.
Anwen Hughes, a lawyer at Human Rights First who has studied the laws’ impact, said that the government has been “reactive, slow,” about giving exemptions up to now, and urged a swifter process, given the magnitude of the Syrian crisis.
The advocacy group has called on the U.S. to work to resettle 15,000 Syrians a year. The International Rescue Committee, another advocacy organization, is pressing the U.S. to set a goal of 12,000 Syrian refugees this year.
The U.S. leads the world in refugee resettlement. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the U.S. received 70,000 refugees from 65 countries, including more than 19,000 from Iraq. In that year, more than 1,340 Syrians already in the U.S. applied for asylum.
The Huffington Post published an op-ed by Sharon Waxman, the Vice President of the International Rescue Committee, entitled “Open The Door To Syrian Refugees.”
Long-term resettlement will require an internationally coordinated strategy. Countries bordering Syria have been opening their doors for nearly three years and providing safe haven. They deserve enormous praise — and assistance — to support their efforts. But they cannot do it alone. Countries outside the region need to help by opening their borders to vulnerable Syrians.
In the short term, the international community must quickly make plans to resettle the 30,000 Syrian refugees proposed by the UN refugee agency. This represents merely 1.27 percent of the refugees who have so far fled Syria. The 20 countries around the world that together have committed to provide refuge to 18,300 vulnerable Syrians should be applauded. But they need to do far more to begin to meet the enormous and growing need. Three years into the civil war, resettlement must be a robust component of a multinational response.
The U.S.has expressed an interest in welcoming Syrian refugees for resettlement in 2014, but unlike other countries, it has not specified how many refugees it will seek to admit. The U.S. must delineate a clear policy. Consistent with its long-standing tradition of providing refuge for those fleeing persecution, the United States should announce its intention to resettle 12,000 Syrian refugees this year to address UNHCR’s call to resettle a total of 30,000 and more in future years.
Surely at some point the “transparent” Obama Administration was going to make Americans aware of the fact that there was going to be a “minor” influx of 30,000 jihadists into the United States. This is an outrage, but with out-of-control progressives calling this a “humanitarian mission” instead of what it really is, mass Syrian Islamic jihadist immigration, the truth gets lost among the lies. The only for sure outcome of this is deadly jihad, enough to cripple this already near capsized nation.
Even the Benghazi-Obama Administration can’t claim these terrorists aren’t “core” al Qaeda…but they probably will. Lying is what they do.The United States didn’t invade and temporarily occupy two Islamist terror-nation-states after 9/11 on a maneuvers-locale-whim or for some sort of Maureen Dowd-defined Bush-family revenge-motive. It is true that agents of Saddam Hussein came perilously close to assassinating former President Bush41, but President Bush43 was content to continue the game of Hans-Blix-cat-and-WMD-mouse with no-fly-zone missile dodge-ball games on the side, before non-Iraqi-based terrorists hijacked three planes and killed 3000 Americans in the Lower Forty-Eight.
For decades before 9/11, terrorists sponsored by Iran, in safe havens in Taliban-Afghanistan, and trained inIraq, attacked and killed Americans overseas. Saddam Hussein conquered Kuwait and threatened to take over effective control of middle class-enabling oil supplies. Americans died to remove Iraq from Kuwait, then watched him use chemical WMD to attack his Kurdish opposition, defy the ceasefire agreement to account for WMD and fire at our no-fly-zone-enforcing planes. After 9/11 Hussein openly sponsored and appeared with the families of suicide bombers on Iraqi TV.
Before, and especially after 9/11, the United States was justified in removing his regime. We did so after 9/11 and after a surge that galvanized Iraqis against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, we removed the last safe haven of the perpetrators of 9/11 at the time.
President B. Hussein Obama unilaterally surrendered those gains, even by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have served as deterrent to the formation of future safe havens like the one from which 9/11 was launched in Afghanistan.
Today, America is less safe from future 9/11s as al Qaeda has re-taken portions of Anbar, including Fallujah:
This former neo-con does not favor long occupations of Islamist countries. But neither do we favor abandoning allies and strategic locations that empower enemies that have proven they can attack the homeland.
Our Commander-in-Chief is an appeaser that invites aggression against the United States.
Mike DeVine
Many of you know that I grew up in Boston. No, not outside of Boston. Not North of Boston. Not 2 hours from Boston. But in Boston proper. I grew up in the days when the Mafia acted in plain view. They were powerful and didn’t care who saw what. They were above the law and knew it. They owned the law and the people were afraid, some in fear of their lives, some in fear of their welfare.
I’ve been told the Chicago Mafia is much more ruthless and powerful. I can’t imagine. What I grew up with was pretty bad.
You see, they could walk up to a busy intersection, shoot someone in the head, watch him fall to the ground, pop him a few more times for good measure, and through all this, no one would “see anything.” When the police arrived, eventually, and all the local proprietors were questioned, no one ever saw anything, ever! They knew something unspeakable would happen to them and no one could help them.
This is how the American people are feeling about the Obama administration. This “Gang” never stops. This Gang is above the law, with President Obama acting as “Don” or leader and Attorney General Eric Holder as his “Capo” or captain. This Gang has so crippled the people of this country that we have gone from a nation to fear and respect to a nation to be ridiculed and laughed at.
The Gang has ruined our relationships oversees. Nobel peace prize winner and freedom fighter Lech Wałęsa recently said that Mr. Obama has ruined the credibility of America.
Americans should have seen this coming as far back as the 2009 elections. The New Black Panther group intimidates white voters ON VIDEO. Don Obama’s ultimate law officer, Capo Holder, does NOTHING! DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams quit his job because he was basically told to back off. When he wouldn’t let it go, the Gang made it very uncomfortable for him.
Election fraud is not investigated. Tens of thousands of dead and illegals voted in the last presidential election and Capo Holder did NOTHING!
Many states have legalized marijuana, however, it is still against federal law and Capo Holder does NOTHING! The chief law enforcement officer of the United States, Capo Holder, won’t bother the states as long as they adhere to a few guidelines, one being it can’t be sold to minors. Because that law works so well on cigarettes and booze. No minors ever get those. (Yes, that’s sarcasm!)
The Gang won’t enforce a law banning same sex couples from receiving veterans benefits. Capo Holder said that even though it’s the law “Decisions by the Executive branch not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare,” (though not with this Gang), this one makes sense because the law will eventually change. (Is that how our legal system works now?)
The Gang won’t prosecute Goldman Sachs or its employees for financial fraud. Capo Holder said, “We conducted an exhaustive investigation of allegations brought to light by a Senate panel investigating the financial crisis. And feel there is not enough to prosecute.” Huh? Every other agency but the Gang has found evidence of fraud.
Family members of Don Obama have somehow eluded immigration laws and the DOJ because the Gang has protected them. His uncle in Boston has owned a liquor store, been “technically” deported several times, failed to show up for deportation hearings several times, and been arrested for drunk driving. Even after all that, he is still running around free in this country! His aunt is fleecing welfare and wants more AND she is not even an American citizen.
Fast and furious caused the death of a Border Patrol Officer (at least one officer that we know of, and countless other people) and the Gang refuses to allow the DOJ to investigate.
Meanwhile, the Gang is actively pursuing at least one law-abiding German immigrant family to deport them back to their country of origin. Why? Their visa expired and their reason for seeking political asylum isn’t good enough for the Gang. A judge granted their asylum petition, but Capo Holder’s DOJ takes time out of their busy schedule to overturn the ruling and is deporting them anyway.
Yet the Gang refuses to pursue more pressing issues of national security, immigration, and voting laws and simply enforce the other laws on the books? What does this family have that the others don’t have? It’s actually what they don’t have… a connection to the Gang.
I could write so much more on this. Don Obama issues laws AKA Executive Orders. For someone who was supposed to be a constitutional professor he has no clue as to how a “bill becomes a law” and the checks and balances called out in the Constitution.
He obviously doesn’t understand that the presidency and a dictatorship are NOT one in the same.
People, PAY ATTENTION, the REAL MOB is working the White House. You have to play by their rules. Laws are only for you to follow and them to change on a whim. And should you happen to get in the way… there’s always the IRS.
Wake up America… or you’re going to lose it!
FILE: December 31, 2013: Protesters burn a police vehicle during fighting in Ramadi, in Iraq.REUTERS
Sen. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, called the recent turn of events “as tragic as they were predictable” and suggested Obama misled Americans into believing that Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. forces out of their country.
“While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the administration cannot escape its share of the blame,” the senators said in a joint statement. “When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces … over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America’s enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever.”
The Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters took over Fallujah on Friday after a bloody three-day battle, raising their flag over government buildings as a sign of victory, according to The Washington Post.
At least eight people were killed and dozens injured Friday night as the Iraqi army tries to regain control of the city. The army, which lobbed mortar bombs in its response, has been joined in the fray by tribesmen from Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold.
U.S. forces secured Fallujah in 2004 after one of the deadliest battles of the Iraq war. Fallujah became notorious among Americans when insurgents in 2004 killed four American security contractors and hung their burned bodies from a bridge.
After the recent takeover by Al Qaeda-tied fighters, the Obama administration on Saturday called the attacks barbaric and said it is working with the Iraqi government and the tribal leaders.
“We are … concerned by efforts of the terrorist Al Qaeda/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to assert its authority in Syria as well as Iraq,” said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf. “Their barbarism against civilians of Ramadi and Fallujah and against Iraqi Security Forces is on display for all to see.”
Major Sunni tribes turned against Al Qaeda before the American withdrawal at the end of 2011. But they do not support the Shiite-led government in Iraq, creating an odd alliance in the battle against militants.
“The administration’s narrative that Iraq’s political leadership objected to U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011 is patently false,” said McCain and Graham, military hawks with an active interest in Middle East affairs. “We know firsthand that Iraq’s main political blocs were supportive and that the administration rejected sound military advice and squandered the opportunity to conclude a security agreement with Iraq.”
On Friday, the Al Qaeda affiliates tried to win over the population in Fallujah with a militant commander appearing among worshippers holding Friday prayers in the main city street, proclaiming that his fighters were there to defend Sunnis from the government, a resident said.
There have been no reports on the total number of people injured or killed in the fighting that started earlier this week.
The overrunning of Fallujah and Ramadi, another Sunni stronghold, by Al Qaeda’s Iraqi branch in the Sunni heartland of western Anbar provinces is a blow to the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. His government has been struggling to contain discontent among the Sunni minority over Shiite political domination that has flared into increased violence for the past year.
Anbar province, a desert area on the borders with Syria and Jordan, has almost an entirely Sunni population. The area served as the heartland of the Sunni insurgency that rose up against American troops and the Iraqi government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Authorities earlier this week arrested a senior Sunni politician and dismantled a months-old sit-in in Ramadi sparking anger among Sunnis.
In an effort to ease tensions, al-Maliki pulled the military out of Anbar cities to transfer security duties to local police, a top demand of Sunnis who see the army as a tool of al-Maliki’s rule. Al Qaeda militants then erupted in Fallujah and Ramadi overrunning police station, driving out security forces and freeing prisoners.
“Thousands of brave Americans who fought, shed their blood, and lost their friends to bring peace to Fallujah and Iraq are now left to wonder whether these sacrifices were in vain,” said McCain and Graham, who argued the administration’s failure in Iraq has been compounded by its failed policy in Syria.
That country is involved in a years-long civil war in which tens of thousands have been killed or driven from their homeland, which the senators say has resulted in a regional conflict that now threatens U.S. national security interests.
The senators also called on Obama to learn from the Iraq experience and promptly decide on the troop levels needed to secure U.S. national security interests in Afghanistan and to keep out Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
By Donald Joy / 9 December 2013
America’s Founding Fathers spelled it out pretty clearly: The purpose of government is to secure the God-given, inalienable rights of men. They put that exact language into The Declaration of Independence.
They also spelled out, exactly, that when government becomes abusive, and “destructive of these ends,” it is mankind’s right and duty to alter, abolish, or overthrow it.
You may have seen the recent news about prominent and well-spoken experts testifying before Congress regarding the Obama administration’s shocking usurpations and out-of-control excesses, especially the utter lack of regard for Constitutional limits on the powers of the executive branch. The testimony was remarkable in that the prospect of possible citizen uprising and revolt was brought up repeatedly. I can’t recall in my lifetime this ever having happened before, in such an official, high-level on-the-record context before the cameras and klieg lights.
The question that comes to my mind foremost is not whether such outright revolt is justified or warranted. The question is whether enough of us have the will and the wherewithal to carry it out.
Given what millions of us see as plainly egregious high crimes and misdemeanors by Obama and his agents, without adequate redress of our grievances by those who we believe are also largely corrupt–our representatives in Congress–a large chunk of the American population easily pays lip service to the idea of actual revolution, as opposed to more of the same-old, same-old election cycle shenanigans.
But talking and doing are, of course, two very different things.
I realize that by typing these words and sending them out over the cyber-clothesline, I’m somewhat risking a visit from the gestapo. So what. Let them throw me in jail. My wife and son would suffer, but if I’ve learned anything about that woman in the eight years we’ve been married, it’s that she can catch fish just as well or even better than I can on any given day, and probably live off the land if she has to. She was pretty much raised that way.
Have we as a society become so soft and accustomed to the comforts of technology and of various government checks & subsidies that too few of us would ever forcefully resist the tyranny that is growing from the power-mad panderers of the Left?
Life certainly is much different today than in the days of the American Revolution. Not only are people generally much more dependent on vast, highly-advanced, complex, specialized, and bureaucratic systems and technology which have removed them so much from the concept and practice of self-reliance in nature of those more primitive times, but anyone contemplating some kind of active defiance of the status quo has to consider also the comparatively extremely lopsided scenario such a prospect involves where it comes to actual weapons systems, intelligence networks, command and control operations, and logistics.
George Washington’s regulars, guerrillas, mercenaries, and Minutemen were long-shot underdogs against a formidable foe, of course, in the vastly better equipped, funded, and armed redcoats of King George. However, the muskets, horses, and cannon of our Revolutionary fighters were somewhat comparable, in technological sophistication and array, to the similarly primitive (by modern standards) hardware deployed by the crown. Furthermore, having “home field advantage,” all the colonists really had to do was make things so horrible for the king’s forces, much of which had come all the way from across the ocean, that the King eventually just relented rather than continue to try to keep control from all those thousands of miles away.
Nowadays, however, we’re talking about guys (and gals) with handguns, hunting rifles, carbines, and really not much more than that at all, up against the most space-age, entrenched, home-grown federal leviathan of lasers and satellites, nuclear missiles and bomber planes, tanks, aircraft carrier ships, helicopters, jet fighters and cargo planes, AWACS and close-air support planes, refueling tanker planes, smart bombs, infrared and laser-guided weird weapons that can zap and vaporize entire city blocks (I’ve been out of the military too long to even know what the hell these new weapons are), not to mention truly spooky, virtually omniscient surveillance and communications technology along with the government’s presumed ability to shut down any kind of tech networks we might employ.
Real encouraging, isn’t it?
Y’all think we should just stick to trying to vote the bastards out? Or am I missing something?
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/americans-actually-dare-revolt-abusive-government/#szlIEYJJDR2m6k4C.99
“I have no doubt the White House is right, that Secretary Sebelius was in several group meetings with the president about health care,” Gergen caveated, “but the whole point is, there was nobody in charge in the administration.”
Appearing on CNN’s Newsroom program Saturday night, David Gergen, a known Washington “fixer” some veteran Washington observers have even suggested that Obama should bring in to help manage the Obamacare rollout crisis, was asked by CNN Anchor Deborah Feyerick about the GAI report.
Feyerick cited a report from “an outfit called the Government Accountability Institute [that] finds the president and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held just a single one-on-one meeting after Obamacare was signed into law over three years ago.”
“I don’t think this is simply sloppiness on the part of the White House,” Gergen said. “What seems to me is there’s a case of near malfeasance here.”
Gergen, who has served as Director of Speechwriting for the Nixon White House, Director of Communications for both Presidents Ford and Reagan, and then as a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, is intimately familiar with how the White House operates. In addition, he normally takes a “neutral” position on most matters and often gives those in power the benefit of doubt.
But Gergen emphasized that the GAI report concerning the lack of meetings between Sebelius and Obama raises troubling issues about about the conduct of affairs in the Obama White House.
Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer unveiled the report on Wednesday on Fox News’s Hannity and Breitbart News.
As Breitbart News has reported, Schweizer said there was no evidence on the White House schedule that showed Obama cared about Obamacare
“In the case of President Obama, if you look at his calendar, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is focused or has much interest in health care at all,” Schweizer said on Hannity on Wednesday.
Feyerick, the CNN host, added that the White House had attacked the report, “Jay Carney [is] saying that the report’s misleading and based on a ridiculously false premise, those are his words david Gergen, what do you think about this?”
Gergen responded by saying the GAI report was a big deal and should not be dismissed. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama and Sebelius meet “regularly” but their meetings were not recored on the visitors logs. Schweizer had previously noted that GAI also looked at White House visitor logs and found that whenever Sebelius went to the White House, it was for social functions with “dozens or hundreds of people.” And he noted on Hannity that if Obama met with Sebelius and left the meeting off the books, Sebelius would be the only cabinet secretary whose meetings with the White House were concealed.
Gergen faulted the White House for this lack of contact and condemned the whole White House operation.
“The fact that he was not meeting with her one-on-one, I think, frankly, is not so much an indictment of her but of the White House operation,” he said.
Gergen said that “at the same time three years pass with no one-on-one meetings according to this Politico article. The president had 277 one-on-one meetings with other members of his cabinet.” Gergen referenced Schweizer’s Politico article in which he mentioned that “perhaps the insular White House team wanted to distance the president from the bureaucratic process in the hopes of granting him a halo of deniability if the launch failed.” Schweizer also noted “the lack of meetings reinforces the severity of what the New York Times describes as the ‘deeply dysfunctional relationship between the Department of Health and Human Services and its technology contractors, and tensions between the White House chief of staff and senior health department officials.'”
Feyerick, the CNN host, added, that if health care reform “was so important to the president, you would think that there was a lot more one-on-one interaction especially on something that’s so critical to him and his policy.” Princeton Professor Julian Zelizer, who was also on the panel, did not respond directly to the details of the GAI report, only to say that “we have to be careful because as the White House said, that [report] does come from a conservative organization.”
The Government Accountability Institute, though, is a nonpartisan organization and its mission is to “investigate and expose crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies and other governmental corruption or malfeasance.” GAI, headed by Schweizer, has written several reports in recent years and has been criticized by both the Obama White House and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
Vallely told WND he sees The Americans Project as a “citizens’ commission” of prominent Americans to provide advice to legislative and executive branches of government.
America’s leaders, he said, will be “held to high standards of performance to solve the nation’s problems of governing. We will scrutinize and provide guidance to federally elected officials on behalf of the citizens.”
The Americans Project, Vallely added, is a “movement, not a new party necessarily. We want candidates to run as Americans first before being a Democrat, Republican or Independent.”
Vallely, who today is chairman of the organization Stand Up America, served as the deputy commanding general of Pacific Command.
Jones, who is vice chairman of The Americans Project of Stand Up America, held numerous Air Force command positions including a tactical fighter wing, a strategic airlift wing and a special operations group.
In calling for the forced resignations of Obama and the leadership of Congress, Vallely outlined suggestions for nationwide rallies and said a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”
The current crop of leaders, he said, must face a “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization. And example of a “forced resignation,” he said, was that of President Richard Nixon.
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” Vallely said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
Workable solution
Vallely and Jones in their paper say “The Americans” leadership has developed workable solutions to “help solve and fix what has without question stunted our nation’s ability to clearly, legally and peacefully function as a constitutional republic.”
“Honest, selfless political leadership is the first key to America’s economic and debt recovery and secure future for all citizens and their children,” they say. “That means voters must band together and vote for positive ‘America first’ leadership rather than self-serving greed and corruption within the two major political parties that have for decades and are now rapidly tearing the United States of America apart.”
In their paper, Vallely and Jones call for adherence to the Constitution with strict congressional oversight of all executive actions.
In an apparent reference to the cutback in overall U.S. military readiness, they call for a strong national defense but stipulate that “in no way” would the U.S. military ever be used against U.S. citizens, a reference to a growing concern among many Americans.
The paper decried the historic $17 trillion government debt, concerns over continued unemployment and excessive tax rates on businesses and citizens.
Their solutions? Vallely and Jones call for abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service system, the intended result of which would be that “all political plundering of the peoples’ wealth via taxation will be stopped.”
In abolishing the Federal Reserve System, all U.S. government financial and economic functions would be turned back to the U.S. Treasury.
The IRS would be immediately abolished and replaced by a sales tax on specified items for partial financing of the U.S. government.
The retired generals condemned the illegal alien “invasion,” which they said would be stopped with a secured border double fence, calling for penalties on employers who hire illegal aliens.
“There will be absolutely no jobs, no social services, no welfare nor medical services allowed to be provided to illegal alien invaders,” they say, with the exception of emergency medical care only until the illegals can be deported.
“American jobs are for U.S. citizens, returning military veterans, part-time high school students and the elderly,” they said. “When U.S. employers cannot find workers and can fully justify seeking foreign workers, government permission will be granted for hiring temporary foreign workers.”
Eliminating agencies
They also called for the elimination and consolidation of a number of federal agencies, some of which, like the Department of Homeland Security, they say, have exceeded their authority.
“The DHS with functions for national security and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for emergencies have both grown far beyond the intentions of reasonable and responsible leadership control, budgeting, manpower, equipment and facilities,” they say.
“Deceptive political intentions for the potential use of facilities, weapons, massive purchases of ammunition plus military-type vehicles and railroad cars are greatly objectionable to American citizens and an insult to the economic deficit of the nation,” they said.
DHS jobs could be given to the Department of Defense and the Interior Department, they claim. And FEMA would be recast as the National Emergency Agency with a reduction in manpower and merged into the Interior Department to be deployed during national emergencies.
“All weapons, munitions and military-type vehicles will be transferred to the DOD immediately,” they add.
They’d get rid of the Department of Energy and, no surprise, repeal Obamacare.
“It is critically important for American citizens to know and understand that the United States of America cannot recover from the unsustainable manmade national debt crises unless satisfactory employment is archived for a majority of U.S. citizens and that requires the existing income tax and Federal Reserve Systems to be abolished, then changed to a greatly reduced method of funding the federal government,” they said.
With the elimination of the income tax, businesses and corporations would return to the U.S., making manufacturing more competitive worldwide, with jobs emerging “in great numbers” and resulting in a booming economy.
Destructing ‘before our very eyes’
Vallely told WND the nation he long defended is self-destructing “before our very eyes,” because of “our inept and incompetent leadership in Washington.”
“The battle is on,” he added, “and we shall not retreat.”
Vallely, who has also served as a Fox News military analyst, claimed the Obama administration and leadership of Congress have been leading the nation down a road of “progressive socialism.”
The retired general said the U.S. faces a battle that is unknown to generations of Americans, and that the fate of the nation is “now in our hands” to enforce the Constitution and “severely limit the federal government and its out-of-control spending.”
Vallely added that “politics as usual will not be effective or sufficient enough to turn the country around.”
“We are in a war for America,” he told WND, adding that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Dr. Ben Carson, the noted brain surgeon and author of “America the Beautiful” and other bestselling books have made similar observations.
“A civil uprising is still not out of the question as ‘pain’ grips the country more each day,” Vallely said, adding that there is time to change the country in a peaceful way.
‘This means raising your voice now’
“This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers and friends,” he said. “Be the captains of your souls. I pray for another George Washington to appear within the year and lead us.”
One of the issues that alarms Vallely is the high number of senior officers in the U.S. military who have been fired under the Obama administration, a toll estimated at one officer per week. Indeed, Vallely has been very outspoken on what he calls a “purge” of the U.S. military by the Obama administration – with a stunning nine generals and flag officers relieved of duty this year alone.
WND has been reporting on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals, for which Vallely has assigned a good portion of the blame to Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Rampant “political correctness” due to her influence, Vallely tells WND, is now permeating the military and negatively affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.
According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing the U.S. as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”
Vallely equated the current treatment of U.S. senior military officers watching over what is said and done among mid-level officers and enlisted ranks to that of the “political commissars from the Communist era.”
He also told WND that the White House won’t investigate its own officials, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”
‘Bought into Obama’s ideology’
“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. … Anyone in the ranks who speaks out is being purged.”
He’s far from alone in his concerns about the military purge, as J.D. Gordon, a retired Navy commander and a former Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, says the Obama administration is rushing to unload senior officers whom he believes have become “political pawns” dismissed for questionable reasons.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, similarly has told WND that Obama needs to apply the same standards to his political appointees as he does to the military.
“Just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does,” Brady said. “Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”
This was a reference to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS,” among others, said Brady, former president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, tells WND it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.
“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said. “I believe there is a purging of the military. The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”
By Anita Kumar
McClatchy Washington BureauNovember 21, 2013 Updated 20 hours ago
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/21/209352/white-house-blocks-access-to-obama.html##storylink=cpy

President Barack Obama in the South Court Auditorium of the White House November 21, 2013 in Washington, DC.
OLIVIER DOULIERY — Abaca Press/MCT
WASHINGTON — The nation’s largest news organizations lodged a complaint Thursday against the White House for imposing unprecedented limitations on photojournalists covering President Barack Obama, which they say have harmed the public’s ability to monitor its own government.
The organizations accuse the White House of banning photojournalists from covering Obama at some events, and then later releasing its own photos and videos of the same events.
“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the president while he is performing his official duties,” according to a letter the organizations sent to the White House. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”
Presidents often look for ways to get their own messages out. But media experts say Obama’s administration has developed an aggressive strategy to use social media, including government-sponsored websites and blogs, as well as Twitter, Instagram and Flickr accounts, to circumvent the media’s constitutional duty more than its predecessors have.
“You are only seeing what they want you to see,” said Lucy Dalglish, the dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest defended the release of photos and videos, saying the practice helps Obama live up to his pledge of transparency by allowing the public to have greater access to the inner workings of the administration when it’s not feasible for news media to be in the room.
“What we’ve done is we’ve taken advantage of new technology to give the American public even greater access to behind-the-scenes footage or photographs of the president doing his job,” Earnest said. “To the American public, that’s a clear win.”
He said the news organizations’ protests were just part of the natural tension between journalists and those they covered.
“The fact that there is a little bit of a disagreement between the press corps and the White House press office about how much access the press corps should have to the president is built into the system,” he said at the daily White House news briefing. “If that tension didn’t exist, then either you or we aren’t doing our jobs.”
Relations between Obama officials and journalists have further deteriorated this year.
News reports last spring indicated that the Justice Department had secretly seized the telephone records of reporters at the Associated Press and investigated a Fox News reporter as a potential criminal for doing his job.
In the most recent situation, the news organizations stressed that they’re referring only to presidential activities of a “fundamentally public nature,” not private or restricted events, including ones that may affect national security. But the White House often says the closed events are private, even though it releases its own photographs of the events.
Examples cited in the letter are Obama’s meetings with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on July 10, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 29 and Pakistani human rights activist Malala Yousafzai on Oct. 11.
In each case, journalists weren’t allowed – and sometimes were unaware – of the event. The White House later released written summaries of the events, along with photos taken by a government photographer.
On Thursday, the presidents of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Media Editors sent a letter to their members urging them to stop using handout photos and video from the White House.
“We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers,” the letter says. “We urge those of you in news organizations to immediately refrain from publishing any of the photographs or videos released by the White House, just as you would refuse to run verbatim a press release from them.”
It’s unclear how many news organizations use handout photographs from the White House. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services generally doesn’t do so unless they were shot in areas that the media don’t expect to have access to, such as the Situation Room or the private residence areas of the White House.
Harry Walker, the director of the McClatchy-Tribune Photo Service, said opening access to events was “the foundation for journalism, not just photojournalism.”
The letter was signed by 38 news organizations, including all the major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and the McClatchy Co., which owns 30 daily newspapers across the nation.
The White House Correspondents’ Association and White House News Photographers Association also signed the letter. McClatchy’s government and politics editor, Steven Thomma, is the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association.
The letter, which was addressed to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, a former reporter for Time magazine, requested a meeting to discuss the issue.
Email: akumar@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @anitakumar01
Mohamed Elibiary
Friends of FreedomOutpost.com, I cannot be silent, nor politically correct when it comes to this issue, so I will state it openly: Barack Obama and Mohamed Elibiary are engaging in taqiyya(1). They are deceiving the American people about Islam. They are deceiving them about our history.Granted, there are many that could claim that our Founders, at least many of them were of the Masonic persuasion, rather than specifically Christian (For more on this, I recommend Dr. Gary North’s Conspiracy in Philadelphia, which you can download for free by clicking here), but that does not take away from the Christian, not Islamic, heritage of America.
Mohamed Elibiary is described as:
Mohamed Elibiary is the founder of Lone Star Intelligence, LLC. He has advised numerous federal, state and local law enforcement organizations on homeland security-related matters. In 2009 he was acknowledged in a Congressional Research Service report for advising the Information Sharing Environment Program Management Office on the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. In 2010 he testified before Congress on “Working with Communities to Disrupt Terror Plots.” In 2011 he was awarded the Louis E. Peters Memorial Award, the FBI’s highest public service award for “his extraordinary contributions to specific cases in support of the FBI’s counterterrorism mission.” In 2012 the Office of the Federal Public Defender, a division of the U.S. Court, recognized Mohamed for his “tremendous service” leveraging his Homegrown Violent Extremism expertise in the United States vs. Daniel Patrick Boyd counter-terrorism case.
I was unable for some reason to embed Elibiary’s tweet, or mine for that matter (You can access my Twitter, as well as Elibiary’s by clicking the blue links. So here is a screenshot:

I further commented on Facebook here.
I called him out on engaging in taqiyya, just as Janna Brock did on his support of the Muslim Brotherhood, which led to his removing the R4BIA from his Twitter account. Elibiary is a coward and demonstrated that by removing the symbol from his Twitter account because of pressure. I will not back away from my claims that he is an Islamist and all those of the Muslim Brotherhood are as well. They have over a 1,400 year track record, following in the footsteps of their non-prophet Mohammed, the murdering, thieving pedophile.
Elibiary, like all Islamists, promote the teachings of a pedophile, and I pointed that out. Mohamed Elibiary, along with Barack Obama, all members of the Mulism Brotherhood and those who espouse Islam in our government, should be tried as traitors and when found guilty of treason, executed under the law.
Is my desire that they be executed? No. My desire is that they would come to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and that they would repent, but seeing that they are more concerned with advancing their caliphate and not the best interests of the United States, then I see no alternative for them. This man certainly does not belong in a position in which he advises on Homeland Security.
In fact, notice his tweet. He says that the law of the land is an “Islamically compliant constitution.”
Really? Then pray tell Mohamed, who is the Lord mentioned in the “Year of our Lord” at the end of the Constitution? Is it Allah? Is it Mohammed? No, it’s the risen Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is our Lord, but you refer to him as only a prophet, and a bastard child at that! Your prophet is dead and your god, Allah, is a perversion of the true and living God.
Additionally, if our constitution is Islamically compliant, then why is your boss’ federal attorney threatening people with prosecution and imprisonment for pointing out the truth about Islam, something they clearly do not have authority to do under the First Amendment of the very constitution you are claiming as your own? Furthermore, why aren’t you calling out people like Bill Killian who is intimidating Americans with regard to Freedom of Speech? It really isn’t too Islamic compliant, is it?
In fact, Elibiary’s claims strike me as such outright lying, that I am compelled to challenge him. Mr. Elibiary, I challenge you to debate, very open and public to demonstrate your claims that the United States is Islamic and her Constitution are Islamic compliant. I challenge you anywhere, anytime to put your money where your mouth is and let’s see who really knows their history. Let’s see who is speaking for their lying prophet and who is willing to engage in an honest view of America’s history. (This challenge has been tweeted to Mr. Elibiary. We’ll see if he will play the man and respond.)
Our founding fathers fought Mohammedans like you and your boss. Our veterans have fought communist sympathizers and Marxists in both World Wars and Vietnam, like those in the Obama administration. I challenge you Sir to an open debate. If you are not willing to deal with it openly and in a public forum where we can speak, then perhaps you might want to engage here on Freedom Outpost. Either way, I challenge you to man up! Stop hiding behind your Twitter account and provide the evidence to back up your claims. Until then, you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for a fascist “religion” that is founded on the teachings of a demon possessed pedophile.
About Tim Brown
(1) In Islam taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh,taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are at risk of significant persecution.
This practice was emphasized in Shi’a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion. Taqiyya was developed to protectShi’ites who were usually in minority and under pressure. In the Shi’a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.
The term taqiyya does not exist in Sunni jurisprudence. In the Sunni view, denying faith under duress is “only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory”. However, there are examples of practicing taqiyya among Sunnis where it was necessary.
By Onan Coca
In most every gangster movie there is a scene that demonstrates to the viewer the far-reaching power of the criminal group that makes up the antagonist in the movie. Perhaps it’s the Godfather commanding the police chief how to handle certain problems that the bad guys are facing. Or maybe it’s the scene where foot soldiers in a gang destroy the unassuming store of a poor neighborhood family. Both scenes are intended to demonstrate to you the viewer — and to the protagonist in the film — that the bad guy is very powerful and likely … unbeatable.
You’ve seen the movies. Today, you don’t need a movie to watch this kitschy story line play out; you simply need to observe the Obama White House in action. Or should I say the Obama cartel? The Obama family? The Obama gang?
“The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations to keep quiet.” “Sources telling us they feared White House retribution.”
The latest proof that the Obama administration believes itself to be the all-mighty arbiter of what is good and right is their reported response to insurers who are willing to tell reporters what is going on with Obamacare. The Obama administration is telling insurance companies to keep their mouths closed, and if any quotes or messages are leaked to the media, they draw immediate attention from the White House.
In essence, the Obama administration is using all of the coercive force they can bring to bear to threaten the insurance companies into silence. They are not using their influence for the good of Americans either–they are simply bullying the insurance companies in an effort to save face. The truth is that the media is trying to figure out why so many people are being dumped by their insurance companies and the answer is incredibly embarrassing to the White House.
“…Clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet Obamacare requirements. There’s a lot of coverage now required in these plans that was not part of many people’s private healthcare plans. Those are the people, Anderson, who are being dropped. And despite all the rhetoric from the President you simply cannot keep your current healthcare plan if it does not meet these requirements… the insurance industry is embarrassed about canceling the plans but… the administration was warned about this very scenario and ignored the advice.”
Why would the insurance companies not fight back? Why are they cowering in fear when faced with the corrupt bullies on Capitol Hill? What could the Obama gang have on them that could keep them from speaking truth to power and letting America know what is going on?
“Executives are willing to listen to the White House because right now it is the Federal government that’s the biggest customer for these insurance companies. Government backed plans accounted for about 48% of healthcare policies last year Anderson (Cooper), a number that is expected to grow this year and years to come… insurance companies are in a position to just be quiet for fear of offending their biggest source of income.”
Don’t buy the Democrat spin when they say the insurance industry just needs more government oversight or involvement. The government is plenty involved – in fact, that’s the problem. The government is in bed with the insurance companies which is why our costs keep rising, even now under Obamacare. Crony capitalism always leads to more profits for the government backed company and less choice, efficiency, quality and satisfaction for the consumer. It is the corruption of the free market that has allowed the Obama Cartel to take over our healthcare and thoroughly ruin what was once a fine system.
The Obama gang is scared. First they ran the economy into the ground and now they are destroying a healthcare system that just needed some tweaking. It’s the same story we’ve seen play out time and again. The IRS scandal, Benghazi, the NSA … plan to hear a lot more news about the Democrats and the White House using their intimidation tactics to keep people quiet.
Website: http://www.eaglerising.com
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/2611/obama-administration-cartel/#99QitcDWieygrr9y.99
Many Americans do not know, or have forgotten, American POW Sgt. Bowe Robert Bergdahl. Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture was not the media event we experienced like the highly publicized rescue of Jessica Lynch during her 30 day capture/imprisonment. However, it has been over four years since Sgt. Bergdahl’s June 30, 2009 capture and imprisonment in Afghanistan by a Taliban-affiliated insurgent group. It is time America demanded his release and return to his family.
At the September 20, 2013 Pentagon ceremony commemorating Americas POW/MIA’s, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel proclaimed, “Our hearts today are with the Bergdahl family. Using our military, intelligence, and diplomatic tools, the United States is continuing its strong efforts to secure Sergeant Bergdahl’s’ safe release.” US Central Command confirmed, “we are still actively looking for him and following leads wherever we can get them.”
After four years of Hillary Clinton and a changing of the guard to John Kerry, the State Department is less vocal about its efforts to secure Bergdahl’s release. Apparently, State is still miffed by the Bergdahl Family decision to go public about their son’s ongoing imprisonment. My guess is—much like Benghazi—the Obama administration wanted this all kept within the federal family.
It has been widely reported that the Taliban affiliated Haqqanis holding Sgt. Bergdahl have demanded the release of Guantanamo detainees before they will agree to returning the 27 year old Bergdahl to his family in America. On May 23, 2013, President Obama lifted a moratorium on Gitmo detainees transfer to Yemen. Currently, ninety detainees at Gitmo are cleared for release. To date, none have been released or transferred.
Many in Congress including Senator John McCain oppose a prisoner exchange to bring Bowe Bergdahl home. Apparently, McCain feels a better deal can be struck with the Taliban. A deal that does not release dangerous terrorists out into the world community. Perhaps McCain forgets the deal he struck with his captors to secure his release.
President Obama has yet to publicly acknowledge and commit to bringing Sgt. Bergdahl home. Where is Senator McCain on that?
Yet last month, a sealed plea deal was accepted by the US Department of Justice in the case of one Eric Harroun, a US national and army veteran. Harroun, a Muslim covert had been charged with providing material support to a terrorist group and faced life in prison for fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliate group in Syria. He pled guilty to an obscure law regulating munitions exports, was sentenced to time served, a nominal fine, and still maintains—as part of the plea deal–his voting rights and right to bear arms. All to cover President Obama’s butt.
Harroun considers his prosecution and conviction a betrayal by his government. Really? I wonder how Sergeant Bergdahl is feeling about his government’s loyalty and dedication to HIS rights.
The war in Afghanistan continues to wind down. For years, the United States has been releasing Afghan detainees from military prisons in Afganhistan. This has been going on periodically, every year, since Sgt. Bergdahl was captured. So why is Bergdahl not home today? My very real fear is—like so many others—Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl may be left behind.
This is one of those occasions that I feel great shame for our country. Great shame. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is our son, America. He deserves better than a politically correct quote form the Secretary of Defense. He sure as hell deserves more attention than President Obama and his press gave to Trayvon Martin.
Bring Sergeant Bergdahl home now.
Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Administration is “quietly” releasing $1.6 billion to aid the Taliban in Pakistan. Under the guise of an “improved” relationship with the country, which is headed by a mere puppet in Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, this is nothing more than giving the money directly to the Islamic terrorists. In September, a church bombing killed nearly 100 people, and scores of terrorists attacks have occurred recently in the country. This means one thing: Obama is openly aiding the enemies of America.
Open aid to the enemy is President Obama’s bread and butter. This is the one thing he does best. Pakistan was Osama bin Laden’s safe haven for years, and when he was killed (supposedly) in 2011, Pakistani officials were outraged over the covert operation. The “relationship” between the two countries turned frosty. Now, there has been a miraculous breakthrough. In another Obama Administration joke, this is one of the best.
On October 23rd, Obama will meet with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the White House. This is the first time in years that this has happened. Surely, this meeting will be an Obama apology meeting; an apology for the airstrikes that killed Pakistani soldiers, an apology for the raid that killed bin Laden, and a renewed cooperation for fighting “terrorism” in Pakistan through mutual cooperation.
This is deliberately giving billions in aid to the Taliban in Pakistan. Nothing more, nothing less. The sham government, led by the Prime Minister, has done nothing to stop the Taliban’s terror, nor will they ever do anything to stop it.
“The Pakistanis do not like being seen as dependent on their heavy-handed partners. The Americans are uncomfortable highlighting the billions provided to a government that is plagued by corruption and perceived as often duplicitous in fighting terrorism. Last week, the Pakistan Taliban insisted U.S. drone strikes in the country’s northwest must stop before they will consider peace talks with the government.”
Pakistan is not fighting terrorism, nor is any other Islamic country in the Middle East, but it does prove one thing. Obama will provide aid to any Sunni Muslim controlled government in the Middle East, or “rebel” forces.
Obama cut off aid to Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood was taken down by the Egyptian military, and now Egypt is looking to Russia for aid. That $1.5 billion in missing aid is going to create a huge headache for the Egyptians this year. The Administration is actively aiding Al-Qaeda led Syrian rebels in their efforts to take down President Bashir al-Assad. Less anyone forget, Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is a move that should be considered treasonous.
When it comes to Pakistan, the Peshawar church bombing last month should be enough to keep any aid from coming into the country. A splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the church attack, blaming the U.S. program of drone strikes in tribal areas of Pakistan.
Did the government do anything? No.
The U.S. will end major military operations in Afghanistan in 2014, and with the Pakistani Taliban actively aiding the Afghan forces, the situation in both countries is only likely to get worse. Western style government will never be compatible with Islam.
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are virtually synonymous. The U.S. State Department announced today that it has designated a terrorist who has fought for the Taliban since the late 1990s and continues to support al Qaeda. “Since 2006, CNG has run training camps, dispatched suicide bombers, provided safe haven for al Qaeda fighters, and conducted cross-border operations in Afghanistan against the United States and its allies,” the State Department said in a press release. “In addition to its attacks against international forces in Afghanistan, CNG is also responsible for assassinations and intimidation operations against civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Sunni Muslim terrorists stick together. And no one should know this any better than Obama.
State Department officials said the renewal of aid wasn’t determined by any single event.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk publicly about the aid relationship ahead of Sharif’s visit. They said the money would start reaching Pakistan in 2014 but take several years to disburse fully.
“Pakistan’s long-term stability is of critical national security interest to the U.S., so we remain committed to helping achieve a more secure, democratic and prosperous state, including through continued civilian and military assistance,” said Dan Feldman, the State Department’s deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said the assistance plan will deliver results for both countries and enhance Pakistan’s ability to fight terrorism.
Wow, this sounds so comfy cozy. No “improvements” will ever be made. The Taliban will pocket the aid money and continue to wreak havoc on Christians and fellow Muslims in the area. Nothing changes. The enemy just gets stronger.
President Obama is a wolf aiding and abetting America’s moral enemy, but the reality is that he is the enemy, and he’s not being forced to hide it.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/obama-sending-1-6-billion-to-aid-the-taliban-in-pakistan/#lMulHmPSzx2BdH4x.99
SEE VIDEO HERE>>>>>>> http://cbn.com/tv/2294123821001
America has turned, and it is becoming completely hostile to Christianity. Last week, U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were briefed on the American Family Association at Camp Shelby in Mississippi. There, they were officially listed as a domestic hate group, in the KKK manner, the Black Panther kind; that kind of a hate group. The AFA has been labeled the kind of hate group that targets people of color and carries out mass destruction. Why?
It boils down to the fact that the AFA has taken a strong position on traditional family values. They will not cave to the ravenous homosexual agenda that is driving this ship, starting at the top and working its way down.
Fox news contributor Todd Starnes stated, “A soldier who attended the briefing contacted me and sent me a photograph of a slide show presentation that listed AFA as a domestic hate group. Under the AFA headline is a photograph of Westboro Baptist Church preacher Fred Phelps holding a sign reading “No special law for f***.”
The AFA has nothing to do with Westboro, which is well known for picketing servicemen and women’s funerals, among other such antics. To label the AFA in the same context as Westboro is just an easy way out, and it’s convenient and fits the agenda of the Administration. Mikey Weinstein, the Obama Administration’s “consultant” for religious tolerance to the Pentagon, is behind this. He’s a militant atheist and the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
Using the “anti-gay” angle for a reason to label a strong Christian organization as a domestic hate group is simply one facet of a greater strategy. That strategy is to label all Christian ministries as hate groups simply for being Christians. That is the next step.
“The instructor said AFA could be considered a hate group because they don’t like gays,” the soldier told me. “The slide was talking about how AFA refers to gays as sinners and heathens and derogatory terms.” Later in the briefing, the soldiers were reportedly told that they could face punishment for participating in organizations that are considered hate groups.
Bryan Fischer hosts a talk show on American Family Radio. He called the Army’s allegations “libelous, slanderous and blatantly false.”
The AFA spurs activism directed to:
This is standard Christian protocol, but when you have decidedly anti-Christian forces working to rid the world of Christian influence, this is what you get. This is nothing more than an all out purging of Christianity. The virus that is the homosexual agenda is at play here, but this feeds into the greater hatred of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Top consultant Mikey Weinstein reportedly calls evangelicals in the military “a virulently dominionist, fundamentalist evangelical Christian element within the Pentagon. They would prefer this to be the ‘Pentecostalgon,’ not the Pentagon…. they don’t have the mental wherewithal to understand that to a person who isn’t an evangelical Christian, you’re calling our faith a cancer.”
Weinstein leads straight to Chuck Hagel, and then to President Obama. The chain is perfectly in tact, and the goal singular.
“If our military wasn’t headed by a commander-in-chief who is hostile to Christian faith, these allegations would be laughed off every military base in the world,” Bryan Fischer said.
Fisher could not be more correct. This is the work of a President who tells the world he’s a Christian, but is a Muslim. He’s a fraud, an imposter. He’s using the American military, one of the strongest Christian institutions in this country, to sow “seeds of doubt” about Christians to the American people. He’s sowing discord, which is what he does best. This battle is 100 percent Satanic. Purge the world of Christianity, and then everyone will truly be free. It’s the most twisted of perversions, but people fall for it every time.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/american-family-association-now-deemed-a-domestic-hate-group/#SKfXROz8kMhWHvLy.99
As President Barack Obama has outwardly attempted to curtail Americans’ Constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms, his Administration has approved huge increases in defense spending and export sales. The Administration is now seeking to eliminate stringent State Department controls on exports and foreign licensing of dozens of categories of weapons and technology from the United States Munitions List (USML) by transferring control to the pro-business Commerce Department.
In spite of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warnings this change could increase terrorist access to dangerous weapons, the Administration claims this “reform” would enhance “the competitiveness of key United States manufacturing and technology sectors.”
It may seem hypocritical to tighten gun control at home and flood the world with weapons. But since Obama was elected president, Democrats have eliminated Republicans’ advantage in collecting defense industry campaign contributions.
President Obama has tried to push Congress into passing extensive domestic gun control legislation. In Obama’s first four years in office he also used his regulatory powers for the federal government to conduct about the same number of background checks on gun owners and prospective buyers as George W. Bush’s in his first six years in office.
Declaring a national gun control crisis after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in January 2013, the Administration issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to “improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health.” According to the Institute of Medicine, “One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to identify the most pressing problems in firearm violence a committee tasked with developing a potential research agenda that focuses on the causes of, possible interventions to, and strategies to minimize the burden of firearm-related violence.”
It seems clear that the goal of this Presidential Executive Order is to instruct the CDC to fund medical research to “prove” that gun owners are afflicted with some pathological disease or mental defect.
The President may have been visibly advocating gun control in America, but he has been a huge cheerleader for expanding the American defense industry. Since 2008, U.S. defense spending grew by 25% to $900 billion; defense exports grew by 30% to $73 billion; and foreign licensing agreements grew 46% to approximately $50 billion.
Prior to Barack Obama, Republicans dominated campaign contributions from the defense industry. But despite John McCain’s reputation as a defense hawk, Obama pocketed twice as much from the defense industry as McCain in 2008. Over the last three elections, the Democrats have pulled even with Republicans in campaign contributions by raising $32 million from the defense industry.
But with the Budget Sequestration expected to cause U.S. defense spending to fall to $820 billion over the next three years, the boom times for the defense industry seemed at risk. This may explain the Obama Administration’s enthusiasm for defense industry Export Control Reform. Given that the U.S. already accounts for 80% of the global market for items currently covered by the restrictive USML, eliminating State Department restrictive reviews would quickly ramp up defense industry orders.
In 2011, the most recent year a breakdown of statistics are available, the U.S. defense industry booked foreign arms sales worth over $66.3 billion, representing 78.7% of all global arms exports. The next closest competitor was Russia, with 5.6% of the world arms market. The State Department approved export licenses that year under 20 categories from the USML worth $44.2 billion. The largest categories by dollar value were aircraft, $17.2 billion; military electronics, $15.2 billion; fire and guidance control equipment, $2.4 billion; tanks and military vehicles, $1.7 billion; spacecraft systems and associated equipment, $1.4 billion; and ammunition and ordnance, $1.1 billion.
Despite GAO concerns that reform could increase terrorist’s access to sophisticated weapons, the Administration wants to switch two dozen categories of weapons from rigorous U.S. State Department oversight under the USML to the export-friendly Commerce Department Control List. The White House acknowledges, “At the end of this process, we anticipate that a significant percentage of the items that are transferred off of the USML would be permitted to be exported without a license.”
It seems hypocritical to simultaneously tighten guns control in the U.S. and flood the world with weapons. But Barack Obama and the Democrats figured out that the big campaign contributions regarding guns comes from the defense industry, not individual Americans who worry about the loss of their Second Amendment rights.
By Tim Brown // http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/state-department-blasts-enemies-of-islam/
Following car bombings in Baghdad, which appear to have targeted Shi-ite Muslim festivities that marked the end of Ramadan, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki issued a press release in which she denounced the “enemies of Islam.”
“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the cowardly attacks today in Baghdad. These attacks were aimed at families celebrating the Eid al-Fitr holiday that marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The terrorists who committed these acts are enemies of Islam and a shared enemy of the United States, Iraq, and the international community.”
According to Reuters, there were twelve separate bomb blasts that targeted markets, busy shopping street and parks, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 80 people.
Interestingly, we haven’t seen a condemnation of a jihadist attack this quickly. Even now, the administration does what it can to sweep Benghazi under the rug which was clearly a jihadist attack.
However, the “enemies of Islam” don’t get such a courtesy.
Patrick Poole writes:
As horrific as these bombings are, obviously fueled by sectarian differences, it’s troubling to see that the Obama administration has now put the U.S. government in the business of denouncing “enemies of Islam.”
Mind you, this is the administration that branded the Muslim Brotherhood a “largely secular” organization. It has taken every effort to purge government national-security documents of any reference tying terrorism to Islam while Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security proscribed training by anyone declaring themselves “Muslim reformers” (while at the same time government contractors tie pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and Tea Party views to “violent extremism”).
Any government employees that observe that Islamic terrorists themselves wrap themselves in the mantle of doctrinal Islam will quickly find themselves without a job. And when members of Congress have confronted senior administration officials as to whether elements of radical Islam have declared war on the U.S., those officials have angrily protested that Congress merely asking such questions puts them in league with al-Qaeda.
This administration has done everything it can to whitewash Islam. It’s removed references of Islam and jihad from government training manuals, replacing them with emphasis upon Christian extremists as perpetrators of terrorism.
The administration has given preferential treatment to Islamists and continues to fund Islamists. Obama even told the United Nations last year, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Muslims have been demanding and getting prayer openly in public schools. The Obama Justice Department has even had one of its attorneys and FBI special agents threaten citizens that they could face federal prosecution and prison time if they are critical of Islam.
So far, no word from the State Department about the final Ramadan Bomb-a-thon body count by Islamic jihadists by this administration. They only want everyone to acknowledge the celebration of the Islamic holiday.
While the press release did address al-Qaeda, offering a $10 million reward for information that helps authorities kill or capture Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, it never ties al-Qaeda to Islam. The hypocrisy of this administration is readily apparent.
Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty. Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.
Theme Swift by SwiftThemes.Com Copyright ©2013 Freedom Outpost | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) powered by WordPress [Back to top ↑]
By Suzanne Olden / 7 August 2013 / http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/phony-scandals-for-a-phony-president/
In an address two weeks ago at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, Obama stated: “With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” and then said that the GOP “needs to stop.” Yesterday, he parroted it again saying that the nation is being distracted by “phony” scandals and isn’t keeping focus on middle class economic issues. Let’s not forget that the White House has, in the past, at least acknowledged, and in some cases feigned, outrage at these scandals.
Merriam Webster online dictionary defines “phony” as: not genuine or real: as a (1) intended to deceive or mislead; (2) intended to defraud or counterfeit, arousing suspicion, probably dishonest, having no basis in fact, fictitious, false, a sham, hypocritical or specious.
The scandals, as we all know, are 1) Benghazi; 2) IRS targeting of conservatives; 3) NSA spying on Americans; and 4) DOJ surveillance of US reporters.
Benghazi is a “phony” scandal that didn’t have to be, and four Americans died on September 11, 2012. They didn’t have to die. First, aid could have been given to those at the Embassy before and during the attack. Instead Hillary Clinton ignored warnings, took away security measures that could have protected them or brought everyone there home During the attacks aid could have gotten there, instead a “stand down” order was issued and the President went to bed. But Obama had an election to win, so he tried to turn it to his advantage by blaming it on an anti-Muslim video instead of calling it the terrorist attack it was. Then he sent Susan Rice to lie for him. Now there are reports of the CIA intimidating and threatening witnesses who were going to testify. Hey, he used the IRS, why not the CIA?
About the IRS … Here’s Obama’s statement from May 15, 2013: “I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.”
Sound like someone who thinks it’s a “phony” scandal? Representative Darrell Issa has been a truth seeker on this issue. He has been holding hearings, one of which has borne out the closest ties to the White House yet. William Wilkins, Chief Counsel for the IRS and appointed by Obama, helped develop the agency’s guidelines for reviewing “tea party” cases. Now that it’s becoming clearer that the orders have come from, most likely, Obama himself, it’s “phony.”
NSA is conducting widespread, untargeted, domestic surveillance on millions of Americans; collecting and keeping records and now working in tandem with the DOJ to do even more record keeping on all of us. When this first broke it was just “collecting phone numbers, nothing more, on people suspected of terrorist ties calling overseas only”, except it wasn’t. Orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC) direct carriers to provide “on an ongoing daily basis” all call records for any call “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls” and any call made “between the United States and abroad.” What does this actually mean? Carriers must send the NSA a record of every Verizon customer’s call history, including every call made, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other “identifying information” for the phone and call.
Now there’s even more. The DEA has been doing the same thing in tandem with the NSA. They’ve been collecting information from “intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records” and disseminating the data to authorities across the nation to “help them launch criminal investigations of Americans” — supposedly those who are being investigated as drug dealers, but the information they are collecting spreads a much wider net. The Special Operations Division (“SOD”) is handling this and they are made up of a partnership of numerous government agencies including the NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS and the Department of Homeland Security. They are also instructing Agents to lie about the fact that SOD provided the information (because it is highly unconstitutional) and “recreate” a legal timeline in order to get warrants to arrest or search (i.e. perjure themselves).
Reporters were taught a lesson in how the Obama Administration feels about their 1st Amendment rights earlier this year as well. Why? Because they didn’t kowtow to the polishing of Obama’s election year reputation and hold a story to help do that. The reprisal was a secret and massive raid on the records, a data mining effort of phone and internet records of the AP in general and several reporters. Reporter Sharly Attkisson tweeted that people were afraid to call or email her, personally or professionally. Obama’s message to reporters? Do what I say or I will shut you down. Media heard it loud and clear.
What I find renders me almost speechless about this whole thing is that 100% of Americans aren’t outraged. Why aren’t you angry? People died and our freedoms are being threatened by government abuse of power. At best all we see is a decided “yawn” from most Americans. We deserve better … we should demand better and let Obama know that HE is the phony.
Image: Graffiti streetart Cognac; author: User:Chourmo; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army has ordered its personnel not to go to the latest postings on the website of the British newspaper The Guardian to read revelations of information given to its reporter because it contains a “TOP SECRET slide show.”
The email, which WND received from a Department of Defense source, was addressed to a couple hundred military personnel and civilians working for DOD. The source who provided the email asked for anonymity.
“If someone is not included on this email inform them this website is off limits,” the email said. “If anyone has visited this page today and clicked on any ‘NSA program’ slide show please inform me immediately. It is much easier fix (sic) an issue before it becomes a problem then (sic) after it becomes a disaster.”
Following initial leaks of the highly classified slides by The Guardian based on interviews and files given to its reporter by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the Pentagon had informed all military personnel not to access the website on military office computers, even though the NSA information is in the public domain.
Snowden worked for the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and was assigned for three months to NSA where he had access and acquired the information, apparently by using thumb drives to take the information without detection.
Such access can be ascertained by security personnel who monitor what U.S. military personnel are viewing, whether they are using an unclassified or classified computer.
The latest email referred to The Guardian’s story on XKeyscore, which is an NSA data mining software tool that gives the analyst accesses to “nearly everything a user does on the Internet.”
The latest story on XKeyscore pointed out that this tool gives NSA analysts the “widest-reaching” collection of online data. In addition, NSA analysts don’t need prior authorization to conduct searches.
XKeyscore “sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history.”
The story included a series of new XKeyscore slides classified as “TOP SECRET/COMINT/REL TO USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL.”
In effect, the Top Secret slides come from communications intelligence and are released only to the U.S., Australia, Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand.
The program gives NSA access to millions of individuals, based on documents Snowden gave to the Guardian.
All that an NSA analyst needs to do is fill out a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification to mine NSA’s databases. Such a request is not subject to any court or higher level NSA personnel.
In addition to emails, websites and metadata, XKeyscore also allows the analyst access to an individual’s internet activity in real-time.
The NSA is required by law to get a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, court if the target is a U.S. person
However, no such warrant is required if an American is communicating with a foreign target. XKeyscore can bypass the warrant requirement on obtaining information on an American if it has some identifying information such as the email, the Internet Protocol, or IP, address, keywords, name or telephone number.
XKeyscore gives the analyst access to the metadata as well as the content of the emails and other Internet activity, including any browsing and knowledge of the subject matter.
According to The Guardian article, one slide referred to “plug-ins” that describes the various types of information that can be searched. They include “every email address seen in a session by both username and domain, every phone number seen in a session including address book entries or signature block,” and “the webmail and chat activity to include username, buddylist, machine specific cookies etc.”
Another NSA tool called DNI Presenter allows the NSA analyst to read the content of stored emails. With XKeyscore, the analyst can also read the content of Facebook chats or private messages.
The HTTP on a website is important to the NSA analyst since it accesses “nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet.”
The slide asked: “Why are we interested in HTTP?” which then is followed by images of Facebook,Yahoo,Twitter, myspace.com, CNN.com @mailru, Wikipedia, Google and Gmail.
“Because nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet uses HTTP,” the slide added.
XKeyscore also lets the analyst determine the IP addresses of every person visiting any website the analyst looks at.
XKeyscore holds the greatest amount of communications data collected by NSA. The article quotes William Biney, a former NSA mathematician, as saying the agency had “assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens” only from phone calls and emails.
Each day, NSA reportedly intercepts and stores some 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other communications.
National Intelligence Director James Clapper in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden conceded that NSA analysts have exceeded their authority in domestic surveillance. He said there were a number of compliance problems which he attributed to “human error” or “highly sophisticated technology issues.”
In a Senate floor response, Wyden said the violations are “more serious than those stated by the intelligence community, and are troubling.”
WND reported more than a month ago when Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chided the military in response to an Air Force memo banning access to articles about the NSA leak story on the military branch’s unsecured Internet system.
“If it’s in the public domain, it’s hard to make a case that military members – who are still citizens and protected by the Constitution – should not read the news about what government is doing,” Hunter told WND.
WND had reported when the Air Force issued a NOTAM – a Notice to Airmen – that warned users of the military’s unclassified computer network not to look at news stories regarding the NSA-Verizon scandal because it could trigger a Classified Message Incident.
A Classified Message Incident is prompted when classified material or information is transmitted over an unsecure military network.
The story originally reported by The Guardian newspaper of London of the top-secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all of its call data on an ongoing basis to the National Security Agency included a link to the classified information.
Hunter, a U.S. Marine combat veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, said there’s a “bigger issue with classifications and access, which, if anything, should prompt concerns on the part of officials.”
While members of the Air Force in the U.S. have access to the Internet through other means, some members based overseas who contacted WND said the Air Force’s NIPRNET service is their only access. At a time of increasing distrust toward government, they regarded the order as censorship
by Tim Brown // http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/60-foot-petition-unveils-americans-demand-to-expose-truth-about-benghazi/#ixzz2a5vF3fNP
September 11, 2013 will mark the one year anniversary of the terrorist attacks by Muslim jihadists on a diplomatic entourage, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the United States Ambassador. On Monday I informed you of Representative Steve Stockman’s plan to force John Boehner’s hand on forming a special House committee to investigate Benghazi. On Tuesday, he followed through by unrolling a 60 foot long document with signatures of 1,000 Special Operations Veterans demanding a select committee in Congress to “end the cover-up” of the Benghazi scandal and get to the truth.
SEE VIDEO: http://youtube/MA51K6HS7eA
As I told you then, there has been a House Resolution languishing in Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) rules Committee since January. The Resolution was sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and has 160 Congressmen signed on to it. This is what this petition is promoting.
Retired Col. Dick Brauer said, “I know my compatriots, both retired and on active duty were champing at the bit to be launched. We needed to try, have the guts to try.”
“That sends a message,” said Brauer. “That sends a message to those on active duty. That sends a message to those who have served that we will never leave you behind.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), member of the House Oversight Committee told Fox News, “You’ve got people who have been there, people who’ve been fighting for this country who cannot stand the fact that the Obama administration has continued to mislead the American public. They lied about what happened and when it happened.”
“They’ve been slow walking us, in providing the American people that information and so I totally sympathize with what they’re saying,” Chaffetz continued. “If, but for the House of Representatives we would still be listening to the Obama administration say that this was demonstration, which it was not.”
Chaffetz though agrees with Boehner in letting the House Committees, which there are about four currently that are investigating various scandals, continue to push on this issue, rather than have a select committee to investigate Benghazi. Boehner turned down a select committee back in July.
The Utah Congressman indicates that part of the frustration was the number of months prior in which there were no subpoenas being sent out. He also said part of the frustration comes because of the way the Obama administration has been handling things, rather how they have failed to respond properly to what they have been asked for. It’s very much similar to the Fast and Furious scandal in which Barack Obama issued executive privilege, while Eric Holder’s Justice Department sent over completely redacted pages for the House Oversight committee to look at, but have still not complied and sent tens of thousands of documents related to Fast and Furious, which is ultimately why he was found to be in contempt of Congress.
Chaffetz did say they were attempting to focus on the real obstructers, which he says is the White House. He also informed the American people that the week before last, they conducted over 25 hours of transcribed interviews, which was not relayed to the media. He also said that when they issued a subpoena to get someone from the White House to come up to Capitol Hill, they got another document dump from the State Department, which again just makes their task take longer to get through.
Ultimately though, Chaffetz says they want to get at the truth, which in his words deal with three distinct things that were involved in the Benhazi attacks. First he mentioned what led up to creating the “death trap” in Benghazi. Second, he said the House is interested in all that took place in the 25 hours of the attack. Finally, he said his committee was interested in the lies and misdirection that came from the Obama administration following the attacks.
Congressman Stockman said, “It has been nearly a year since terrorists killed an American ambassador and three other U.S. citizens in a coordinated attack. Yet, not one survivor has been allowed to testify to Congress and repeated requests for information have been blocked. Two different hearings have been canceled after witnesses were confronted and some intimidated.”
“If four members of Obama’s personal staff had been killed there would rightfully have been a full investigation and congressional hearings. But not one perpetrator has been brought to justice and requests for witnesses and information have been blocked,” said Stockman.
“The usual channels for justice are being cut off. We have no other choice than to file a discharge petition to force a vote of the full Congress on Congressman Frank Wolf’s bill creating a Select Committee with full subpoena power. The survivors and the victims’ families deserve answers and all Americans overseas deserve to know why their Commander-In-Chief left men to die at the hands of terrorists. All Americans owe Congressman Wolf a deep debt for his bravery in demanding answers and justice.”
I agree, answers and justice must be demanded. The question is, when will American have their questions answered and when will justice be dealt out?
You must be logged in to post a comment.