I'm so glad to see that American Crossroads is firing back with a great ad that hits the bullseye directly at the critics of Fox News (as well as conservative bloggers and others). All the other cable news and regular news show kept the status quo to protect the Dem criminals involved. ABC and others previously tried to play along with the lies coming out of the ObaMARXIST BADministration and the State Department (Hillary Clinton's lying butt on the line re: presidential run in 2016) over the past 8 months.
See more American Crossroads videos HERE.
Also, as Legal Insurrection characterized it:
Benghazi leaks finally breaking the damn media dam - ABC News: Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference.
Hmmm....I guess ABC is one alphabet soup media of mass corruption outfit that has finally decided to start telling the truth regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack of 9/11/12 and the subsequent 8 month cover-up that ensued.
It's about time!!
Hope this ends Hillary's chances in 2016 and runs Obamafraud out of the White House, like Mike Huckabee has predicted. And Mr. Zero can take Biden with him!
The next-in-line still standing in official Constitutional lineage after the scandal sends the crooks (Hillary, Obama, Biden) packing, is Republican House Speaker, John Boehner. What a glorious day THAT will be!
Hat tips to all links.
Showing posts with label betrayal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label betrayal. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency
Sometimes, researchers can find articles from the past to help make sense of what is REALLY going on under the immediate radar of the American people! However, when the proper research is done, what may seem sensational at first actually becomes logically disturbing (as is pointed out by Pat Dollard in article below) and "suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense."
The following article is copied in its entirety, because I want a record of it all here at Talk Wisdom.
I refuse to post the photos here; especially the face of Ovomit (and that is NOT a strong enough name for the treasonous...well...what comes to mind?...you finish the sentence) or his backside bowing to a Saudi king!
Please spread this far and wide. Apparently, this article was posted over 5 months ago! However, this is the first time that I have seen it. I have read various articles about this possibility before, but none of them put it all together like this one!
Hat tip to Commieblaster for including the link on their webpage which led me to both the Pat Dollard commentary and the original article at the Daily Interlake.com site!
~ Christine
*******
Copy of article posted at Pat Dollard's site:
Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.
Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
He was, of course, right.
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.
Footnotes from The Daily Interlake.com site:
Footnotes:
1) “Will Arabs Back Ties to Blacks With Cash?” by Vernon Jarrett — http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19791106&id=RcFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6597,1456637&hl=en
2) Percy Sutton interview on NY1, March 2008 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug&e
3) The National and International Roundtable posted a one-hour interview with Khalid al-Mansour and other African American Association leaders on the Internet just last week. In the introduction of al-Mansour, the black host notes that his guest had been a patron of Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School. You will note that al-Mansour does not correct him.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/solutionsnowradio/2012/09/19/the-national-and-international-roundtable#.UFptoKF6-yA.blogger
4) “All in the (Political) Family,” by Paul Kengor — http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/03/all-in-the-political-family
5) “Dreams from my Father,” by Barack Obama — http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-From-My-Father-Inheritance/dp/B000R9EG3Q
6) “Why Obama’s College Records Matter,” By Monte Kuligowski — http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/why_obamas_college_records_matter.html
7) “Who is Khalid al-Mansour?” by Kenneth R. Timmerman — http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/khalid-al-mansour-Obama/2008/09/04/id/325191
Hat tips: Pat Dollard.com Daily Interlake.com
*******
HORRIFIED YET???
The following article is copied in its entirety, because I want a record of it all here at Talk Wisdom.
I refuse to post the photos here; especially the face of Ovomit (and that is NOT a strong enough name for the treasonous...well...what comes to mind?...you finish the sentence) or his backside bowing to a Saudi king!
Please spread this far and wide. Apparently, this article was posted over 5 months ago! However, this is the first time that I have seen it. I have read various articles about this possibility before, but none of them put it all together like this one!
Hat tip to Commieblaster for including the link on their webpage which led me to both the Pat Dollard commentary and the original article at the Daily Interlake.com site!
~ Christine
*******
Copy of article posted at Pat Dollard's site:
Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.
Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
He was, of course, right.
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.
Footnotes from The Daily Interlake.com site:
Footnotes:
1) “Will Arabs Back Ties to Blacks With Cash?” by Vernon Jarrett — http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19791106&id=RcFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6597,1456637&hl=en
2) Percy Sutton interview on NY1, March 2008 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug&e
3) The National and International Roundtable posted a one-hour interview with Khalid al-Mansour and other African American Association leaders on the Internet just last week. In the introduction of al-Mansour, the black host notes that his guest had been a patron of Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School. You will note that al-Mansour does not correct him.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/solutionsnowradio/2012/09/19/the-national-and-international-roundtable#.UFptoKF6-yA.blogger
4) “All in the (Political) Family,” by Paul Kengor — http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/03/all-in-the-political-family
5) “Dreams from my Father,” by Barack Obama — http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-From-My-Father-Inheritance/dp/B000R9EG3Q
6) “Why Obama’s College Records Matter,” By Monte Kuligowski — http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/why_obamas_college_records_matter.html
7) “Who is Khalid al-Mansour?” by Kenneth R. Timmerman — http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/khalid-al-mansour-Obama/2008/09/04/id/325191
Hat tips: Pat Dollard.com Daily Interlake.com
*******
HORRIFIED YET???
Friday, February 22, 2013
Matt Bracken: Democide
In case you missed this very sobering video in my Day of Resistance post, I am sharing it again along with written commentary from Western Rifle Shooters Association blog.
If you care ANYTHING AT ALL about our freedoms here in America, then I urge you to watch the video, read the commentary written by Matt Bracken, and then share on your blog, website, forum, Face Book page etc. so that more people will be educated and informed regarding what is really at stake when ObaMARXIST and his ilk want to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of We The People; RIGHTS that are given to us under God first, and then under the Charters of Freedom that are guaranteed by our United States Constitution!!
~ Christine
Full Text of essay:
Quote:
Spread this latest work by Matt Bracken and friends far and wide, especially the video:
Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom
Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.
The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.
The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.
Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.
In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German national socialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.
Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.
Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)
Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.
In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.
The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.
In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.
Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.
During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.
The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.
“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.
So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.
Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.
The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.
While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.
American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.
Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.
But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.
Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”
If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”
You want our guns? Then come and take them!
No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!
Freedom now, freedom forever!
Please see the YouTube video of the same title. /unquote
Hat tip: Western Rifle Shooters Association - Bracken: Democide
*******
The following is a video sarcastically entitled, "A Tribute to Communism" by the creator. The reason being that there are a lot of pro-communist propaganda videos on Youtube, "celebrating" the tenets of that evil ideology. Prepare yourself for another devastatingly sobering account (as has been masterfully described in the essay above by Matt Bracken) of the real truth about what ObaMAO and his ilk believe. Remember, as CommieBlaster.com informs us on a daily basis, the links between the following ideologies which are held by most in the ObaMARXIST BADministration cannot be ignored!
PROGRESSIVES = SOCIALISTS = COMMUNISTS = LEFT-WING RADICALS = ANTI-CAPITALISTS = UNAMERICAN
If you care ANYTHING AT ALL about our freedoms here in America, then I urge you to watch the video, read the commentary written by Matt Bracken, and then share on your blog, website, forum, Face Book page etc. so that more people will be educated and informed regarding what is really at stake when ObaMARXIST and his ilk want to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of We The People; RIGHTS that are given to us under God first, and then under the Charters of Freedom that are guaranteed by our United States Constitution!!
~ Christine
Full Text of essay:
Quote:
Spread this latest work by Matt Bracken and friends far and wide, especially the video:
Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom
Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.
The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.
The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.
Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.
In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German national socialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.
Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.
Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)
Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.
In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.
The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.
In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.
Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.
During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.
The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.
“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.
So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.
Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.
The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.
While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.
American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.
Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.
But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.
Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”
If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”
You want our guns? Then come and take them!
No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!
Freedom now, freedom forever!
Please see the YouTube video of the same title. /unquote
Hat tip: Western Rifle Shooters Association - Bracken: Democide
*******
The following is a video sarcastically entitled, "A Tribute to Communism" by the creator. The reason being that there are a lot of pro-communist propaganda videos on Youtube, "celebrating" the tenets of that evil ideology. Prepare yourself for another devastatingly sobering account (as has been masterfully described in the essay above by Matt Bracken) of the real truth about what ObaMAO and his ilk believe. Remember, as CommieBlaster.com informs us on a daily basis, the links between the following ideologies which are held by most in the ObaMARXIST BADministration cannot be ignored!
PROGRESSIVES = SOCIALISTS = COMMUNISTS = LEFT-WING RADICALS = ANTI-CAPITALISTS = UNAMERICAN
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Treason, Fraud, and Obstruction of Justice within the Supreme Court of the United States?
Hat tip for photo: Kevin D. at Tea Party Community
Found a new website called Red Flag News today and added it to my blog roll.
While reading posts at the site, I ran across this bombshell:
Red Flag News.com: Treason, Fraud, and Obstruction of Justice within the Supreme Court of the United States?
Copy of post:
Is there anyone in America (except, of course, the liberal left lunatics who support Obummer and his radical ilk no matter what!!) who is not alarmed, appalled and disgusted about this obvious obstruction of justice???
Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings regarding Obama Forged IDs & Eligibility, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress...
Read the letter demanding an investigation to Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Political Velcraft.org: Press Release: Employees Of The Supreme Court Of The United States Caught With-Holding Legal Documents From Supreme Court Justices!
Excerpt:
Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress.You can go to the link at Political Velcraft.org to read the entire letter written and send to Rep. Goodlatte.
Two comments there that help sum up exactly what (and why) President Abraham Lincoln warned us to watch out for the deliberate perversion of the Constitution by treasonous and evil elitists who might get into our government and suppress the truth (see the quote at the top of the page):
Comment #1:
Karol Hancock says:
Anyone can go to http://www.supremecourt.gov at the bottom of the screen, look for “contact us”, this will take you to a page with phone numbers, address and email. You can leave an email, which they will receive today when they come in. It would be easy to flood the email and phone calls. We as citizens of America are entitled to request that our highest court review the information and hold a hearing on the same, that has been presented by Orly Taitz, Our Constitution says our President must be a “natural born citizen”, which means 2 parents that are citizens. Anyone running for the office of President of the United States, must provide proof of citizenship with a valid birth certificate and legal documentation, Social Security Number, Drivers License, Selective Services Registration. It is a known public fact, that all of Obama’s papers are forgeries. His birth certificate from Kenya has been located, it is in England, however, Obama has paid again to have it sealed. The Supreme Court can demand this be opened and England will abide. We must exercise our Constitutional rights and request or demand that the Justices of our highest court, The Supreme Court follow the Constitution that they swore an oath to.
Comment #2:
Hat tips to all links.
gigiregnier says:
Orly Taitz’s, based on proof of his foreign birth, made it to the Supreme Court and there the clerks HID the records!!!!!!!!!! Call the Judiciary at 202-225-3951 , 9-6 eastern time, M-F
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Politicians Stealing Our Votes and Our Liberty
When I visit the usual links in my sidebar blog roll, sometimes the most interesting things I find are not in the original blog post - but found in the comment section.
While reading The Ulsterman Report yesterday: INSIDER vs INSIDER: “STOLEN – STOLEN – STOLEN…” I discovered a link to a very interesting website written by Jon Christian Ryter.
The link at Ulsterman took me directly to the following article:
Jon Christian Ryter's Two Cents Worth: Is John Q. Public really as stupid as he looks? It is important to read the entire article in order to see the evidence of voter fraud being exposed by the author. However, I have shared a few excerpts below. [BTW, the link (within the second paragraph below) to Mr. Ryter's article written on November 28, 2009 is a STINGING one and in many ways prophetic about the terrible condition of America today as a result of the BHO BADministration.]
Near the conclusion of the article, we find that "waiting for the next election in 2016" probably won't change anything. SOMETHING needs to be done NOW about this theft! It is TREASON - not the "pure and simple" kind, but the DIRTY, TREACHEROUS, AND TRAITOROUS KIND!
While reading The Ulsterman Report yesterday: INSIDER vs INSIDER: “STOLEN – STOLEN – STOLEN…” I discovered a link to a very interesting website written by Jon Christian Ryter.
The link at Ulsterman took me directly to the following article:
Jon Christian Ryter's Two Cents Worth: Is John Q. Public really as stupid as he looks? It is important to read the entire article in order to see the evidence of voter fraud being exposed by the author. However, I have shared a few excerpts below. [BTW, the link (within the second paragraph below) to Mr. Ryter's article written on November 28, 2009 is a STINGING one and in many ways prophetic about the terrible condition of America today as a result of the BHO BADministration.]
Or, are the politicians so shrewd they can stealFurther down within the article, we have pertinent information about the cure:
your liberty and leave you thinking you just voted
in an honest election—which they just stole?
Sorry...the answer is: both of the above.
On November 28, 2009 I wrote a piece entitled Forgot the past? Here's the future. It's a piece that every American who expects to vote in an honest election should have not only read, but made sure that every friend, family member and distant relative read as well. About 50 thousand people read it. And, after the initial shock of what they had read, 50 thousand people said, "Someone needs to do something about this." And then each went back to busying themselves with whatever it was they were doing before they read that piece on Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World.
The article's name is even more appropriate today than it was when I wrote it three years ago. Sadly, in three short years we, as a nation, have conveniently forgotten the past. We seem to view vote theft not a criminal act—just crooked politics. In 2008, Barack Obama—a man, by all appearances, who is not eligible to run for State or national political office in the United States—stole the Office of the Presidency in 2008 with the help of ACORN, MoveOn.org and Bill Clinton's National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the Motor Voter Act) which was legislated by a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate during the first year of Clinton's presidency to make it easier for minorities and illegals to vote in national elections.
In point of fact, as the elections of 2008 and 2012 verify, when you control what goes in and comes out of the ballot box, you can't lose the election. For example, in 2008, 96,992,000 registered voters who actually voted somehow cast 132,618,580 ballots. Not to be much outdone by 2008, in 2012, 90,682,968 registered voters somehow delivered 126,985,809 ballots.The 2012 numbers will forever remain unclear because, according to thousands of reports from registered Republican voters in the battleground States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Colorado—who always vote on Election Day—when they showed up at their local voting precinct on Nov. 6, 2012 to cast their ballots for Mitt Romney, they discovered their names had voted early, and its a safe bet that the invisible surrogates who stole their vote cast their ballots for Obama. The Democrats learned a whole new meaning—and use—for the term "data-mining" in 2012.Congress needs to fix this—of the Supreme Court does. Here is the reality. Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the US Constitution mandates that as far as voting for President of the United States, that voting—all of it—must constitutionally happen on one day. And that day will necessarily be the same day throughout the entire United States. The Constitution mandates ONE DAY when the people vote for the person they wish to lead the nation. That day will be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every four years. Period. Pay attention, people! Congress has no authority to enact any laws to provide early voting without first amending the Constitution of the United States. Congress does possess the right to change the date of the national election, but the Constitution mandates that all ballots by all people must be cast on the same day. The politicians who need to steal power to have power need stealth to win. When they are forced to act in the light of day with the nation watching, they become a little more honest.
Near the conclusion of the article, we find that "waiting for the next election in 2016" probably won't change anything. SOMETHING needs to be done NOW about this theft! It is TREASON - not the "pure and simple" kind, but the DIRTY, TREACHEROUS, AND TRAITOROUS KIND!
What happened to voter rights in 2008 and again in 2012 was not "just politics as usual" It is felony theft. But, it was more than that. Political parties, financed by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business committed treason against the People of the United States of America. While most people think of treason as aiding and abetting a foreign government in the overthrow the nation, it's more than that. On a slightly lesser scale, the theft of an election is, or can be, the overthrowing of the form of government the majority of the People voted to restore or maintain. And it is treason.
If "We the People" intend to restore a free and honest government, we need to get rid of the crooked politicians whose seats are secured by rigged ballot boxes and the largess of wealthy fat cats who enrich themselves by buying access to the legislation they need. As Americans, we need to start telling ourselves the whole truth about how corrupt our government is. And, even more important, when all of the local, regional and national election data and exit polling tell us that "Candidate A" will beat "Candidate B," and when the best political strategists in the country are telling the numbers-crunchers there's something wrong with their numbers—you can bet there is. Particularly when the left produces 35,626,580 more votes than voters in 2008, and 36,292,841 more votes than voters in 2012, you simply don't ignore it because you can't explain it. What it means is that someone is stealing the election. You don't play "good sport" and concede. You initiate a constitutional crisis because that's what stealing an election is—a constitutional crisis. And, when 200,000 white voter votes in Ohio simply vanish it isn't a "puzzle." It's a constitutional crisis. Let's put this wordy article in simple terms that Samuel Adams and John Hancock would easily understand. Someone's trying to steal the country.
HAT TIP: Jon Christian Ryter
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Glenn: Obama A Danger To The United States of America
Glenn Beck is recorded on video here and at his website explaining the reasons why Obama is a danger to the United States of America.
~ Christine
*******
Copy of post at Glenn's website:
~ Christine
*******
Copy of post at Glenn's website:
On radio this morning, Glenn dedicated a full hour of the radio show to laying out all the evidence on Libya that the White House has been ignoring.Hat tips to all links.
On an ABC News report last night, it has now become clear that there was no protest going on outside of the embassy in Benghazi:
“This is significantly different than what we were being told at the time. At the time, as you recall, we were told it was a protest that went bad and became an attack. Now, we are told there was no protest going on outside that embassy. The first indication that they heard anything outside the walls of the embassy — of the consulate compound, was an explosion and gunfire. They looked through a camera to see what was going on and we are told they saw a large number of armed men coming and approaching that compound. We’re told it was a very complex attack without precedent in U.S. diplomatic history. We’ve never seen an attack like this in Libya or anywhere else, we were told by this senior State Department official,” Karl reported.“The translation to English from political bullcrap: We’ve been lied to,” Glenn said in response to the news.
Glenn said that this is just the latest in revelations that the White House and the Obama Administration must have known, at the very least, that the Libyan embassy was at risk. The Heritage Foundation has released a timeline outlining the evidence that shows that despite credible information that the embassy could come under attack there was little to no security precautions taken by those in charge. The timeline includes attacks on the embassy prior to 9/11/2012, as well as dangers in the surrounding area and requests for increased security dating back to April of 2012.
Even worse was the response from the White House. The immediate response from Sec. of State Clinton and President Obama was to condemn the attacks, but they also condemned a controversial YouTube video that they said incited the violence in the Middle East. As TheBlaze TV has been pointing out for several weeks, one element of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to wage cultural jihad against the West is to outlaw blasphemy against Islam.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney came out and instantly condemned the attacks with a strong rebuke of Obama’s foreign policy, only to be mocked by the media.
Glenn also said there are several unanswered questions that still have not been answered by the White House, including why Ambassador Stevens was travelling with men who were working to recover US arms in the area. Glenn has his own theories, and has also gotten word from unnamed sources in the State Department that have been “sending up flares”.
Glenn said that people need to understand the following: The President and his administration lied on Day One about the nature of the attacks; the White House and the media advanced a Muslim Brotherhood agenda point by blaming the anti-Islamic YouTube video; officials in the State Department and other government agencies are starting to speak up and warn the American people; what is happening in the Middle East affects the security of America.
As a result of all of the above, Glenn said there are several conclusions that need to be drawn. First and foremost, the American people, especially those informed on what is really going on in the world, need to be the ones spreading the truth.
Second, it has become clear the Arab Spring was a failure.
Third, radical Islamists are stronger than ever. The death of Osama bin Laden does not mean Al Qaida has been destroyed, as they have been linked to the attacks on the Libyan embassy.
Fourth, the Muslim Brotherhood is bad and they have infiltrated several institutions in America.
Finally, the Obama administration and several people in the State Department and other organizations are on the wrong side of this story – either knowingly or unknowingly.
“If it’s not intentional, it is criminally negligent,” Glenn said on his final point.
But Glenn said even if it is unintentional, he wondered how we could trust someone with such a poor record on Middle East policy to be the President of the United States. And if you combine this with all the other “bumps in the road” and issues that have come up over the past few years – rising gas prices, rising unemployment, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Iranian uprising, the Arab Spring, and more – even if they are all things that he can’t be expected to handle, do we really want to re-elect him as President?
After all, Mitt Romney made the right call on Libya from the start, even when the media mocked him.
“Every time when the President shoots from the hip, he’s wrong. And when he’s informed, he’s wrong. No mincing words: This President, whether he knows it or not, is a dangerous to the United States of America.”
Friday, November 02, 2012
UT San Diego: You Have The Blood Of An American Hero On Your Hands
The good news regarding the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11/12 in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in the deaths of four Americans is that some in the mainstream media refuse to no longer ignore the incontrovertible evidence of the White House’s dishonesty and incompetence. The disgraceful and obvious cover-up by the Obama BADministration is being exposed, at last, by more than just Fox News (which broke all the accumulating evidence) and the blogs which have been sharing the truth as it all unfolds from day one.
~ Christine
*******
UT San Diego: ‘YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF AN AMERICAN HERO ON YOUR HANDS’
Copy of article:
*******
Be sure to read:
Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi
~ Christine
*******
UT San Diego: ‘YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF AN AMERICAN HERO ON YOUR HANDS’
Copy of article:
What did President Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Why has the Obama administration kept changing its story about how Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach and Glen Doherty of Encinitas, and information officer Sean Smith, who grew up in San Diego, died on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya? Why won’t the mainstream media treat the incontrovertible evidence of the White House’s dishonesty and incompetence like the ugly scandal it obviously is?
These are all questions that demand to be answered after revelations that demolished the tidy narrative the president has been offering about Benghazi.
Until last week, the White House had taken a moderate hit over the fact that for two weeks after it happened, officials had fostered the impression that the four Americans were killed Sept. 11 in a spontaneous protest triggered by a blasphemous anti-Islam video posted on YouTube – not by a coordinated terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. But administration officials pushed back by saying the “fog of war” had left them uncertain about events, and that when White House press secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had cited the video, they were only repeating the best available information they had. The president’s repeated comments conveyed the impression that he wasn’t aware of the attacks as they were unfolding, saying only that the next day, he ordered increased security for embassies in the area.
But after a torrent of leaks of official emails and communiqués – likely coming from CIA officials who refuse to participate in a cover-up and/or who won’t accept the role of scapegoat – the “fog of war” narrative looks like damage control: a determined attempt to keep the facts from the public until after the Nov. 6 election. After the leaks, the president suddenly changed his story to say he was aware of the attacks as they unfolded and had quickly issued an order to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”
There was no “fog.” There was no spontaneous uprising. Thanks to a drone and other surveillance technology, the White House’s national security team knew in real time that the U.S. consulate and a “safe house” a mile away in Benghazi were under coordinated attack by a well-armed group, not from a protest that unexpectedly escalated. Over a seven-hour span on Sept. 11, the besieged Americans made at least two urgent requests for help; the U.S. military has considerable assets in the area that could have been deployed to Benghazi.
Who told the besieged Americans they were out of luck?
After hints appeared in the media that it was the CIA’s fault, the spy agency – obviously at the behest of CIA Director David Petraeus – put out a statement Friday that flatly denied it opposed coming to the rescue of Stevens, Woods, Doherty and Smith. At roughly the same time, in a TV interview, the president offered his new narrative of being aware of the crisis and taking decisive action, while refusing to answer the direct question of whether Americans in Benghazi requested help but were rejected. A day later, however, the White House said in fact that it had never received requests for help. This sets up the Pentagon to take the fall.
On Monday, incredibly, Obama acted put-upon by the questions about his administration’s integrity. In a TV appearance, he said, “I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.” Remember, the president made this statement only after leaks the previous week demolished his and his administration’s dishonest, intentionally misleading Benghazi narrative.
It has now been seven weeks since the terrorist attack. We deserve to know the truth. Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL from Imperial Beach, said it best in a Monday TV interview.
“I can’t imagine anyone with any heart that would watch a battle rage for seven hours knowing that heroes were there that were going to be slaughtered if you didn’t have help sent in. ... Whoever it was that was in that room watching that video of my son dying, their cries for help, their order ‘don’t help them at all, let them die’ ... you have the blood of my son, you have the blood of an American hero on your hands. I don’t know who you are, but one of these days the truth will come out.”
The senior Woods is correct. Inevitably, there will be a bipartisan fact-finding commission into this terrible tragedy and its cover-up.
Unless the mainstream media stops abetting the cover-up and the facts come out without a commission wielding subpoena power.
Isn’t this a story – a gigantic story?
Of course. But we fear that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post will only choose to realize how obvious this is after Nov. 6. Then it will come to them – spontaneously, we’re sure.
Hat Tip:
UT San Diego*******
Be sure to read:
Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi
The burning question is why Obama didn't give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi. The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Video - Navy SEAL Ty Woods Dad: People in the White House Have My Son's Blood On Their Hands
Originally, I wanted to share the following video on my former post, Facebook Censors Navy SEALs To Protect Obama On Benghazi-Gate. But after watching the emotional video, I decided that it needed a blog post all it's own. Be sure to watch it all the way to the end. It made me tear up, but also made me extremely proud of this Christian military family.
~ Christine
Hat Tip: We The People
~ Christine
Hat Tip: We The People
Saturday, October 27, 2012
White House Insider: Benghazi Cover-up Is HUGE!!
Dear Readers:
If you are not familiar with White House Insider, then I suggest you become familiar. Why? Because you will read things about ObamaFRAUD and his ilk that you might not ever read anywhere else! What's more, the links in the comment section tell MORE of the story than perhaps any single blog post could!
I'm pressed for time right now so here is the link:
VTX
Hat tip:
The Ulsterman Report and all links.
*******
Update: Also see: Wolf Howling: The Benghazi Scandal Worsens
*******
If you are not familiar with White House Insider, then I suggest you become familiar. Why? Because you will read things about ObamaFRAUD and his ilk that you might not ever read anywhere else! What's more, the links in the comment section tell MORE of the story than perhaps any single blog post could!
I'm pressed for time right now so here is the link:
BE SURE to read through the comment section - ESPECIALLY the comments about General Ham and what has happened to him since the Benghazi cover-up! [They are located near the end of the comment section and posted at end of this blog post.]
Here are a few of the important comments there:
AmericaTheBeautiful
Obama and Panetta on the same page…
Interesting link here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2950882/posts
Comment #2 — Gen Ham was fired 30 seconds after deciding to intervene in Benghazi: I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.
quote:
“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africon.
I found this story when I got home after hearing this story.
quote:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced.
As I was typing this I heard John Bolton on Greta say that there are conflicting reports of General Ham’s comments on this tragedy and why a rapid response unit was not deployed. Bolton says someone needs to find out what Ham was saying on 9/11/12
Interesting link here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2950882/posts
Comment #2 — Gen Ham was fired 30 seconds after deciding to intervene in Benghazi: I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.
quote:
“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africon.
I found this story when I got home after hearing this story.
quote:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced.
As I was typing this I heard John Bolton on Greta say that there are conflicting reports of General Ham’s comments on this tragedy and why a rapid response unit was not deployed. Bolton says someone needs to find out what Ham was saying on 9/11/12
VTX
VTX
*******
Update: Also see: Wolf Howling: The Benghazi Scandal Worsens
*******
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Benghazi Research: Obama Arming al-Qaeda – Reason for Libya Cover Up? We Think It’s Even Bigger (New Maps of CIA Annex Included)
Blogs and Fox News are going to finally expose all that needs to be known about the Benghazi Massacre and massive attempts to cover-up the truth!! PLEASE READ the latest post over at The Last Refuge: Benghazi Research: Obama Arming al-Qaeda – Reason for Libya Cover Up? We Think It’s Even Bigger (New Maps of CIA Annex Included)
. [Note: Only a text excerpt below. Go to The Last Refuge blog to view maps and videos included in blog post.]
Excerpt:
To read more also click on The Last Refuge blog.
Some pertinent comments:
Sharon says:
I'm so sick to my stomach....
*******
Hat tips to all links.
*******
Update:
Also see: Live Leak.com: footage from Libyan consul attack shows gunmen sent by pres of Egypt
[Note: The video was scrubbed from Youtube.]
*******
Excerpt:
October 25, 2012
Pat Dollard has a great read regarding the Libyan arms and possible White House perceived discovery risk attaching the same concept of Fast and Furious to Libyan arms. It is something many here have also discussed. However, we think there is more to it, actually much more. Many Treepers have helped to flesh out the Benghazi mission agenda and the possible CIA activity. Pat Dollard and The Washington Times have set the stage. The TreeHouse goes deeper, much deeper. First, The Dollard outline:
(Via PatDollard) Excerpted from The Washington Times, piece by Frank Gaffney, Reagans’ assistant Secretary of State: President Obama’s once seemingly unstoppable march toward re-election hit what he might call “bumps in the road” in Benghazi, Libya, late on Sept. 11, 2012. It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as commander-in-chief.
Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.[Note - that link is to Pat Dollard article.]
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison.
Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the
Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”
We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
MUCH more to read over at The Last Refuge! Be sure to read the comments, too!!
In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale.The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well.That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate. (read more).
To read more also click on The Last Refuge blog.
Some pertinent comments:
Sharon says:
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/bill-clinton-told-hillary-to-resign-us-arming-syrian-rebels-with-ties-to-al-queda-muslim-brotherhood/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheConservativeDailyNews+%28The+Conservative+Daily+News%29
http://counterjihadreport.com/2012/10/24/benghazi-was-this-a-united-states-gunrunning-operation-to-al-qaida-jihadi
Depending on what Hillary has to protect herself from, and who she’s willing to push down in order to do that….some of this reminds me of the Halloween weekend massacre that Nixon implemented, as he fired 2-3 Attorneys General in one weekend until he found one who would do his bidding. Of course, obama doesn’t have that kind of problem with his Attorney General. Does he have that kind of problem with his SoS? One can only hope, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t know how it fits in the big picture, but obviously Hillary isn’t feeling real safe at the moment.
Today we learn from sources that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack. Why? Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel? Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle? I’d say YES. Could this be a criminal act, negligence, dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder? I’d say YESOne of the links within the linked article above:
—————————————-
The Main Stream Media is protecting Obama, so many Americans do not know these details. They are hoping to slide through the next 2 weeks and pull out a victory, putting back in power the President who watched our fellow Americans die….and then, went to bed.
http://counterjihadreport.com/2012/10/24/benghazi-was-this-a-united-states-gunrunning-operation-to-al-qaida-jihadi
Depending on what Hillary has to protect herself from, and who she’s willing to push down in order to do that….some of this reminds me of the Halloween weekend massacre that Nixon implemented, as he fired 2-3 Attorneys General in one weekend until he found one who would do his bidding. Of course, obama doesn’t have that kind of problem with his Attorney General. Does he have that kind of problem with his SoS? One can only hope, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t know how it fits in the big picture, but obviously Hillary isn’t feeling real safe at the moment.
*******
I'm so sick to my stomach....
*******
Hat tips to all links.
*******
Update:
Also see: Live Leak.com: footage from Libyan consul attack shows gunmen sent by pres of Egypt
[Note: The video was scrubbed from Youtube.]
*******
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
