Barack Hussein Obama’s Obsession with Providing Enemy Combatants with Constitutional Rights is Irrational

March 7, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", Abuse of Power, Constitution, Constitutional, Liberty, National Security, President Obama, United State Military

Enemy CombatantsAs a former practicing Constitutional Lawyer and Professor, Barrack Hussein Obama is not only demonstrating irrational behavior, but also unconstitutional behavior that is setting a dangerous precedent. Forget that his decision will prevent us from obtaining important or crucial intelligence about our enemies.  His behavior is Irrational in that it took a filibuster by  Senator Rand Paul to get him to state that American Citizens on American soil, not posing an immediate threat  are to be afforded their Constitutional rights and are not  to be treated as enemy combatants. Irrational because  he is providing enemy combatants  with Constitutional Rights reserved for American Citizens. The following Supreme Court Case is the precedent for the treatment for enemy combatants. Other cases reinforce this decision.

“Supreme court decision, “Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S.1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.

 …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

What in the world could Barack Hussein Obama’s rationale be, for on the one hand attempting to deny Constitutional Rights to American Citizens, while on the other providing them to enemy combatants?

[subscribe2]

WHY IS Our GOVERNMENT STOCKPILING GUNS, AMMO?

February 4, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Constitutional, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, Freedom, Government, National Security, Obama's America 2016, President Obama

Hollow Point AmmoLou Dobbs Video update added today February 9, 2013

On May 16 2012, we posted  a  story  Michael Savage: Why DHS needs 450 Million rounds of ammunition? . In this post we explained that the millions of  rounds of hollow point ammunition being purchased cannot be used by our military outside of the United States, because by International Law, it is prohibited. If used by a country, it subjects them to “War Crimes”.  It appears that Joseph Farah editor of  World Net Daily, has now also reached a  conclusion similar to Michael Savage.. Folks its time to be alarmed. Recently we reported that as part of a new loyalty Litmus test, Barack Hussein Obama

 has Asked his  Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”

Lou Dobb’s Video update February 9, 2013

 

BETWEEN THE LINES

WHY IS GOVERNMENT STOCKPILING GUNS, AMMO?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines Obama’s plan for ‘civilian national security force’

by JOSEPH FARAH

 

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,” now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento

Union and other major-market dailies.

 

 

Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?

And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by the way), why is Homeland Security doing the buying instead of the Defense Department?

I have some theories.

Many of you will remember a story I broke a long time ago – about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Want to make sure you and your family are fully protected? Check out our self-defense section in WND’s Superstore.

Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?

We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review:

  • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign. That was strange – and ominous.
  • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before. But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight.
  • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”

We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland Security – firearms and ammo that Obama would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army.

Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too.

In a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.”

I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – so serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we would never see another free and fair election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) I suggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would move to shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics would eventually be rounded up in the name of national security.

Think about it.

Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?

This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.

This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.

So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

Maybe this is the “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the Defense Department.

These words – “civilian national security force” – have haunted me ever since I first read them.

Obama has never explained what he meant.

He’s never been called to account for that remark.

Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. defense budget was $439 billion. No one knows what the budget is today because Congress stopped passing budgets when Obama took office.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? Is this part of his second-term agenda?

He has also set up, as I have reported, a new homeland security bureaucracy to operate under his own direction.

I think it’s worth recalling here that just over a year ago both houses of Congress unwisely passed the defense reauthorization bill that killed the concept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government – constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.

If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.

The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy the opposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/#xWQhfhuK0IzQxE2W.99

The US Facing Renewed Theats of Jihad by Al Qaeda

January 31, 2013 in Al Qaeda, National Security, Political Deception, President Obama

OsamaJuly 25, 2012 BAGHDAD –  An al-Qaida affiliate group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for Monday’s wave of attacks that killed 115 people across the country and wounded hundreds others.

January 21, 2013 BAGHDAD –  An al-Qaida affiliated group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the assassination of a Sunni parliamentarian who played a leading role in the fight against the group in western Iraq.

Contrast the above wire  stories with Barack Hussein Obama’s frequent peddling of self serving propaganda, amplified by  our progressive  lamestream media, that  Al Qaeda, which is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden around 1988, is no longer a threat to the security of the United States.  Why, because Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has been decimated

Now we have Bill Gertz of the Washington Times warning us that Al Qaeda, on the contrary has not been decimated, but on the contrary has cells and lone wolfs ready to carry out Terror operations on United States soil.

This at a time when Americans and our governmental watchdog agencies are  being lulled into a false sense of security by President Obama’s  official pronouncements and policy that the  Al Qaeda threat is insignificant.

If  a major attack is launched against the United States, Barack Hussein Obama will not be able to blame the Bushes, faulty intelligence or any other person or agency. It will fall squarely on his head and administration!

On the other hand, could it be that this is the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis that he needs to complete the transformation of America?

Inside the Ring: New al Qaeda threat

By Bill Gertz

The Washington Times

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.

The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”

The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.

“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in FranceDenmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.

The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”

Under a section of the post on the method of the attacks, the unidentified writer said the strikes would be “group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the use of booby-trapped vehicles.”

“All operations will be recorded and published in due time,” the message said. “Let France be prepared, and let the helpers of France be prepared, for it is going to be a long war of attrition.”

The reference to France appears linked to the group’s plans for retaliation against the French-led military strikes in northern Mali in operations to oust al Qaeda terrorists from the North African country.

The Ansar al-Mujahidin network is a well-known jihadist forum that in the past has published reliably accurate propaganda messages from al Qaeda and its affiliates.

U.S. counterterrorism actions over the past 10 years have prevented al Qaeda from conducting major attacks. However, U.S. officials warn that the group continues to be dangerous, despite the killing of its top leaders in drone strikes and special operations.

A U.S. official said the threat is being taken seriously by the U.S. government.

“Extremists regularly make threats online,” he told Inside the Ring. “This one is not particularly unusual, but of course should be taken seriously.”

Retired officers on Hagel

Retired senior military officers on the right and left of the political spectrum are squaring off in the confirmation fight for former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary who is set to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Conservative former officers say Mr. Hagel is the wrong person to head the Pentagon because of his soft-line views on Iran, hostility toward Israel and support for cuts in U.S. military and nuclear forces.

Liberal retirees say the decorated Vietnam War veteran will be a strong leader who will support “war fighters.”

Fourteen retired flag officers wrote to the committee this week, urging the panel to reject Mr. Hagel.

The group — including retired Pacific Fleet commander Adm. James “Ace” Lyons and former Delta Force commando Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin — said they oppose confirming the liberal Nebraska Republican for the Pentagon post because he would further cut U.S. military forces and also because he favors the total elimination of nuclear forces.

“Our nation faces enormous national security challenges as we enter 2013,” said the group linked to the conservative Center for Security Policy.

“Addressing those challenges will require leadership at the Pentagon that recognizes the gravity of the threats we face and understands the requirement for a formidable military capable of deterring and, if necessary, overcoming them. Sen. Hagel’s record on key issues indicates he is not such a leader.”

On the other side, a group of retired generals and admirals issued a statement in December supporting Mr. Hagel. They include retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser in the George H.W. Bush administration; retired Adm. William Fallon, a former Pacific command leader; and retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command.

These 11 generals and admirals said in their statement that they support Mr. Hagel for Pentagon chief because “he has stood up for what he believes are the best interests of the United States.”

Sen. Hagel has been a voice of moderation and balance in an unbalanced time, and we can think of few people better qualified to lead the Department of Defense,” these retired officers stated.

Senate end-run suggested

Newly confirmed Secretary of State-designate John F. Kerry signaled last week that the Obama administration is planning to seek more executive agreements for future arms-control deals.

The use of such agreements would avoid contentious political battles in the Senate but is raising concerns that such accords would circumvent the Senate’s constitutional duty to provided advice and consent for international treaties.

Sen. James E. Risch, Idaho Republican, told Mr. Kerry during a Jan. 24 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination:

“There are a lot of us that are becoming increasingly concerned about all this talk regarding executive agreements, as opposed to treaties that are negotiated by the executive branch, as contemplated by the Founding Fathers and ratified, if appropriate, by this committee and eventually by the full Senate.”

Mr. Kerry was asked about “bypassing” the committee. He replied with a carefully worded answer that did not rule out the use of non-ratified agreements.

“Well, every administration in its history — Republican and Democrat alike — has entered into executive agreements,” Mr. Kerry said.

“I don’t want to be commenting in some prophylactic way one side or the other without the specific situation in front of me,” he said. “But I’m confident the president is committed to upholding the Constitution.”

Mr. Obama, however, already has taken steps to use administrative power as opposed to formal legislative remedies, in seeking tighter controls on guns in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

Mr. Kerry said that if Republicans and Democrats could get along better, then treaties were more likely to be submitted.

“There’s no better way to guarantee that whatever concerns you have about the president’s desire to move on an executive agreement would be greatly, you know, nullified or mollified if we could find a way to cooperate on a treaty or on the broader issues that face the nation,” Mr. Kerry said.

However, he added: “I think there’s a lot of frustration out there that some of the automatic ideological restraint here that prevents the majority from being able to express their voice has restrained people and pushed people in a way where they’ve got to consider some other ways of getting things done.”

Mr. Risch then said: “Well, and that’s exactly what concerns us, Sen. Kerry, is the fact that it’s OK to do this through the regular order if it gets done, but if it’s not going to get done, then the ends justify the means — [that] it’s OK to end-run around the Constitution.”

Mr. Risch said the nation’s founders “didn’t say do this if it’s convenient, and it’s OK to not do it if it’s not convenient. I have real difficulties with that.”

Mr. Obama last year promised unspecified “flexibility” after the election in seeking a missile defense agreement with Russia during an overheard discussion with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

The administration is also looking to conclude an additional arms-control agreement with Russia on nuclear weapons.

Hagel on Fort Hood

Sen. Chuck Hagel told Senate Armed Services Committee members this week in written responses to questions that he will review a Pentagon panel study that concluded the Defense Department could not identify key indicators of terrorist radicalization among service personnel, as part of efforts to prevent a repeat of the mass terrorist shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, more than three years ago.

However, in response to a question about Muslims in the militaryMr. Hagel said he would seek to prevent the persecution of Muslims in the aftermath of the deadly shooting.

Thirteen people were killed and 29 wounded when a gunmen identified as Maj. Hassan Nidal opened fire on fellow military personnel on Nov. 5, 2009. Reports at the time said the gunman was shouting “Allah Akbhar” — God is great. Maj. Nidal also has been linked to al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen from emails intercepted by the FBI.

After the attack, however, the Pentagon refused to identify the shooting as a terrorist attack and labeled the incident “workplace violence” in what critics said was an example of Obama administration political correctness.

Mr. Hagel said in his written responses that a Defense Science Board was asked by the Pentagon to study ways to identify “behavioral indicators of violence and self-radicalization,” but it “could not determine a specific list of behaviors that would indicate risk of violent/extremist behavior.”

“If I am confirmed, I will review the implementation of the recommendations of the Fort Hood Review,” he said.

“The attack at Fort Hood was a tragedy,” he stated. “It is essential that the circumstances surrounding the attack not compromise the military’s core values regarding the free exercise of religion and treating every service member with dignity and respect.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/inside-the-ring-new-al-qaeda-threat/#ixzz2JZv2Rv1u
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[subscribe2]

2nd Amendment Under Attack – More Detail NRA Responds To Sweeping New Gun Control – Megyn Kelly

January 24, 2013 in 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, National Security, Obama's America 2016, Political Correctness, President Obama, Socialist, The Hope and The Change

gun bDemocrats introduce expanded  assault-weapons ban

Published January 24, 2013 FoxNews.com

Congressional Democrats introduced a new and broader assault-weapons ban  Thursday, in a vivid press conference that included a display of various weapons  they want to outlaw.

It was a measure that was quickly condemned by the National Rifle Association  as an assault on the Constitution, “instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing  our broken mental health system.”

“The American people know gun bans do not work and we are confident Congress  will reject Senator Feinstein’s wrong-headed approach,” spokeswoman Andrew  Arulanandam said.

The measure was written by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was behind  the original 1994 assault-weapons ban which expired in 2004. It marks the first  major legislative step since President Obama, in the wake of the Newtown school  shooting, called for new gun control measures including a new and stronger  assault-weapons ban.

“Our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again, and  again, and again in our country,” Feinstein said. “Weapons, designed originally  for the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat, are replicated  for civilian use.”

She said the bill she and her colleagues are introducing would bar the “sale,  transfer, manufacture and importation” of assault weapons. It would also ban  magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

As part of the press conference, lawmakers displayed an array of weapons,  including a Colt AR-15, a semi-automatic assault rifle, and an Intratec TEC-9, a  semi-automatic handgun.

The move comes after NBC News host David Gregory faced an investigation for  displaying a banned magazine on a Sunday show in the District — but the Senate  sergeant-at-arms office said the weapons were displayed Thursday in “compliance”  with all applicable laws.

The office said they are “authentic” and in the custody of the Philadelphia  and D.C. police departments, which brought them.

The weapons ban, though, faces long odds even after last month’s mass school  shooting in the state of Connecticut.

In a statement, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said the proposal would have  done “nothing” to prevent the Newtown tragedy and vowed to fight to defeat the  bill.

“Washington politicians shouldn’t be taking advantage of recent tragedy to  try to push an aggressive gun control agenda. Real assault weapons — machine  guns — are already functionally illegal, and they have been since 1934,” he  said.

The last ban expired in 2004 when Congress refused to renew it under pressure  from the National Rifle Association, a gun advocacy group. There’s continuing  disagreement about the effectiveness of the original assault-weapons ban, and  measures like beefed-up background checks on gun sales may be more likely to  pass.

Definitions of what qualifies as an assault weapon have varied over time and  across states.

According to a summary from Feinstein’s office, her bill would place bans on  120 “specifically named firearms,” as well as certain other semiautomatic guns  — and those with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

While the 1994 law defined an assault weapon as one that had, in most cases,  a detachable magazine and at least two characteristics as set by Congress, the  new bill would define an assault weapon as one that meets just one of those  characteristics.

Some of those characteristics for rifles in the old law included a pistol  grip, a folding stock and a bayonet mount. But the Feinstein bill would strip  what her office describes as “easy-to-remove” characteristics like the bayonet  mount from that list.

Feinstein’s office says the bill would grandfather in weapons legally owned  before enactment and exempt more than 900 “specifically named weapons” for  hunting or sporting purposes.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/democrats-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban/#ixzz2IwipLnPB

Benghazi Gate – Clinton To Testify! – Where Are The State Department Employees Survivors?

January 22, 2013 in Al Qaeda, Benghazi Coverup, Benghazi Gate, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Middle East Peace, Middle East War, National Security, Obama's America 2016, President Obama, Propaganda, Shariah Law

BenghaziMore than four months after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound  in eastern Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will deliver long-awaited  testimony on the historic security failure.

The secretary, after missing prior sessions before Congress due to illness,  is set to take lawmakers’ questions Wednesday before a House and Senate  committee. As Clinton prepares to leave the department after a busy four years,  the hearing is a chance to address what is arguably the biggest controversy of  her tenure.

“There’s no question there hasn’t been the accountability within the  department,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the incoming top Republican on the Senate  Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News. “I think this is going to be the  beginning, I hope … of a top-to-bottom review.”

Congress has already held multiple hearings to date, with lower-level  officials testifying, on the Benghazi attack. The administration has gradually  backed off its position that the attack was spontaneous — an assertion that  drew the ire of congressional lawmakers who said it was clearly planned. An  official State Department-sanctioned report has resulted in several officials  leaving their current posts, after finding “systemic failures” left the Benghazi  compound inadequately protected.

The hearing Wednesday, though, is a forum for lawmakers to question Clinton  on what she might have known about requests for security at the Benghazi post —  and what she thinks should be done to improve security going forward, as she  prepares to leave the department. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has been nominated  to replace her.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Tuesday “there was no  question” that Clinton “considered it her responsibility to learn the lessons  from this, and to take the department forward in implementing whatever lessons  were learned.”

There are also questions about how the Obama administration responded to the  crisis during the Sept. 11, 2012 attack. Fox News has learned from senior U.S.  defense officials that a FAST team of Marines out of Spain was asked by State  Department officials to change out of their Marine uniforms after being asked to  leave for Libya to help — this required them to deplane and delayed them by  about 90 minutes, according to Pentagon officials.

Then there is the decision by Clinton and State Department Undersecretary of  Management Patrick Kennedy not to mobilize the Counterterrorism Security Group,  which is composed of experts on terrorism from across government agencies and  makes recommendations to the deputies who assist the president’s Cabinet in  formulating a response to crises involving terrorism.

Further, there are questions about the perceived delays CIA officials —  stationed in Benghazi — encountered that night and their frustration that air  support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News  has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that “fast fliers”  — or air support — would be above when they landed in Benghazi. They  weren’t.

Still, the department’s review board concluded: “The Board members believe  every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Chris Stevens  and Sean Smith. The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there  simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a  difference.”

Lawmakers have waited months to ask Clinton direct questions about the  Benghazi attack, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other  Americans were killed. That attack, though, may just be the starting point for  Wednesday’s hearings amid mounting questions about the hostage crisis in Algeria  and the French-led military campaign in neighboring Mali.

Corker told Fox News “there’s going to be a lot of questions about just the  overall policies of this administration as it relates to” Al Qaeda’s affiliate  in North Africa.

An Al Qaeda-tied operative has claimed responsibility for the attack at a gas  plant in Algeria that left 37 hostages dead, including three  Americans.

Corker suggested the developments challenge an administration that was  “spiking the ball on Al Qaeda” last year as the U.S. chipped away at the group’s  leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and took out Usama bin Laden the year  before that.

“That’s where the core of Al Qaeda (is), but there are all these nodes that  are scattered through Africa now that obviously are a threat to Western  civilization, and it’s as if they’ve taken their eye off the ball,” Corker  said.

Clinton was preparing to testify in December, but fell ill and was unable to  address Congress.

The State Department has thus far been sparing in its explanation of the  separate Algeria attack.

Nuland said last week that Clinton spoke with the Algerian Prime Minister and  “talked about the challenge that Algeria has had historically with  terrorism.”

Clinton later said “it is absolutely essential that we broaden and deepen our  counterterrorism cooperation going forward without Algeria and all countries of  the region.”

She said she made clear to the prime minister that “we stand ready to further  enhance the counterterrorism support that we already provide.”

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also had tough words, saying those  who try to attack Americans “will have no place to hide.”

On the House Foreign Affairs Committee, an aide to Rep. Michael McCaul,  R-Texas, also said it’s likely the Algeria hostage standoff will come up  Wednesday.

Clinton plans to testify on the Senate side at 9 a.m. ET Wednesday, and at 2  p.m. on the House side.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/22/senator-calls-for-top-to-bottom-review-state-department-ahead-clinton-testimony/#ixzz2IkkIX8y4

The Obama Administration Continues Its Capitalization of Rahm Emanuel’s Dictum

January 9, 2013 in 2nd Amendment, Abuse of Power, America's Collapse, Anarchy, Constitutional, DICTATORSHIP, Liberty in Jeopardy, National Security, Obamanation, Political Deception, President Obama, The Grand Deception, United Nations, United States Sovereignty

It goes without saying that all Americans were appalled and grief stricken by the slaughter of 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown CT.

“Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns.”

Last July, long before Newtown, Barack Hussein Obama strategically allowed his UN Gun Control talks to flounder because he was in the mist of his re-election bid. However shortly after his re-elected on November 7th,  he immediately backed a U.N. committee’s call to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate arms.

The UN treaty would have  still faced an uphill battle in the Democrat controlled Senate.  As tragic as Newtown is, Barack immediately recalled Rahm Emanuels dictum,  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

And now Biden and Obama are threatening to control our 2nd Amendment by an illegal Executive order:

The following exchange took place yesterday between Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer:

BILL O’REILLY: Why does the president want to downsize the Pentagon, the defense department? Why does he want to do that?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Because Obama has this ideological vision of America as a super power too big for its britches. And it’s a power that is thrown itself around the world. He talked about it in his initial tour of the world. And that it does not sort of have the moral standing to be the great power it was, intervening as it was, choosing where and when. And he wants to cut it down to size.

We are not dealing with an American Patriot but rather an ideologue  who has been indoctrinated and influenced by  such people as communist card carrying Frank Marshall Davis (membership card number 47544),   Edward “Buzz” and Alice Palmer,  longtime agents for the Soviet Union, Reverend Wright along with a host of other anti-American people, institutions and organizations.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton writes in Home of the Enslaved  on Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog’s Noisy Room that, “According to  Fox News and Mark Levin, the way both sides dealt with the fiscal cliff is a big step towards conflict and they are right as well. Just what does everyone think will happen when food stamps, social security, disability, pensions etc. stop, because there is no more money or money is worthless due to hyperinflation from printing? What do they think will happen when the government moves to confiscate our guns? (You think this is about protecting “the children?” Dream on.) It won’t be pretty in either scenario. Taxes, brought on the Declaration of Independence. The seizure of arms, sparked the American Revolution.

So there you have it. Obama is setting up America for a massive economic crash the likes of which will make the Great depression of 1929 seem like a cakewalk.  He has nominated Chuck Hagel to preside over the collapse of our military that will  complete the job that Leon Panetta began.  John Kerry has been nominated to pursue our further alligence and domination bythe  United Nations  and to complete our dimlomatic demise as a world leader.

Our enormous debt collapse will indeed result in our children and grandchildren becoming indentured serfs.  But we will not escape either.  When the economic collapse occurs within the next 5 years ,  there will be insurrection in our streets and we will be in the mist of it.

 

 

Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates the White House

January 7, 2013 in Freedom, Liberty in Jeopardy, Middle East Peace, Muslim Brotherhood, National Security, President Obama

 

Obama Seizing Control of the US Military – Potential Cataclysm Ahead

January 1, 2013 in Abuse of Power, America's Collapse, Anarchist, Global Revolution, Liberty in Jeopardy, National Security, President Obama, Pro-Cuban radicals, Pro-Moscow Marxists, Putin, United States Sovereignty, US Military

The following is reprinted from Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog:

Obama Seizing Control of the US Military – Potential Cataclysm Ahead

Submitted by  on December 31, 2012 – 6:30 pm EST3 Comments
Barack Obama has worked with pro-Moscow Marxists including Frank Marshall Davis and Alice Palmer, and pro-Cuban radicals like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, his entire life.Their number one priority has always been the destruction of the US military, the only significant block remaining, to global revolution.Now that the Davis/Palmer/Ayers/Dohrn protege has the reins of power, President Obama is working hard to destroy US military superiority, consciously or unconsciously, to the advantage of the Russia/China/Cuba/North Korea/Iranian/Islamic alliance.From William Bigelow at Breitbart.com:

In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.

As Bolton and Woo point out, the US has a greater global responsibility than Russia; Iran and North Korea, neither of which is far from Russian interests, can only be countered by U.S. military strength.In addition, they note that Russia is not a trustworthy partner in weapons reduction; it has violated many arms-control agreements, such as the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.

Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obama’s desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitution’s Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.

Obama has made no secret of his desire to dismantle our nuclear capacity; the New Start Treaty he championed in 2011 forced the U.S. to observe a ceiling of 700 strategic delivery vehicles and 1,550 strategic warheads, and this past March he stated his desire to cut our arsenal further:

“ … a step we have never taken before – reducing not only our strategic nuclear warheads but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve.”

It is naïve to assume that Obama is simply blind to the results of his actions and trusts the world around him to act with generosity. There has been too much evidence of Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and Russia has cunningly avoided supporting sanctions on North Korea for its rocket launches; in December, Georgy Toloraya, Director of Korean Research at the Institute of Economics, simply said:

“In Russia we believe that resolutions must be observed and UN decisions must be implemented. We think that North Korea has the right for space explorations but only after all the issues linked with the UN sanctions banning rocket launches with the use of ballistic technologies are settled. It is necessary to divide two aspects – we support the discussion of the rocket launch issue by the UN Security Council but we don’t think that this must automatically mean tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.”

Obama knows all this. His step-by-step evisceration of the United States is not confined to its economic system but its national defense as well.

I go a little further. I say that Obama is happy to wreck the US economy, because this will enable him to completely destroy US military defensive capability. This is the REAL agenda of the left. The people Obama has worked with his entire life.

Four more years of Obama may well bring America to the point of no return.

If Obama is allowed to realize the Davis/Palmer/Ayers/Dohrn vision of a militarily impotent America, Americans will be faced with two very harsh choices.

Lay down your arms and give up your sovereignty to a United Nations world superstate.

Or face the combined military might of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, possibly Pakistan, Indonesia and Brazil, and several other countries… with hardly a friend in the world to come to your aid.

This won’t be a one or two front conflict. This will be a multi-polar, all out attack on the US homeland.

Americans need to wake up. And fast.

See the entire story with comments at: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2012/12/obama-seizing-control-of-the-us-military-potential-cataclysm-ahead/

Susan Rice Should Not Get Promoted – She Should be Canned for Malfeasance

December 1, 2012 in Abuse of Power, Benghazi Coverup, Benghazi Gate, Bill Clinton, Congress, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Israel, Liars, Middle East Peace, National Security, Political Deception, President Obama, Propaganda, radical islam, US Foreign Policy

Who is Susan Rice?

We first hear about Susan Rice During Michael Dukakis’s 1988 bid for president, where  she served as a foreign policy aide.

She later served in various capacities in the Clinton Administration from 1993 t0 2001. Secretary of State  Madeleine Albright who was a long time mentor and family friend to Rice,urged President Clinton, in 1997, to appoint her as  Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. She served as the 12th Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1997 to 2001.

 In 2002, she joined the Brookings Institution as senior-fellow in the Foreign Policy program. In an article in  the Daly Bell, the Brookings Institution is described  “…like other think tanks, the Brookings Institute’s real purpose is to justify big government for the power elite.”

In january, 2009, Susan Rice  became the 27th United States Ambassador to the United Nations for the  Barack Obama Administration.  

As a result of recent Congressional criticism about  her handling of the Administrations Benghazi Debacle, Susan Rice’s career has come under scrutiny with some very disturbing conclusions and had John McCain calling her “Unfit” for the job. 

In a November 29th Wall Street Journal Article , The Trouble With Susan Rice – The would-be secretary of state’s record on Iran, Israel, human rights and more  by Anne Bayefsky and Michael B. Mukasey, they point out her utter diplomatic disregard for Israel’s  case against a Nuclear Iran as follows:

 “Senators might also explore Ms. Rice’s broader record at the U.N. Why, for example, did she think it was appropriate to absent herself from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s September speech to the General Assembly, the purpose of which was to offer the global community a painstaking explanation of why Iran must be stopped before it can weaponize its growing stock of enriched uranium.”

 

And finally Richard Grenell has researched and published:

 

30 Reasons Why Susan Rice Should Not Get Promoted

By Richard Grenell Thursday, November 29, 2012

Ambassador Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, as President Obama told us, but she appeared on five Sunday political talk shows anyway. On those shows, Rice mouthed talking points that weren’t true. We now know that the talking points did not match the intel reports, which she had complete access to. While the national media debates whether or not she knowingly mislead the public on the Sunday shows, her failings and shortcomings before the Benghazi terrorist attacks have not received the attention they deserve.

Here are 30 reasons (that have nothing to do with Benghazi) why Susan Rice should not get a promotion.

1. failed to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council after the 2010 Haiti earthquake
2. skipped the Security Council debate and vote to add new UN Peacekeepers in Haiti after the earthquake
3. led the US during the most inactive Security Council since 1991 during her first year as Ambassador
4. held her first press conference with the UN Secretary General on the pressing international issue of texting while driving
5. failed to speak out when Col. Gaddafi’s Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Commission
6. waited 17 months before voting on the one and only UN resolution on Iran passed during her tenure
7. dismissed by Hillary Clinton from negotiating most of the Iran resolution with the French
8. lost the support of more nations on her one Iran resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined
9. took 103 days to move the Security Council to issue a statement after a North Korean submarine sank the South Korean ship that killed 46 sailors
10. took 18 days to lead the Security Council to action after a North Korean nuclear test (it took John Bolton 5 days in 2006)
11. failed to support the Iranian opposition during their Green Revolution
12. failed to speak out when Iran was elected to the UN Women’s Commission
13. skipped the UN Security Council’s emergency meeting on the Gaza flotilla crisis
14. snubbed Israel to the point they skipped President Obama’s 2010 UN speech
15. took more than 2 years to find someone to head America’s UN reform team
16. failed to address the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to ascertain how erroneous scientific claims were added to official UN reports
17. painfully slow in getting a UN resolution on the Sudan-South Sudan referendum
18. ignored Canada’s pleas for help in getting elected to the Security Council
19. negotiated with the UN’s Arab Group to condemn Israel’s settlements
20. failed to lead the Security Council during Tunisia’s Arab Spring protests
21. didn’t speak out on the Libya crisis until the French, British and Arab League had done so
22. failed to attend the first Security Council meeting on the Arab Spring protests
23. failed to get the support of allies India, Germany and Brazil on the UN’s Libya resolution
24. failed to lead the Security Council during Egypt’s Arab Spring protests
25. failed to lead the Security Council during Yemen’s Arab Spring protests
26. failed to lead the Security Council to confront Bashar al-Assad’s brutal violence where US resolutions received an unprecedented three vetoes on three different votes
27. agreed to send former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Syria where he failed miserably
28. skipped the last open meeting before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood
29. failed to speak out when Iran was elected vice president of the Global Arms Treaty negotiations
30. delayed Security Council action and the UN report on Rwanda

 

Richard Grenell served as a spokesman for the previous four U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. He also served, briefly, as national security spokesperson for Mitt Romney in his campaign for President of the United States. To learn more, go to www.richardgrenell.com

30 Reasons Why Susan Rice Should Not Get Promoted originally appeared on The Project to Restore America. Learn more about The Project and get involved today.

 

The Project to Restore America

Why Obama Admin “Lied” To America- New Cabled Show Security Situation In BenGhazi, Libya! – Wake Up America!

November 3, 2012 in 2012 Election, America's Collapse, Benghazi Coverup, Benghazi Gate, Economic Deception, Election, Gun Control, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security, Impeachment, Media Bias, Middle East Peace, Middle East War, National Security, Obama's America 2016, Oust Obama, Political Deception, President Obama

Barack Hussein Obama Put His Personal Interest In Front Of America’s.

Our Country Is In Danger when We Have a Man That Put His Personal Interrest in front of our Country.

Our Nation is In Danger Of Collapse If We do not Change Course  So Wake Up America Before It Is To Late To save Our Country

Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account

By Adam Housley Published November 03, 2012 FoxNews.com

Despite a carefully narrated version of events rolled out late this week by the CIA claiming agents jumped into action as soon as they were notified of calls for help in Benghazi, security officials on the ground say calls for help went out considerably earlier — and signs of an attack were mounting even before that.   The accounts, from foreign and American security officials in and around Benghazi at the time of the attack, indicate there was in fact a significant lag between when the threat started to show itself and help started to arrive.   According to the CIA, the first calls for assistance came at 9:40 p.m. local time from a senior State Department official at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, to the CIA annex about a mile away.   But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack began.   One source said the Blue Mountain Security chief seemed “distraught” and said “the situation here is very serious, we have a problem.” He also said that even without these phone and radio calls, it was clear to everyone in the security community on the ground in Benghazi much earlier than 9:40 p.m. that fighters were gathering in preparation for an attack.   Many of these security contractors and intelligence sources on the ground in Benghazi met twice a week for informal meetings at the consulate with Blue Mountain and consulate staff, and at times other international officials. They were all very familiar with security at the consulate — and said the staff seemed “complacent” and “didn’t seem to follow the normal American way of securing a facility.”   Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to “heavily armed troops showing up with artillery.” Fox News was told by both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only “loosely based on the truth” and “doesn’t quite add up.”   Fox News was also told that the local guard force meant to protect the consulate perimeter “panicked” and didn’t know what to do as the attackers took up positions. Sources say other guards simply “walked away”.      One former Special Op now employed by a private company in Benghazi said that even the safe room wasn’t properly set up. He said “the safe room is one of the first measures you take” and that he is “not sure how you can set a safe room without fire suppression and ventilation in case of fire.” He also said, “Ambassador Stevens would likely be alive today if this simple and normal procedure was put into place.”   As details emerge of serious security issues before the attack on Sept. 11, Fox News is also beginning to hear more frustration from sources both on the ground in Benghazi and in the U.S. Multiple British and American sources insist there were other capabilities in the region and are mystified why none were used. Fox News was told there were not only armed drones that monitor Libyan chemical weapon sites in the area, but also F-18’s, AC-130 aircraft and even helicopters that could have been dispatched in a timely fashion.      British intelligence sources said that unarmed drones routinely flew over Benghazi every night in flight patterns and that armed drones which fly over chemical sites, some a short flight from Benghazi, “were always said to be on call.” American sources confirmed this and questioned “why was a drone armed only with a camera dispatched?”   Another source added, “Why would they put a ragtag team together in Tripoli as first responders? This is not even what they do for a living. We had a first responder air base in Italy almost the same distance away.” Despite the team arriving from Tripoli that night, sources said sufficient American back-up never came.   British sources on the ground in Benghazi said they are extremely frustrated by the attack and are still wondering why they weren’t called for help. “We have more people on the ground here than the Americans and I just don’t know why we didn’t get the call?” one said.   Both American and British sources said, at the very least, the security situation on the ground and the lack of proper response were the result of “complete incompetence.” The covert team that came in from Tripoli was held up at the Benghazi airport for more than three hours by Libyan officials. Sources said the team notified officials in Washington that they were being delayed within 30 minutes of their arrival.   They also point out that these questions “don’t even address the military capabilities of our United Nations ally Turkey, who (has) forces available a similarly short flight away.” Fox News has learned that Turkey had a number of embassy staff in town the night of the attack and that the Turkish consul general met with Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi the night he and the three other Americans were killed.   One source asked, “Were the Turks not warned? What forces were available from our ally Turkey? Especially since they had officials there in Benghazi also and had to be concerned … and where was the U.N. in all of this?”   Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/exclusive-security-officials-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/#ixzz2BBG44LxS