John R. Houk
© July 30, 2014
A transcript of a conversation between President Barack Hussein Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has crept into the public domain. In the transcript Obama is demanding – no a better description – commanding Netanyahu to unilaterally ceasefire against Hamas in the Israeli campaign to cripple the Islamic terrorist organization’s ability to send missiles and kidnapping terrorists into Israel.
As far as I know the White House staff is denying such a conversation had taken place between Obama and Netanyahu. Which is not surprising since Obama and is his Administration has been denying knowledge of wrong doing, scandals and corruption throughout most of his Administration. When Congress subpoenas the Executive Branch documents to find the truth Obama dictatorially claims Executive Privilege, stonewalls or outright refuses to comply with Congressional subpoenas. So I am completely convinced this conversation indeed took place between Obama and Netanyahu regardless of White House denials.
It is no secret that Obama has been strong arming Israel about settlements in Judea-Samaria and the Jewish presence in the eastern half of their capital city Jerusalem for years. With Obama’s overt siding with murderous terrorist organization Hamas and the Arabs in Gaza that call themselves Palestinians who support their Muslim terrorists, Obama is then telling the Western world it is okay to turn the screws on Israel to comply with indefensible borders by giving up more of their ancestral land to Jew-haters with the only goal of destroying Israel and killing Jews.
As callous as it may sound I have no problem with the so-called civilian casualties in Gaza. The Gazans are terrorists in training much like Americans may view historical militias that were from among American civilians to fight the aggression of invaders. These so-called Palestinians are as dedicated to the Hamas agenda of Jew-hatred, killing Jews and destroying Israel as is Hamas.
The mantra of the Allies fighting in WWII was complete and unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. The Americans, the Brits and the Russians had no problem with carpet bombing and shelling German cities into oblivion. Do you think there were civilian casualties? Placing Austria as a part of the German Nazi Third Reich the combined civilian deaths due to Allied military action was 3,890,000 during WWII.
A Few Pictures of Win at Any Cost by Allies against Germany
You get the idea! If you want to end a war so that the enemy is so defanged that they cannot regroup to fight another day. Today Nazi Germany is not only gone but anything to do with the promotion of Nazism is illegal in Germany today.
In January 1943 the leaders of the principle Allies (who graciously included defanged Free France leadership) met in Casablanca to form the strategy to eradicate any future threats the Axis enemies:
At Casablanca, Roosevelt also announced that the Axis powers must surrender unconditionally to the Allies, announced without prior consultation with his British counterpart. “Peace can come to the world only by the total elimination of German and Japanese war power,” announced Roosevelt at the joint press conference ten days after this conference. “The elimination of Germany, Japanese, and Italian war power means the unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy, and Japan.” Churchill seconded by noting that “design, purpose, and unconquerable will [will be applied] to enforce unconditional surrender upon the criminals who have plunged the world into war.” (Bold Print by Editor; Casablanca Conference: 14 Jan 1943; Named Contributor – C. Peter Chen; World War II Data Base)
I believe Israel can join Sir Winston Churchill and declare pertaining to Hamas that the goal of IDF must be the “design, purpose, and unconquerable will (will be applied) to enforce unconditional surrender upon the criminals who have plunged the world into war.”
To end Islamic terrorists from firing missiles into Israel and stop the coordinated planning of kidnapping IDF soldiers and innocent Jews with the threats of murder, Israel must exact the total eradication of the Hamas organization. If that means the Gaza civilians that support Hamas are casualties or even suffer deaths then so be it. Israel needs an unconditional surrender and NOT a truce or ceasefire that enables the Jew-haters to regroup and rearm.
Alleged Transcript Reveals Obama Tries To Bully Netanyahu; Sides With Hamas Terrorists
July 29, 2014
An Israeli newspaper claims that Barack Obama had a tense phone call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during which Obama took a hardline stance in favor of Hamas terrorists.
Reason.com reports on the transcript of the phone call that was released by The Times of Israel. As of this posting, the transcript has not been confirmed and the White House denies that such a conversation took place. However, Obama’s deafening silence to the rise of anti-Semitism in America and the $47 million of ‘humanitarian aid’ he authorized to be sent to the Hamas terrorist controlled Gaza strip, money many believe will be seized by the terrorists, will cause many to believe the possibility of this transcript being true.
Barack Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities, in particular airstrikes.
Benjamin Netanyahu: And what will Israel receive in exchange for a ceasefire?
BO: I believe that Hamas will cease its rocket fire — silence will be met with silence.
BN: Hamas broke all five previous ceasefires. It’s a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
BO: I repeat and expect Israel to stop all its military activities unilaterally. The pictures of destruction in Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.
BN: Kerry’s proposal was completely unrealistic and gives Hamas military and diplomatic advantages.
BO: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas based on the 2012 understandings, including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege and restrictions on Gaza.
BN: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.
BO: I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.
BN: I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks –
BO: (interrupting Netanyahu) The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.
So, there you have it. Did Obama really a hardline with our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, while he capitulated to Vladimir Putin, only sending him a ‘stern letter’ regarding Russia’s violation of an arms control treaty by firing missiles, and negotiated with terrorists in the release of five top Taliban leaders in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl?
Hamas Needs to Unconditionally Surrender or Face the Consequences
John R. Houk
© July 30, 2014
Alleged Transcript Reveals Obama Tries To Bully Netanyahu; Sides With Hamas Terrorists
About Jennifer Burke
Jennifer Burke became politically active for the first time at the Porkulus Tea Party in Seattle in February 2009. She was a speaker at the Seattle Tax Day Tea Party at Westlake Center on April 15, 2010, was featured in a popular Tea Party video, Proud to be a Teabagger that has gone viral on YouTube and many top conservative blogs, and was a speaker at the WA 4 WI rally in support of Scott Walker.
Copyright © 2014 TPNN · TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The goal of the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) is to provide a rapid, up-to-date political news service that is relevant to the Tea Party movement of Constitutional conservatives. Our team of researchers and writers aim to cut through the smoke and spin of the “mainstream” media so as to provide an alternative hard hitting news product across a spectrum of current issues. TPNN is available 24 hours a day on desktop, tablet and mobile devices.
In spite of critics on both the Left and the Right, Sarah Palin is doubling down with speeches demanding Congress impeach President Barack Hussein Obama. Palin delivered her fiery speech to impeach Obama at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver on July 19.
Below is a shortened video of the speech. I am following with a B. Christopher Agee short article high lighting the speech from Western Journalism. Then for those who are interested, I am following the Agee article with Sarah Palin’s full 36 and half minute speech. And yes I still agree with Sarah Palin.
Published by Shelly Dankert
Published on Jul 19, 2014
This afternoon, at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, CO, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin doubled-down on her call to impeach President Obama. She explains her stance and lists several offenses for which Obama could be impeached. Governor Palin initially called for the impeachment of President Obama in an article published on July 8, 2014 on Breitbart.com found here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governme…
FULL SPEECH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSz0M…
Watch: What Sarah Palin Just Said Could Have Obama Looking Over His Shoulder
JULY 21, 2014
Conservative firebrand Sarah Palin tackled Barack Obama’s perceived dereliction of duty during a weekend speech, going so far as to double down on her prior claim that he should be impeached.
“These days you hear all of these politicians denouncing Barack Obama,” she said at the Western Conservative Summit, “’Oh, he’s a lawless, imperial president and he ignores court orders and changes laws by fiat and refuses to enforced laws that he just doesn’t like.’”
Palin complained, however, that the outrage generally ends at the rhetorical phase.
“That’s true,” she said of the common criticisms; “but the question is hey, politicians, what are you gonna do about it?”
She suggested “calling their bluff,” noting that decisive action is the only way to deliver a clear message.
“There’s only one remedy for a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors,” she said, “and it’s impeachment.”
The former Alaska governor went on to note that America’s founders viewed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
She said an impeachable offense, according to Alexander Hamilton, consists of “injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
According to Palin, a number of scandals that have rocked the administration thus far fit that bill. Primarily, however, she noted that the immigration crisis should qualify as grounds for impeachment.
“Alone,” she concluded, “not defending borders is dereliction of duty, violating the oath of office. If that’s not impeachable, nothing is. And if he’s not impeachable, no one is.”
Published by Shelly Dankert
Published on Jul 19, 2014
Sarah Palin spoke this afternoon at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, CO.
Watch: What Sarah Palin Just Said Could Have Obama Looking Over His Shoulder
About the Author B. Christopher Agee
An award-winning journalist, B. Christopher Agee spent more than a decade building a career in newspaper and radio. He is currently the senior staff writer at Western Center for Journalism. Chris is the author of two books and is a frequent guest on talk radio shows across the U.S. He lives with his wife, Nancy, in Phoenix, Ariz.
Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.
About Western Journalism – Western Center for Journalism
WesternJournalism.com is a blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters by the Western Center for Journalism (WCJ).
The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. In 2013 WesternJournalism.com grew by 103% and served 41,486,142 page views to 13,479,014 unique visitors.
New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.
Western Center for Journalism
The Western Center for Journalism was founded in 1991 by Journalist Joseph Farah. Since 2007 the WCJ has been led by columnist and veteran broadcaster Floyd Brown.
WCJ is a vigorous watchdog that reports on government corruption and abuse. The Center is a strong defender of … READ THE REST
Mark Alexander points out that even Left Wing Constitutional academics are saying President Barack Hussein Obama has crossed the Constitutional line.
The Imperial President
The Rule of Outlaws
By Mark Alexander
Jul. 16, 2014
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” –Declaration of Independence (1776)
According to a source within the Secret Service, Barack Obama refers to himself as “The Bear” when diverting from a planned security route for “meet and greet photo ops.” He announces such departures by saying, “The bear is loose!”
Now, I’m sure it’s only coincidence that “The Bear” is also the mascot of the former Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation. While it would be more fitting if Obama referred to himself as “The Red Squirrel,” his wishful “bear” reference certainly reflects the tyrannical “rule of lawlessness” that now defines his presidential modus operandi. Obama’s administration is now defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably this incomplete list of ignominy: The failure of his so-called “economic recovery plan, his unparalleled foreign policy malfeasance, his ”Fast and Furious“ gun control play, his long list of ObamaCare lies, his IRS Enemies List, the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa’ida, the Benghazi cover-up to protect his 2012 re-election bid, his hollow ”Red Line“ threat to Syria, the ”Russian Spring“ in Crimea, the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Israel, the disintegration of Iraq, and now, of course, the VA death panels cover-up and the immigration crisis on our southern border.
He has certainly earned the public opinion title of ”worst president since WWII,“ which has negated the smidgeon of good faith he once held with congressional Republicans, and also most of that extended him by all but the most leftwing congressional Democrats.
So what’s Obama to do?
Having lost control of the House in 2010 and having failed to recover it in 2012, and the pending threat of losing Democrat control of the Senate, Obama has launched, in earnest, a campaign to completely bypass Congress through executive and regulatory diktat, a bold and lawless endeavor unmatched in its unconstitutional offense, except perhaps by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despotic regime.
The range of his executive and regulatory edicts has been very broad, from 19 executive orders constricting Second Amendment rights, to regulations supporting his “war on coal” and avoiding the Keystone XL pipeline.
Now, Obama is increasingly audacious in the exercise of these unlegislated diktats.
In November of last year, he pretended to be constrained by law in acting on immigration reform, saying, “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing this through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition.”
But a few months later, Obama proclaimed, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own.” He complained that “we can’t wait” for Congress, and bragged that he’s “getting things done” by disregarding Rule of Law and the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution.
“[W]e are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” he brazenly declared. “I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”
These are the words of a despot, and now define Obama’s standard operating procedure, whether secretly ordering the “Taliban Five” terrorist trade for an Army deserter, or choking the economy with his executive and regulatory orders, ostensibly to halt “global warming.”
Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama’s abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.
According to Turley, “I think that he has crossed the constitutional line. … When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through the active interpretation that I find very problematic.”
“What’s emerging,” Turley notes, “is an imperial presidency, an über presidency, as I’ve called it. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system.”
Reread those words for their full effect…
In his 1973 volume, “The Imperial Presidency,” noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, a key adviser to John F. Kennedy, outlined the extreme danger to Liberty posed by lawless executive overreach. At that time, his focus was on Richard Nixon, but his warnings, like those of Turley, have far more application to Barack Obama.
So, with 30 more months of Obama’s escalating assault on Liberty, what now? Make no mistake – this “lame duck” is anything but.
Turley advises, “If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before [Obama] leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the President.”
As the ever-erudite Dr. Charles Krauthammer notes, “[Obama’s] gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law? … This president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: ‘I am going to do X – and I’m not going to wait for Congress.’ That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first. At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.”
Of course, I think the good doctor would agree, given his sterling psychiatric credentials, that the rise of Obama’s imperial presidency was entirely predictable, given that he is a textbook case study in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Speaking in Texas last week, Obama’s egomaniacal arrogance shined through with his lavish first-person references – “I,” “me” and “my” (199 times in all) – when outlining upcoming plans to unilaterally dictate “immigration reform” and additional “economic measures.”
This week, he made clear his intent to unilaterally advance his populist “class warfare agenda” to “help working Americans … when Congress won’t act.” In his latest weekly address, Obama insisted, “So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.”
That lie earned him a stern rebuke from even The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, as did his earlier claim that Republicans “have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class,” about which The Post concluded, “On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.” But for Obama’s sycophantic legions of useful idiots, fiction trumps fact.
So what can Republicans do?
Plenty, if they are willing to fight fire with fire, and they better start igniting those precedents now. It’s going to take more than a threat of a lawsuit from House Speaker John Boehner.
House Republicans can use their control of the budget to defund enactment and enforcement of Obama’s lawless orders and regulations. Indeed, if they fail to do so, then they violate their own oaths “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, and Rule of Law becomes gravely imperiled by rule of men.
Of course, if Republicans don’t act, and we continue racing down this imperialist path to tyranny, there are tens of millions of American Patriots who understand our options.
Having recently celebrated Independence Day, I invite you to re-read the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable treatise on Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” addressed an imperial executive who willfully violated that endowment “which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled” all people.
Our Founders outlined the “injuries and usurpations” committed by the executive, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” They noted, “He has refused his Assent to Laws … He has obstructed the Administration of Justice … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass (sic) our people, and eat out their substance.”
There are undeniable parallels between the imperial powers which gave rise to the American Revolution and the imperial presidency which now threatens the Liberty our Founders, and generations of American Patriots since, have defended with their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.”
Obama now jokes about his lawlessness: “It is lonely, me just doing stuff. … I’m just telling the truth now. I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip.”
In other words, short of rigorous intervention by Congress, this gets much worse before it gets any better.
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for standing with us!
Please fill out the form below or click here to donate by mail.
John R. Houk
© July 9, 2014
I am a huge supporter of the politics of Sarah Palin. Indeed, I might be one of the few Conservatives that wishes she would run for President in 2016. If she was able to run her own campaign without McCain or GOP Establishment restraints I believe she would BOLDLY eschew political correctness to say what needs to be said about the Leftist agenda to “fundamentally transform” America. Transform that is as in change the Original Intent of U. S. Constitution into the Left Wing moldable Living Constitution which a human ruler, elite or Political Party duping the electorate – can interpret the rule of law in any darn way that justifies a man-made rule of law.
A fine example of this is the Op-Ed Palin wrote for Breitbart calling for Obama’s impeachment. Most political realists believe even if Obama is impeached he would not be convicted by at the least 60 Senators that would be needed to convict. Meaning if a 59 majority voted to convict Obama and actually remove him from Office, he would remain President of the United States of America.
It is my opinion that if voters FINALLY get fed up with Obama dictatorship before he unilaterally pulls a Hitler and declares himself America’s new glorious leader AND begin sending calls for impeachment to both the House and Senate by tens of millions or more, then even Dems might jump on the impeachment train. At this point if voters too stupid or irresponsible to live in the same America they were born into, then those voters are irresponsible and deserve Obama’s despotic transformation.
OnI cross posted Sarah Palin’s June 13 Facebook thoughts on the idiocy of Obama’s handling of child illegal aliens inundating across the Mexican-US border. Her thoughts then were primarily on the concern of how children were being treated full of diseases and bad living conditions. She really had of hint of calling for impeachment then. In this Breitbart Op-Ed gets down to business calling for Obama’s impeachment and I say AMEN.
VIDEO: Sarah Palin: ‘It’s Time to Impeach Obama’
July 8, 2014
In a recent op-ed, former vice presidential candidate and Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin blasted away at the Obama Administration for their complete and utter unwillingness to enforce our nation’s existing laws.
In her op-ed penned for Breitbart News, Palin began by writing,
“Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, ‘no mas.’”
Her logic is sound; after all, it’s not like President Obama has been a shining example of executive authority and only suddenly began disregarding his oath of office. For years, this president-turned-dictator has hand-picked what laws will be enforced and, just as dangerously, created new laws unilaterally to be enforced.
Make no mistake: this isn’t about a slight stretching of executive power; this is dictatorial rule.
“Without borders, there is no nation,” Palin writes. “Obama knows this. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. This is his fundamental transformation of America. It’s the only promise he has kept. Discrediting the price paid for America’s exceptionalism over our history, he’s given false hope and taxpayer’s change to millions of foreign nationals who want to sneak into our country illegally. Because of Obama’s purposeful dereliction of duty an untold number of illegal immigrants will kick off their shoes and come on in, competing against Americans for our jobs and limited public services. There is no end in sight as our president prioritizes parties over doing the job he was hired by voters to do. Securing our borders is obviously fundamental here; it goes without saying that it is his job.”
Ultimately, Palin calls for the impeachment of Barack Obama. In bold terms, she states,
Who’s looking out for the American workers? Who has their backs? Who fights for them?
President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights.
It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.
The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.”
She is absolutely right. Impeachment is not something to take lightly; it is a removal from office that occurs as a dire resort. If Americans simply sour on the policies of a president, that is one thing; but when a president purposefully ignores his Constitutional obligations and violates the laws of land and encourages others to do similarly, it’s time for the despot to go.
We have endured his abuses long enough and Sarah Palin is absolutely right. The time to impeach is now.
Forget Political Realists – IMPEACH OBAMA!
John R. Houk
© July 9, 2014
VIDEO: Sarah Palin: ‘It’s Time to Impeach Obama’
About Todd Cefaratti
A graduate of the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of California Irvine (UCI) and (HBS) Harvard Business School Executive Program. Todd Cefaratti holds degrees in economics, marketing and digital marketing. Todd is one of the top internet marketing experts in his field. Todd is also the founder of the nonprofit organization TheTeaParty.net which began in 2009 at the height of the Tea Party movement and today is recognized as one of the top national Tea Party organizations in the movement. The organization is still growing at over a 1000 new patriots every day and going strong with over 600,000 loyal active members. Todd is also the CEO of a major marketing consulting and fundraising organization and the Tea Party News Network. In his spare time, Todd is active with his wife and two daughters in their Christian church and Christian school that both daughters attend.
Copyright © 2014 TPNN · TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK· ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The goal of the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) is to provide a rapid, up-to-date political news service that is relevant to the Tea Party movement of Constitutional conservatives. Our team of researchers and writers aim to cut through the smoke and spin of the “mainstream” media so as to provide an alternative hard hitting news product across a spectrum of current issues.
Justin Smith paints a picture of Obama’s blatant unconstitutional AND illegal policies according to Congressional passed laws. Justin presents figures into the billions of dollars being spent illegally domestically and in foreign aid for the purpose of accommodating the surge of child of illegal aliens.
The Death of America
By Justin O. Smith
6/28/2014 10:19 PM
“Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed almost entirely in terms of what can be done to help those who have broken the law.” -Thomas Sowell
Along with Obama’s propensity for lawless unilateral actions and a lot of loose talk hinting at amnesty for illegal aliens, from the Obama administration’s first days, his recent response to the assault on our southern border by tens of thousands of illegal aliens shows that Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson and a litany of other Democratic Progressives know no bounds, when it comes to betraying America. At every critical juncture during this ongoing crisis, the Obama administration’s intent, purpose and agenda have aligned with the desires of the illegal aliens and their advocates, which makes this administration the most dangerous existential threat to America and Her people in American history.
Remember when Obama admitted he didn’t have the authority to pass the dream Act on his own and then two weeks later still arbitrarily and capriciously issued an executive order implementing it?
Many Progressives will caustically harangue anyone who equates the Dream Act (DACA), signed into law June 15, 2012, with amnesty. They often ask, “Where does it (the DACA) say “amnesty”? It doesn’t, but everything within it certainly embodies the very definition of amnesty: Legal definition – 2. An Amnesty is either expressed or implied; it is expressed when declared in direct terms; and it is implied, when a treaty of peace is made between contending parties.
Now it is apparent that more amnesty is forthcoming. Obama and Eric Holder’s Justice Department are attempting to efface the illegal aliens’ crimes by spending $2 million and providing them with 100 lawyers and paralegals, at taxpayer expense; however, this is in direct violation of Federal immigration law 1229a (b/4/A), which clearly allows illegal aliens to be represented at their own expense, not at the expense of the government.
“Reports from ICE officers and agents on the ground corroborate reports that the majority are motivated more by rumors of amnesty than the situation in their home countries,” stated Chris Crane, president of National ICE Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees. Crane added, “Impoverished countries don’t read our laws or read cut-off dates.”
In a startling move, the Obama administration also has promised to reward those Central American nations that are unloading the unaccompanied children (UAC) and other illegal aliens on us, by sending them more money. Obama wants $161.5 million sent to the so-called Central American Regional Security Initiative and nearly $100 million to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Essentially, these payments are additional incentives for them to do nothing to correct their current situation.
Reuters previously reported that the administration was seeking $2 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services to handle the influx of illegal aliens in fiscal 2015, which begins on October 1, 2014. This is more than double the $868 million appropriated this year.
The U.S. taxpayer is also paying for the new illegal alien children’s facility now opening in Tucson, Arizona. This is the 17th such facility operated by Southwest Key, with an annual budget of more than $150 million that is heavily supported by government contracts, according to KVOA, an NBC affiliate. And, incredibly or unbelievably, the chairman of Southwest Key’s board of directors, Victor Garza, is an official of LaRaza, which hopes to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico.
On June 5th, 2014 (and proudly displayed on DHS homepage) Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson exclaimed after a verbal jab at Republicans, “Almost all of us agree a child who crossed our border illegally with a parent, or in search of a parent or a better life…should be treated differently than adult law breakers.” Two weeks later, after the surge of illegals made front-page news across the country, the administration started reversing its previous pro-amnesty messaging. But, VP Joe Biden seems to have other ideas, and he recently implied publicly that some of these illegal aliens would not be deported.
There is literally nothing in America’s interest in the entire mission statement of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is now handling “unaccompanied children” (most are adults) and delivering them to shelters located throughout the United States. “Resettlement”, in other words, means these illegals are staying, at least if Obama has his way. According to the UAC services webpage of the ORR, their mission is to assist these illegal aliens “in becoming integrated members of our global society” – not our “American” society.
Also, as reported in the June 25th Congressional hearing titled “An Administration-Made Disaster…,”** the sheer numbers in the cascading flood of illegal immigrants and the associated health and public safety risks should preclude any consideration of legalization or naturalization for these illegal aliens. There have already been numerous positive tests within their ranks for tuberculosis and H1N1, swine flu.
When, ever, did Americans vote for this?
Members of both parties, mainly RINOs and Progressives such as Senator Alexander (R-TN) and Senator Schumer (D-NY), have supported de facto open borders for decades; however, one true conservative, President Ronald Reagan granted amnesty in 1986 against his own better judgment, on the advice of advisors. Then in a series of memos issued after the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, a law that sought to curtail illegal immigration, officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations established guidelines and limits for when authorities could exercise leniency in dealing with illegal aliens. And if these years proved anything, America learned that any hint of amnesty always catalyzes illegal immigration.
A normal government would halt these illegal aliens, the drug mules entering with the UACs (documented) and violent interventions by the Mexican military helicopters directed against plainly marked U.S. Border Patrol vehicles, as it worked to halt the other dire threats to public health and safety. A normal government would be mobilizing deportation efforts immediately and returning these illegal aliens to their home countries, which would be less costly than keeping them here in the U.S.
Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in a welfare state, such as ours, is an economic disaster of epic proportions. The U.S. is over $17 trillion in debt right now. Adding 11-30 million people into our entitlement programs would be devastating to our economy.
Ever willing to knock America down a notch, to weaken America and make Her less prosperous, Obama has announced repeatedly his egregious intent to sign an executive order granting amnesty to this massive swarm of illegal aliens. Rather than send these Central American nations sizable bills for the cost of transporting these children back, he chooses to hit the U.S. taxpayer for the cost of their day care and health care. Obama is openly breaking U.S. law, as he continues with his flagrant executive overreach of power, and Republicans must immediately use their power of the purse to deny funding for Obama’s immigration machinations, or accept their own role in the Death of America.
By Justin O. Smith
**Blog Editor: It is a good idea to read a report summary of the 25th Congressional hearing on the real factors for the surge of child illegal aliens across the U.S./Mexican border. In essence President Obama’s directives allowing this is breaking the law. YES, and yet another good reason for impeachment.
HEARING: AN ADMINISTRATION MADE DISASTER: THE SOUTH TEXAS BORDER SURGE OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN MINORS
By THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE
Jun 25 2014
There is a tsunami hitting our nation’s southern border – unaccompanied alien minors (UAMs) and adults traveling with minors are arriving in unprecedented numbers. Central American minors, largely teenagers, are making a perilous journey through Mexico and then walking miles across a hostile border environment, assisted by smugglers, and coming to the United States in violation of the law.
According to Deputy Border Patrol Chief, Ronald Vitiello, who will testify today, the Department of Homeland Security expects to apprehend more than 90,000 unaccompanied minors on the border this year. The estimated number of “UAMs” apprehended in 2014 represents a 1,381% increase since 2011, while the projected number of 142,000 apprehensions in 2015 represents a 2,232% increase. It is not just UAMs who are arriving – adults bringing along minors are also coming. Since 2011 the number of apprehended individuals comprising family units has increased from 13,600 to 42,000 for this year as of June 16th. Taking into account just half of this year, we have seen a 143% increase in families apprehended at the border since 2012.
The Administration claims that these unlawful aliens are coming to the U.S. based upon generalized violence, strife, conflict, and discord in their home countries. It is true that these factors have always played a role in Central Americans coming to the U.S. illegally.
Undoubtedly, seeing strife in economically disadvantaged countries along with seeing impoverished women and children showing up at our nation’s door step arouses the deepest of sympathies. However, the factors causing the recent and unprecedented surge are very different than those claimed by the Administration.
A May 28, 2014, Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector Intelligence Report tells a story that is strikingly different than the claimed humanitarian crisis the Administration paints as responsible for the surge. The report summarized interviews conducted with hundreds of apprehended Central Americans minors and quite frankly paints a very different picture of the situation.
According to the report, when these individuals were asked why they made the journey to the United States, approximately 95% indicated that the main reason was to take advantage of the “new” U.S. “law” that grants a “free pass” or permit (referred to as “permisos”) being issued by the U.S. government to women traveling with minors and unaccompanied alien minors. While no new law has been enacted, the truth is that this Administration has dramatically altered immigration enforcement policies. The timing of the change in policies correlates closely with the steep uptick of individuals showing up at the border. Apparently, word has gotten out that once encountered by Border Patrol agents and processed, thanks to this Administration’s lax enforcement policies, one will likely never be removed.
Word has spread to the Americas and beyond that the Obama Administration has taken unprecedented, and most likely unconstitutional, steps in order to shut down the enforcement of our immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough “priorities,” especially minors and adults with minors. The world seems to know that DHS refuses to enforce the law under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion.” The beneficiaries of these policies even include many thousands of aliens who have been arrested by state and local law enforcement or convicted criminals who have been put in removal proceedings and who DHS has simply let back onto our streets.
And now those beneficiaries include those minors and families who continue to arrive at our border and the Administration ushers in via “100% reverse escorts” into the interior of the United States. Most are ultimately released, often into the hands of those who paid smugglers to bring them here in the first place.
In addition to simply not pursuing removable aliens, DHS has been granting hundreds of thousands of these individuals administrative legalization and work authorization. DHS does this under many guises, invoking doctrines with esoteric names such as “deferred action” and “parole-in-place”. The net effect of these policies has been described by former ICE Acting Director John Sandweg — “If you are a run-of-the mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero . . . .” Apparently, those arriving at our borders now know this.
Indeed, Father Heyman Vazquez, the director of a migrant shelter in Mexico, told news outlets that children and families are encouraged to cross into the U.S. illegally because they think they will be given amnesty. Vazquez said, “I remember a little boy of 9 years old and I asked if he was going to go meet someone and he told me ‘No, I’m just going to hand myself over because I hear they help kids.'” In addition, like so many others across Central America, Robin Tulio, a 13-year-old, said his mother believed that the Obama Administration had quietly changed its policy regarding unaccompanied minors, and that if he made it across, he would have a better shot at staying. In the meantime, Central American media touts an open door to the U.S. for minors and families.
Based on information the Committee has received, it seems that the Administration has known about this problem for some time. Rev. Richard Ryscavage, who serves on the White House immigration advisory panel, agrees. He stated that “Officials hid the fast-growing migration crisis from the media because they’re still trying to pass a very unpopular immigration rewrite.” He indicated, “That’s the [Administration’s] priority – to get that Senate-type bill passed. They didn’t do anything public about it, they didn’t want to tell anyone about it… [and] they’re now in a stage where they’re feeling ‘We have to figure out a strategy.’” Ryscavage concludes, “That’s what the administration is most afraid of – that [the border surge] will derail any discussion of reform of the immigration laws.”
Unfortunately, these statements show that the Administration has made a fundamental miscalculation. Its failure to secure our borders, mitigate threats to national security, or enforce our immigration laws only undermines Congress’s ability to reform our immigration laws.
It was easy to predict that people in South and Central America, as well as in Mexico, would recognize a veiled invitation from the Administration to send their children and families to the United States with little chance of deportation.
These individuals know that the Administration’s policy of non-enforcement of our immigration laws presents a golden opportunity for unaccompanied minors and families with minors to come to the U.S., most likely to be released with very little chance of ever being removed. The Administration’s message is tragic because the journey the Administration encourages is so dangerous and results in death, disease, and harm to so many minors along the way. It is often said that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Unfortunately, it seems Obama fiddles while our borders implode.
I look forward to finding out from the witnesses today what if anything, the Obama Administration plans to do about this crisis and what solutions could work to end it. I’d like to thank all of the witnesses – many of whom are career law enforcement professionals – for taking the time to testify today.
The Death of America
© Justin O. Smith
HEARING: AN ADMINISTRATION MADE DISASTER: THE SOUTH TEXAS BORDER SURGE OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN MINORS
Google+ friend Bill Lively left this comment of my cross post of the Danny Jeffrey essay “Anarchy and Chaos”:
It’s odd to see you mention Gaddafi as he was just mentioned in a new scandal coming out as having been whacked by our own guys because he killed too many Muslim Brotherhood (see post on my page) from Religion of Peace earlier as new documents have been released implicating Ovomit as being co-conspirator…It’s hashtagged Benghazi, Chrisstevens and Gaddafi…
So Gaddafi was allowed to be deposed because he killed too many Muslim Brotherhood types in Libya. Now that would be yet another scandal to add to Obama’s list of corruption to require impeachment, right?
US document reveals cooperation between Washington and Brotherhood
Studies commissioned by the president concluded that the US should back ‘moderate Islamists’ in the region
Gulf News Report
19:32 June 18, 2014
Dubai: For the past decade, two successive US administrations have maintained close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Libya, to name just the most prominent cases.
The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist” movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability” in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes” even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate” Islamic political movements.
To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.
The revelations were made by Al Hewar centre in Washington, DC, which obtained the documents in question.
Through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department’s dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being declassified and released to the public.
US State Department documents obtained under the FOIA confirm that the Obama administration maintained frequent contact and ties with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. At one point, in April 2012, US officials arranged for the public relations director of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Gaair, to come to Washington to speak at a conference on “Islamists in Power” hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
A State Department Cable classified “Confidential” report says the following:
“Benghazi Meeting With Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: On April 2  Mission Benghazi met with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood steering committee, who will speak at the April 5 Carnegie Endowment `Islamist in Power’ conference in Washington, D.C. He described the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to form a political party as both an opportunity and an obligation in post-revolution Libya after years of operating underground. The Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party would likely have a strong showing in the upcoming elections, he said, based on the strength of the Brotherhood’s network in Libya, its broad support, the fact that it is a truly national party, and that 25 per cent of its members were women. He described the current relationship between the Brotherhood and the TNC (Transitional National Council) as `lukewarm.’”
Another State Department paper marked “Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)” contained talking points for Deputy Secretary of State William Burns’ scheduled July 14, 2012 meeting with Mohammad Sawan, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was also head of the Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party. The document is heavily redacted, but nevertheless provides clear indication of Washington’s sympathies for the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as a major political force in the post-Gaddafi Libya. The talking points recommended that Secretary Burns tell Sawan that the US government entities “share your party’s concerns in ensuring that a comprehensive transitional justice process is undertaken to address past violations so that they do not spark new discontent.”
The Burns paper described the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: “Prior to last year’s revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned for over three decades and its members were fiercely pursued by the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood (LMB) returned to Libya last year after years in exile in Europe and the United States, selected new leadership and immediately began to plan for an active role in Libya’s political future.” After a redacted section, the document continued, “The LMB-affiliated Justice and Construction party, led by Misratan and former political prisoner under Gaddafi Mohammad Sawan, was created in March 2012. Sawan himself was not a candidate in the elections but wields significant influence as the head of the largest political party and most influential Islamist party in Libya.”
The July 14 meeting was attended by both Secretary Burns and Ambassador Christopher Stevens. On September 11, 2012, Ambassador Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on US mission and CIA facilities in Benghazi.
An undated State Department cable revealed further courting of the LMB and its Justice and Construction Party. “Mohammad Sawan, Chairman of Justice and Construction Party, received yesterday at his office in Tripoli, Ambassadors of US, UK, FR and IT. The Ambassadors requested the meeting to get acquainted with the party’s position on the current events in Libya, the Government, the Party’s demand to sack the Prime Minister, the Constitution, GNC lifetime arguments, dialogue initiatives and Party’s assessment of political and security situation in Libya and the region. During the meeting, which took an hour and a half and attended by Mohammad Talb, party’s International Relations officer, and Hussam Naeli, acting liaison officer, Sawan explained that the Government has not been able to achieve any success in the core files such as security and local government, which both are under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister. Such a failure resulted in the lack of security, continuous assassinations, kidnappings, crimes, smuggling and attacks on public and private property, halt oil exports and disruption of water and electricity supply. Sawan stressed that a solution is possible and the party presented a clear solution, but the Government is not in harmony. He added we are responsible only for ministries that we take part in.”
The State Department cable noted that “On their part, the Ambassadors praised the active role of the Party in the political scene and confirmed their standing with the Libyan people and Government despite its weaknesses and they are keen to stabilize the region… At the end of the meeting, Sawan thanked his guests and all stressed the need to communicate. The guests affirmed that they will assist through Libyan legitimate entities as they did during the revolution.”
© Al Nisr Publishing LLC 2014. All rights reserved.
Gulf News was first launched in tabloid format in 1979 by prominent UAE businessman Abdul Wahab Galadari; its offices were located on the Airport Road, Dubai. In November 1984, three leading UAE businessmen, purchased the company and formed Al Nisr Publishing. The new owners of the paper were Obaid Humaid Al Tayer, Abdullah Al Rostamani and Juma Al Majid. With the death of Abdullah Al Rostamani in 2006, his position on the board is held by a family nominee while the other directors remain.
Under new ownership, Gulf News was relaunched on 10 December 1985 and was free to the public. From February 1986, the public was charged one Dirham (US 27 cents) a copy for the Gulf News package which comprised the broadsheet newspaper and a leisure supplement called Tabloid, which also contained classifieds.
After moving into new premises in 1986, Gulf News began to be distributed to other GCC countries: Bahrain from September 1987; Oman from April 1989; Saudi Arabia from March 1989; and Qatar from April 1989. It also became available in Pakistan from August 1988. In November 1995 the width of the paper’s broadsheet pages were reduced by four centimetres, to create the new international size of 38 centimetres. Al Nisr Publishing became a Limited Liability Company (LLC) with a share capital of Dh15 million on 26 May 1997. The daily launched a website and video news in the second part of the 2000s. - Wikipedia
Introducing: ANARCHY AND CHAOS
Danny Jeffrey sees a global pattern that has emerged under the policies of President Barack Hussein Obama. Obama may be administering the pattern, but Danny believes the real puppet master is uber-Leftist George Soros. Oh yes, what is that global pattern? It is a world falling to pieces because of the eruption of ANARCHY AND CHAOS.
The Danny Jeffrey – George Soros Study:
*** Blog Editor: There are seven other parts to “In a World Gone Mad”. George Soros is only mentioned briefly if at all in those seven parts; nonetheless Danny is such a good writer and researcher it would worth the read.
ANARCHY AND CHAOS
By Danny Jeffrey
June 17, 2014 2:06 AM
I spend ten or more hours a day at my keyboard, with a standing record of thirty two hours non-stop, in an unending quest for truth in a world where truth has almost become an anachronism. I must admit getting what is almost a perverse thrill when I find a rare truth on the pages of a propaganda spreading liberal rag such as the New York Times. When they choose to reveal facts that are not complimentary to Obama the Deceptive we know that truth is near and that the walls are indeed closing in. The question then remains; who are those walls closing in on, Obama, or us?
From The New York Times…June 14, 2014
Rebels’ fast strike in Iraq was years in the making
With just a few thousand fighters, the group’s lightning sweep into Mosul and farther south appeared to catch many Iraqi and American officials by surprise. But the gains were actually the realization of a years long strategy of state building that the group itself promoted publicly.
In 2007 the group published a pamphlet laying out it vision for Iraq. It cited trends in globalization as well as the Qur’an in challenging modern notions of statehood as having absolute control over territory. Mr. Fishman referred to the document as the “Federalist Papers” for what is now ISIS.
In regards to my first highlight above, Osama bin Laden announced that he was declaring war on the United States. Our intelligence gathering groups dismissed his announcement as having come from someone who had spent too much time out in the desert sun. 911 proved them to be mistaken and for that error we paid a very dear price. Now, as history repeats itself, an offshoot of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda again has telegraphed their intent only to be disregarded as was their forebear. Again the warning was ignored and now the streets of Mosul are littered with headless corpses and crucified soldiers.
In regards to my first highlight above, Osama bin Laden announced that he was declaring war on the United States. Our intelligence gathering groups dismissed his announcement as having come from someone who had spent too much time out in the desert sun. 911 proved them to be mistaken and for that error we paid a very dear price.
Now, as history repeats itself, an offshoot of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda again has telegraphed their intent only to be disregarded as was their forebear. Again the warning was ignored and now the streets of Mosul are littered with headless corpses and crucified soldiers.
How, one might ask, can a mere 800 terrorists engage and defeat two divisions of Iraqi military, armed and trained by the U.S. military? For that answer we need to look to the second highlight above. ‘Trends in globalization’. George Patton would have laughed at such a scenario, blasted through the ISIS ranks and personally shot their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but then Patton was not a globalist, and one such as he would have ruined the whole plan; for there is a Globalist plan and it is nothing short of being both diabolical and brilliant.
Many mistakenly believe that Obama is a Muslim but if you will but apply a bit of logic that belief will go up in smoke. True, Obama was raised within the Muslim culture for a brief time. He knows their ways and knows what to say to please them, or perhaps I should say he knows how to manipulate them, and manipulate them he does, all for the sake of the plan that is being enacted by George Soros and his fellow globalists. They plan to bring down all of western civilization with worldwide Anarchy and Chaos.
Think back to Obama’s now infamous Cairo speech. Being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world does come with its benefits. The Muslim Brotherhood had long been banned from Egypt but when Obama insisted that they be in attendance as he addressed the Egyptian people, Mubarak acquiesced. Thus began the Arab Spring and we all know how that has turned out.
Mubarak, strongman leader of Egypt, was unseated, replaced by Morsi of the MB and Egypt fell into total disarray. Now Morsi has in turn been replaced by Sisi and once again Egypt is led by a strongman. What was gained? Nothing. What has ensued? Anarchy and Chaos.
Look to Libya. The Joint Chiefs of Staff all advised against our becoming involved on the side of Al Qaeda. They were overruled by Obama’s female advisers, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power (All close knit associates of George Soros). We became involved and consider what has happened since. Qaddafi was anti-Al Qaeda and he was murdered. We lost an Ambassador and three good men, and the Al Qaeda flag was hoisted in victory, and another nation succumbed to Anarchy and Chaos.
Take a look at Syria. Once again we have sided with terrorists as they attempt an overthrow of that nation, also ruled by another strongman regime. That episode took us to the abyss of brinkmanship with Russia and Obama timidly retreated. Syria’s strongman is still in power but much of the nation is beset by Anarchy and Chaos.
Meanwhile, the most ruthless band of terrorists yet are invading and conquering vast swathes of Iraq, the nation that Obama abandoned. Still more mass murder, rape, crucifixions, Anarchy and Chaos...
Do you see a common link?
Let us go one step farther. We have been supplying arms and ammunition to the terrorists who were trying to unseat Assad in Syria. We left Iraq, fully aware of the fact that they were not yet fully prepared to maintain that government on their own. Now those we supplied in Syria have taken it upon themselves to ‘liberate’ Iraq and so a new crisis is in play.
Factor in the reality that our long time enemy, Iran, is now offering to help defend Iraq from ISIS, while Maliki is asking the U.S. for help. No irony could be greater than our fighting alongside a long term enemy to save a nation we abandoned from a group of terrorists we have long supplied. Anarchy and Chaos at its very finest.
My friends, I have long ago given up on the effort to wake up those Americans who are still in a daze. I simply do not have that much time to waste. Instead I direct my efforts toward those who are largely aware of the dangers we face. The following links are quite indicative of the totally insane position in which we find ourselves. Please do follow these links. I shall continue to post excerpts to indicate the importance of what you will find within.
Fox News … June 16, 2014
State Department warned Iran was aiding Iraq militias, now weighs possible alliance
The Iranian government, which the White House is now looking to as a possible partner to help counter the insurgency threatening to split Iraq, was cited just months ago by the Obama administration’s own State Department as a prime instigator in that country.
Counterterrorism officials warned about Iran’s meddling in Iraq as part of its report on state sponsors of terrorism.
“Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups,” the report said.
Washington Free Beacon … June 16, 2014
State Dept. ignored warnings of Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq
State Department counterterrorism officials warned in late April that Iran had “trained, funded, and provided guidance” to ethnic Iraqi terror groups bent on destabilizing the country.
The April warning appears to directly contradict and undermine comments last week by a State Department spokeswoman claiming that the United States and Iran have a “shared interest.”
Jihad Watch … June 16, 2014
Kerry: US open to working with Iran against Sunni Jihadists in Iraq
These are, mind you, the same Sunni Jihadists whose friends and allies the U.S. is arming in Syria. The incoherence of the Obama foreign policy is reaching comic proportions. It is now possible for a man to be a freedom fighter and receive American assistance in Syria, and then cross over the (Bulldozed) border into Iraq and be regarded as an “extremist” and a “terrorist”. All of this proceeds from the Washington establishment’s unshakable unwillingness to examine the ideology and belief system motivating the Jihadists.
Reuters … June 16, 2014
U.S. considers air strikes on Iraq, holds talks with Iran
President Barrack Obama considered options for military action to support Iraq’s besieged government on Monday, and U.S. and Iranian officials held talks to stabilize the region, which has been roiled by the advance of Sunni rebels toward Baghdad.
Many who probably spend fifteen minutes a week on the internet are totally convinced that Obama is incompetent. Nothing could be farther from the truth, for the fact of the matter is that this nation is now orchestrating Anarchy and Chaos worldwide, and it is doing so by design. No one could be wrong on all issues all of the time. The law of averages tells us that one will be right fifty percent of the time without even trying. To be consistently and dangerously wrong on everything takes careful planning. Others believe Obama to be a Muslim intent on establishing a new 21st century Caliphate. They could not be more mistaken. Hussein Obama has no loyalty toward Islam; a commonality yes, loyalty none. His long term affiliations have been communism even to the Chicago church that he attended; not a mosque. They believe that Obama’s vast involvement in Middle Eastern affairs prove him to be a Muslim. Let us look to our southern border and the administration’s efforts to promote amnesty. Does that prove that Obama is a Mexican? Better still think back to Fast and Furious. Does that prove that he is not only a Mexican but also a member of the Mexican drug cartels? Consider his racist agenda. Does that prove him to be a black man? Most certainly not, as we all know him to be a mulatto. All that his racist actions proves is that he is anti-whites. Does his attacks on big business prove that he supports the little man or is simply anti big business; unless of course those in big business join him in his crony capitalist agenda? What of education? The liberals tells us that poor black people living in ghettos have no chance because we deny them a decent education. Anyone heard of Common Core, that will deny an education to all? And of energy independence, a long sought condition? Obama denies American oil companies the right to explore for oil in the Gulf while awarding contracts to foreign nations. What of the Green movement? Obama is dumping billions of American dollars into that effort and the companies who receive this vast wealth promptly go bankrupt, producing nothing but helping to destroy our economy. Such a list could go on and on but I believe that I have proven that his political moves do not necessarily mean that he is for something. Collectively the entire list above would indicate that he is against something and that something is the U.S.A. for everything he does is an assault on liberty and security. Anarchy and Chaos! That is the plan as designed by George Soros and his followers and is what we see taking place around us and as chaos grows many will simply shake their heads in bewilderment and drop out. Islam was a well-chosen group to advance the goals of the globalists. There is no group in the world that is so full of hatred for life and their fellow human being, but the simple fact of the matter is that they are to be no more than cannon fodder for the elite. We all see people such as Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Kerry promoting Islam but do you believe that they are Muslims or that the three women I mentioned have aspirations of becoming the property of some Arabian warlord? The plan to use Islam to disrupt the entire world was laid out well in advance. Obama made his Cairo speech in June of 2009 and began the Arab Spring. The Clarion Project … June 13, 2014
Many who probably spend fifteen minutes a week on the internet are totally convinced that Obama is incompetent. Nothing could be farther from the truth, for the fact of the matter is that this nation is now orchestrating Anarchy and Chaos worldwide, and it is doing so by design.
No one could be wrong on all issues all of the time. The law of averages tells us that one will be right fifty percent of the time without even trying. To be consistently and dangerously wrong on everything takes careful planning.
Others believe Obama to be a Muslim intent on establishing a new 21st century Caliphate. They could not be more mistaken. Hussein Obama has no loyalty toward Islam; a commonality yes, loyalty none. His long term affiliations have been communism even to the Chicago church that he attended; not a mosque.
They believe that Obama’s vast involvement in Middle Eastern affairs prove him to be a Muslim. Let us look to our southern border and the administration’s efforts to promote amnesty. Does that prove that Obama is a Mexican? Better still think back to Fast and Furious. Does that prove that he is not only a Mexican but also a member of the Mexican drug cartels?
Consider his racist agenda. Does that prove him to be a black man? Most certainly not, as we all know him to be a mulatto. All that his racist actions proves is that he is anti-whites. Does his attacks on big business prove that he supports the little man or is simply anti big business; unless of course those in big business join him in his crony capitalist agenda?
What of education? The liberals tells us that poor black people living in ghettos have no chance because we deny them a decent education. Anyone heard of Common Core, that will deny an education to all? And of energy independence, a long sought condition? Obama denies American oil companies the right to explore for oil in the Gulf while awarding contracts to foreign nations.
What of the Green movement? Obama is dumping billions of American dollars into that effort and the companies who receive this vast wealth promptly go bankrupt, producing nothing but helping to destroy our economy.
Such a list could go on and on but I believe that I have proven that his political moves do not necessarily mean that he is for something. Collectively the entire list above would indicate that he is against something and that something is the U.S.A. for everything he does is an assault on liberty and security.
Anarchy and Chaos! That is the plan as designed by George Soros and his followers and is what we see taking place around us and as chaos grows many will simply shake their heads in bewilderment and drop out.
Islam was a well-chosen group to advance the goals of the globalists. There is no group in the world that is so full of hatred for life and their fellow human being, but the simple fact of the matter is that they are to be no more than cannon fodder for the elite. We all see people such as Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Kerry promoting Islam but do you believe that they are Muslims or that the three women I mentioned have aspirations of becoming the property of some Arabian warlord?
The plan to use Islam to disrupt the entire world was laid out well in advance. Obama made his Cairo speech in June of 2009 and began the Arab Spring.
The Clarion Project … June 13, 2014
Now that anarchy and chaos is spreading worldwide and many who lack knowledge about the true intricacies of the plan are predicting Obama’s fall as the situation worsens. They are mistaken! None dare stand against him and his allies. The game is afoot and it will be played out, and if you think it bad now, wait until the true collapse is triggered. Then define Anarchy and Chaos.
Above I asked this question: ‘The question then remains; who are those walls closing in on, Obama, or us?’
I leave the answer to you.
© Danny Jeffrey
Seeking answers to today’s issues.
Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. [Danny Jeffrey]
John R. Houk
© June 15, 2014
In a recent Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC) fundraising email I discovered even more SMOKING GUN evidence that the entirety of the Obama Administration conspired to lie about the Benghazi attack to American voters for political reasons. The CCC email doesn’t harp on the political reasons as I think it should. You have to realize the political reasons were to ensure the reelection of Comrade Obama as the President of the United States of America in November 2012. The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack on the diplomatic annex was a planned attack on September 11, 2012. Obama tried to make that attack appear to voters that the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous motivated riot due to a sophomoric made Youtube video produced in America that was designed to be provocatively racist against Islam.
If you have ever gotten to see what is billed as a Youtube trailer before it was yanked you know the video is so poorly made that it is almost humorous. Unfortunately Free Speech in Islam’s Sharia Law is blasphemous so it is true Muslims were offended. SO WHAT! The Obama Administration has forced American Christians to participate in so many offensive measures from killing unborn lives (taxpayer supported abortions), forcing Christian Hospitals to perform abortions on demand, to force businesses owned by Christians to cater to the service needs of homosexuals even though that lifestyle is an oft repeated abomination to the Presence of God in the Holy Bible and more.
Christian Rights are vacated in the name multicultural acceptance. Christians are forced to absorb the mirth of atheistic Leftists and abortionists, Muslims spewing hate toward Christians (See Also HERE), homosexuals spewing hate toward Biblical Christians and more.
I have no doubts that the Obama Administration tried to both assuage Muslims and fool American voters that his Presidency is totally supportive of a Muslim’s right to go crazy due to multicultural deference.
Is lying to voters to gain an election victory a crime in the USA?
This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
That excerpt above lists only a fraction of the legal infractions committed either by President Obama’s direction and/or Obama’s Executive Branch. And there is no criminal investigations! Why?
By the decision of the Court in Mississippi v. Johnson,720 in 1867, the President was placed beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.721 An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.722 The Court refused to permit the filing, using language construable as meaning that the President was not reachable by judicial process but which more fully paraded the horrible consequences were the Court to act. First noting the limited meaning of the term “ministerial,” the Court observed that “[v]ery different is the duty of the President in the exercise of the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and among these laws the acts named in the bill. . . . The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political.
“An attempt on the part of the judicial department of the government to enforce the performance of such duties by the President might be justly characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’
Rare has been the opportunity for the Court to elucidate its opinion in Mississippi v. Johnson, and, in the Watergate tapes case,724 it held the President amenable to subpoena to produce evidence for use in a criminal case without dealing, except obliquely,[p.580]with its prior opinion. The President’s counsel had argued the President was immune to judicial process, claiming “that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere . . . insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.”725 However, the Court held, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high–level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”726 The primary constitutional duty of the courts “to do justice in criminal prosecutions” was a critical counterbalance to the claim of presidential immunity and to accept the President’s argument would disturb the separation–of–powers function of achieving “a workable government” as well as “gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.”727
Present throughout the Watergate crisis, and unresolved by it, was the question of the amenability of the President to criminal prosecution prior to conviction upon impeachment.728 It was argued that the impeachment clause necessarily required indictment and trial in a criminal proceeding to follow a successful impeachment and that a President in any event was uniquely immune from indictment, and these arguments were advanced as one ground to deny enforcement of the subpoenas running to the President.729 Assertion of the same argument by Vice President Agnew was controverted by the Government, through the Solicitor General, but, as to the President, it was argued that for a number of constitutional [p.581]and practical reasons he was not subject to ordinary criminal process.730
Finally, most recently, the Court has definitively resolved one of the intertwined issues of presidential accountability. The President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.731 The Court’s close decision was premised on the President’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme,” that is, it was derived from the Court’s inquiry of a “kind of ‘public policy’ analysis” of the “policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.”732 … Although the Court relied in part upon its previous practice of finding immunity for officers, such as judges, as to whom the Constitution is silent, although a long common–law history exists, and in part upon historical evidence, which it admitted was fragmentary and ambiguous,734 the Court’s principal focus was upon the fact that the President was distinguishable from all other executive officials. He is charged with a long list of “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,”735 and diversion of his energies by concerns with private lawsuits would “raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”736 …
Supplement: [P. 582, add to text following n.738:]
Unofficial Conduct.—In Clinton v. Jones,9 the Court, in a case of first impression, held that the President did not have qualified immunity from suit for conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election to the Presidency, which would entitle him to delay of both the trial and discovery. The Court held that its precedents affording the President immunity from suit for his official conduct—primarily on the basis that he should be enabled to perform his duties effectively without fear that a particular decision might give rise to personal liability— were inapplicable in this kind of case. Moreover, the separation–of–powers doctrine did not require a stay of all private actions against the President. Separation of powers is preserved by guarding against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one of the coequal branches of the Government at the expense of another. However, a federal trial court tending to a civil suit in which the President is a party performs only its judicial function, not a function of another branch. No decision by a trial court could curtail the scope of the President’s powers. The trial court, the Supreme Court observed, had sufficient powers to accommodate the President’s schedule and his workload, so as not to impede the President’s performance of his duties. Finally, the Court stated its belief that allowing such suits to proceed would not generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation. Congress has the power, the Court advised, if it should think necessary to legislate, to afford the President protection.10 (CRS ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION: Article II — Table of Contents; From Cornel University Law School, Legal information Institute)
Sifting through the legalese I am assuming that means the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for a crime but can be subject to a civil suit as long as it does not interfere with his Executive Branch duties. After his term of Office has expired then he may be subject to criminal proceedings. This is the unofficial reason President Gerald Ford gave President Richard Milhous Nixon a full pardon from any crimes committed while in Office. A sitting President that breaks the law can receive the equivalent of a political indictment called impeachment in the House of Representatives. The Senate acts as the equivalent of a political jury with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as Judge. A Senate conviction ONLY means a removal from Office. Then criminal proceedings can be executed judicially.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:
1. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
2. If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
3. If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
4. For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.
The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.
The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.
The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.
What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.
The Origins of the Phrase
But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.
Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.
Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. …
After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
… (High Crimes and Misdemeanors; From Constitutional Rights Foundation; © 2014 CRF-USA)
Finding a crime directly linked to a sitting POTUS is difficult for justice to be maintained. President Barack Hussein Obama has pushed the criminal envelope to the limits and appears near untouchable because of the blathering love of most of America’s media and the love of political power by the most Left Wing Democratic Party in American history. I am surprised the numerous “phony scandals” has not produced links to actual murder in the name of political power. Thank God so far, that extant of nefarious scandalous illegalities has not come up pertaining to President BHO.
The CCC email I referenced at the beginning of these thoughts exposes the fact that the Islamic terrorists that attacked Libyan Embassy annex in Benghazi had
acquired stolen “State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility”. The Islamic terrorists utilized these phones to coordinate their attack on the annex mission that resulted in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The implication of the CCC email is that America’s Intelligence Community was listening to the Islamic attack coordination! This is another nail in the coffin of lies that exposes Obama and his Administration KNOWINGLY LYING to the American public just prior to the November 2012 election!
This is a ton of political evidence to bring Obama to an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. BUT just like the Democrats in the Senate protected President Slick Willie Clinton from a Senate conviction, the same scenario would undoubtedly take place today in the Senate. EVEN if the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate there will be enough Democrats to ensure that a TWO-THIRDS majority would not be achieved to convict Obama and remove the most corrupt President from Office.
That leaves the only way for Obama to receive some justice for his criminal management of this Administration will be via the Civil Suit and/or criminal charges AFTER his term of Office ends in January 2017. AND there is a good chance Obama would escape that post-Presidential justice if a Democrat actually wins the 2016 election for President. Do you think someone like Hillary Clinton will allow civil or criminal discovery of Obama Administration law breaking to go on the public record? NO! A President Hillary would take a page out of the Republican playbook and give Obama a blanket full pardon preventing any kind of investigation from proceeding with the power of the independent Judicial Branch.
KNOWING these potential unjustified outcomes I say proceed with House impeachment proceedings at least after the 2014 election cycle to get something on the public record. Public revelations will make it more difficult for Hillary to become President and at the very least allow public opinion to force the Judicial Branch into action civilly or criminally.
New Benghazi Scandal Revelations
From: Office of CCC PAC
Sent: 6/14/2014 3:35 PM
Fox News has a stunning new report that shows that the Benghazi terrorists stole the State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility that they had attacked – and they used the phones to coordinate their attack with fellow terrorists.
But the most shocking aspect of the new report is that American intelligence agencies were listening in to the calls – and KNEW instantly that the attack on our compound in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
These stunning new reports are further proof that the Obama administration lied to us about the Benghazi attacks, and then tried to cover up the fact that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and not a political rally in response to a YouTube video.
Please, do not let those four Americans who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 be forgotten, swept under the rug by Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who don’t want the American people to know about the lies and cover ups surrounding that horrific terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Please review our TV ad below demanding that Barack Obama be held accountable for the Benghazi cover up, and if you want us to keep the pressure on the Obama administration for this scandal, make a contribution to our TV ad campaign – HERE.
You can help us keep these ads running on the airwaves by making a contribution of any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed contribution of $5,000.
To make a contribution online – JUST CLICK HERE.
Ever since the Benghazi terrorist attack the Obama administration, with significant backing from the liberal media, have attempted to hide the truth about what happened. To cover their failures in combating terrorism, they told lies saying it was not a preplanned terrorist attack, even when they knew that to be an absolute falsehood.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and countless members of the Obama administration have lied, concealed and attempted to cover up not only the truth but their failures. As has been his pattern of appeasement in the face of Islamic terrorism, Obama himself would not even call this an act of terrorism.
Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said it didn’t matter whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack or whether she and the Obama administration had lied about it.
The Obama administration has dishonored those who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 and now they say it doesn’t matter because it happened “a long time ago.”
It’s time to hold the Obama administration accountable for their misdeeds.
We know the media will try to whitewash the seriousness of this issue. We need to get the truth out as soon as possible, so please make a contribution to our TV ad campaign that holds Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton accountable – CONTRIBUTE HERE.
Again, you can contribute any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed amount of $5,000.
You can also make a contribution online here:
Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN: Benghazi Ad Campaign
P.O. Box 1585
Sacramento, CA 95812
The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt
John R. Houk
© June 15, 2014
New Benghazi Scandal Revelations
Paid for and authorized by the Conservative Campaign Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
John R. Houk
© May 10, 2014
A Google+ gentleman that goes by Jim B posted a series of comments to the SlantRight 2.0 post entitled, “Judge Jeanine: IMPEACH OBAMA”. Jim’s comments basically reflect the Dem Party and Obama Administration spin machine that Benghazigate has been fully investigated with documents provided and an exoneration of any wrongdoing by any one person by the so-called Accountability Review Board (ARB) report. The dismayed Dems maintained numerous House Committees examined witnesses and persons that could be found with a subpoena coming up with zero conclusions of any wrongdoing that was not in the ARB report.
In the unclassified version of the ARB report only generalizations were used in pointing a finger at anyone to be held accountable. This is one reason the less gullible Conservatives tend to think there was a whitewash going on SOMEWHERE. Thanks to the lack of specifics no one really knows for sure where the origin or complicit origins of failure proceeded from. The only clarity the ARB report offers is there was an organized terrorist attack and an absence of appropriate leadership both from Embassy personnel in the primary diplomatic mission in Libya’s capital city Tripoli and from State Department personnel. There is an extreme lack of finger pointing on the U.S. military response which would indicate civilian oversight controlled the decision chain of the military. NO ONE is naming specifics in the military. SO FAR among the military the only person offering any real insight was Brigadier General Robert Lovell in public House testimony at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 1, 2014.
Under the heading of “Findings,” the ARB Report provides the generalization that I am not comfortable with and that the Dems feel is a done deal ergo let’s move on:
… The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his Judgments.
Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.
The Board found the responses by both the BML [Blog Editor: Blue Mountain Libya (security)] guards and February 17 [Blog Editor: February 17 Martyrs Brigade – subcontracted from BML & paid by U.S. Govt.] to be inadequate. The Board’s inquiry found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense of the SMC, or succeeded in summoning a February 17 militia presence to assist expeditiously.
… The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.
The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.
4. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.
5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty. (Bold Emphasis Editors – ARB Report on Benghazi terrorist attack; State.Gov/Documents; unclassified ARB Report released 12/19/12- Fact Sheet Benghazi ARB Implementation – 1/15/14)
The December Benghazi ARB Report is a load of bologna. The House Oversight Committee under the Republican majority (of course the Dems disagree with the majority) issued this report on September 16, 2013. The House Oversight Committee’s interim report is 98 pages long via PDF. Just so you can get an idea of how moronic the Dem contentions that Benghazi has been solved and implying Conservatives must move on, I am cross posting the “Key Concerns,” “Unanswered Questions” and the “Executive Summary” of the Committee’s criticism of the ARB report led by (See Also HERE) Chairman Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Vice-Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen.
Benghazi Accountability Review Board: Key Concerns
o The structure of the ARB and culture within the State Department raised questions about the independence and integrity of the review.
o The ARB blamed systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within two bureaus, but downplayed the importance of decisions made at senior levels of the Department. Witnesses questioned how much these decisions influenced the weaknesses that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi.
o Witnesses questioned whether the ARB went far enough in considering the challenges of expeditionary diplomacy.
o The ARB’s decision to cite certain officials as accountable for what happened in Benghazi appears to have been based on factors that had little or no connection to the security posture at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya.
o The haphazard decision to place the four officials cited by the ARB on paid administrative leave created the appearance that former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s decision to announce action against the individuals named in the ARB report was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a tragedy.
Benghazi Accountability Review Board: Unanswered Questions
o What specific documentary evidence and witness testimony did the ARB review to reach its conclusions?
o What changes are necessary to eliminate the real or perceived lack of independence in the ARB structure?
o Did Secretary Clinton have views on the need to extend the Benghazi mission, both in the fall of 2011 and summer of 2012? Was she consulted on these questions and what, if any, influence did her opinion have on the Department’s decisions?
o Is the State Department resistant to elevating the importance of security considerations?
o Why did the State Department fail to establish an Under Secretary for Security, as recommended by an external review and approved by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, following the attacks in East Africa in 1998?
o Why did the Best Practices Panel strongly recommend that the State Department establish an Under Secretary for Security? Why did the Benghazi ARB not recommend such a change?
o Why did it take the State Department eight months to evaluate the performance of the four individuals placed on administrative leave? What information did Secretary Kerry and his staff review as part of that process? Who was involved in the process?
o How much did the decision to extend the Benghazi mission as a temporary facility limit the Department’s ability to provide security resources?
o Who should be held accountable for deciding to extend the Benghazi mission as a temporary facility?
The September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya resulted in a tragic and unnecessary loss of American life. The attacks also raise a number of important and substantive questions about U.S. foreign policy, with which policymakers will have to grapple for some time. A key area for further discussion and analysis is the balance between the U.S. Department of State’s policy imperative of operating diplomatic outposts abroad and the security realities of doing so in dangerous and unstable environments such as Libya.
Pursuant to statutory requirement under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Terrorism Act of 1986, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB) shortly after the attacks to address these questions. The five-member Board comprised distinguished public servants, including Chairman Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to six countries and the United Nations, and Vice Chairman Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The ARB operated under significant time pressure, completing its work and issuing a final report in just over two months. The State Department widely supported the ARB’s recommendations, and sought to implement them without hesitation. For some, including the Department itself, this report represented the final word on the internal failures that contributed to the tragedy in Benghazi. For others, however, the report overvalued certain facts, overlooked others, and failed to address systemic issues that have long plagued the State Department.
In order to address these concerns, the Committee held a hearing on May 8, 2013, entitled, “Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage.” Not only did the testimony of three State Department officials—Mark Thompson, Eric Nordstrom, and Gregory Hicks—provide important information to Committee Members about the fateful attacks, it raised additional questions about the attacks as well as the ARB’s work. In light of these questions, the Committee initiated a comprehensive investigation of the ARB procedures, findings, and recommendations. Understanding how the ARB reached its conclusions informs the Committee’s interest in ensuring that this process remains efficient and effective, and that U.S. diplomats are able to avoid situations that compromise their safety or their mission. This effort supplements and informs the Committee’s ongoing, independent evaluation of the facts and circumstances of what transpired before, during, and after the attacks on Benghazi.
Since the May 8 hearing, the Committee has taken a number of steps to advance the Benghazi investigation. During that time, the Committee has obtained testimony from more than a dozen witnesses, conducting more than 50 hours of transcribed interviews. The Committee has requested additional interviews, including of survivors of the attacks. The Department has thus far declined to make these individuals available, despite the fact that these individuals were made available to the ARB and media outlets. Committee investigators have reviewed more than 25,000 pages of documents. The Department continues to identify new material responsive to numerous requests from the Committee. The Department’s failure to produce responsive materials has left the Committee with no alternative but to issue subpoenas. Overall, despite many Committee attempts at accommodation, the State Department has been exceedingly uncooperative with the Committee’s investigation of the attacks on Benghazi. Still, the Committee has been able to learn a great deal about the ARB’s work.
While identifying positive and productive aspects of the ARB’s review, witnesses interviewed by the Committee raised a number of significant concerns with the ARB process, findings, and recommendations. Most notably, several witnesses questioned the ARB’s findings regarding the four Department employees held “accountable” for Benghazi. In some cases the ARB appeared to hold individuals accountable for actions which had nothing to do with security in Benghazi. In other cases, the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently failing to take into account decisions made by more senior Department officials. Such senior-level decisions played an equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. In particular, the ARB did not adequately address the decision by Department leadership to operate the Benghazi mission as a temporary and particularly ill-defended outpost of what it calls “expeditionary diplomacy.” Nor did the ARB hold any individuals accountable for that decision.
The State Department’s response to the ARB’s findings on accountability is equally troubling. Secretary Clinton immediately relieved the four employees identified by the ARB of their duties and subsequently placed them on administrative leave – an ambiguous status akin to bureaucratic limbo. The Department misled these employees about what administrative leave entailed, did not allow the employees to challenge this decision, and further prohibited them access to the classified ARB Report, which contained the evidence against them. Moreover, the ARB failed to question these employees on the very topics for which they were held accountable. Last month, after eight months of paid administrative leave, Secretary of State John Kerry reinstated these four employees to Department service. Therefore, one year after the Benghazi attacks, no one at the State Department has been fired for their role leading up to the Benghazi attacks. It appears increasingly likely the Department’s primary objective was to create the public appearance of accountability.
In addition, witnesses questioned whether the ARB properly addressed the challenges of increasing reliance on “expeditionary diplomacy.” Some witnesses and stakeholders suggested that the ARB’s recommendations improve on past failures but do not go far enough in striking the right balance between policy objectives and security realities. While the U.S. cannot advance its national interests from concrete bunkers and there is no such thing as 100 percent security, the highest levels of the Department must establish a clear line of responsibility for balancing foreign policy objectives with diplomatic security. One of the ARB’s recommendations was that the State Department convene an independent best practices panel, comprised of security experts. The Panel identified a number of areas for improvement that the ARB did not address.
This interim report focuses exclusively on the ARB and its shortcomings. While the Committee presents current observations about the ARB gleaned through its investigation, it has also identified areas for further inquiry. Indeed, many serious questions surrounding Benghazi have gone unanswered. The Committee will continue its investigation wherever the facts lead. (Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Interim Report on the Accountability Review Board; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Staff Report Prepared for Chairman Darrell Issa; House – 113th Congress; 9/16/13)
Jim B’s point one contention is this:
1. There was no “cover up of what happened”. It’s been fully documented what happened. 4 Americans died during a terror attack on a U.S. Consulate.
From what I have read there is NO clarity that “there was no ‘cover up of what happened’.”
Jim B’s point two contention is this:
2. The talking points were created by the CIA based on assessment of conditions on the ground at the time. (If you research it, the region was froth with demonstrations over that silly Youtube video. The assessment at the time was that someone used a demonstration as cover for a terror attack. That assessment was upgraded after more information was gathered. Which I believe is pretty standard and appropriate given the conditions.) All of that information was presented at all of the Issa hearings.
Were the White House talking points sent out by Ben Rhodes (Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting – The Patriot Post) to Susan Rice created by the CIA?
Jim B is blatantly incorrect. Or worse, he is following the Dem propaganda of twisting facts to fit his contention. The CIA produced a memo that said NOTHING to do with an insulting Mohammed Youtube video in its intelligence talking points pertaining to the organized Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack that killed FOUR Americans. IN FACT in House Committee questioning then CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell testified that then Ambassador (now NSA Advisor) Susan Rice told five Sunday news talk shows that an Internet video caused rioting in Benghazi which led to a spontaneous attack. Did the CIA frame some talking points? Yes. Did the CIA tell the White House a spontaneous attack of Muslim rioters attacked and killed FOUR Americans in Benghazi? NO!
Jim B and the Dems like to emphasize the Talking Points were based on the best assessment from the best information the White House had at the time. YOU HAVE TO SEE this contention is completely false! So why did the White House desire to spin blame on an Internet video insulting to Muslims? Ben Rhodes or someone at a higher pay grade wanted to mislead voters that President Barack Hussein Obama’s Foreign Policy decisions were working and good for America. Why? Because the national election date was a mere month and a half away from the Benghazi attacks on November 6, 2012. The assessment was only upgraded to a terrorist attack when it was obvious the Mohammed Internet video could no longer be spun as a spontaneous reason for Muslim rioters to attack the Benghazi diplomatic mission. Take note the upgrade came weeks later when the White House ALREADY KNEW the attack at Benghazi was orchestrated and organized. As to the Issa hearings bearing out the Dem contention, the hearings actually cast doubt on the integrity of the Obama Administration rather than concur with the White House, State Department and Benghazi ARB report spin. This is what you can actually tell from Issa’s Committee report partially quoted above.
Here is Jim B’s third contention:
3. That “stand down order” story has been debunked sooo many times I’m shocked that it’s still alive. There hasn’t been one Military commander that has come forward to support this claim. Once again, all of this was presented during all of those Issa hearings.
Jumping first to the last sentence, the Issa hearing DOES NOT support much of the Dem spin effort. Now let’s check out the “’stand down order’ story has been debunked sooo many times.”
The Issa hearings show someone is lying in the military by using the old Dem strategy of twisting facts. You can see what I mean from this March 28th (2014) article of actual Issa hearing investigations:
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last June that personnel in Tripoli were never told to “stand down” and top Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee reported in February that no such order was given.
In the meantime, Issa’s panel, along with staff from the House Armed Services Committee, continues a full-scale investigation, with additional interviews scheduled for next month. The chairman maintained last month that the question of a “stand down” order remains unresolved.
It first emerged last May when Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission who was in Tripoli, told the committee that four members of a special forces team in Tripoli wanted to go in a second wave to assist Americans but were told to stand down.
Fielding questions at a fundraiser in New Hampshire, Issa said: “Why there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset? I have my suspicions, which is Secretary Clinton told Leon (Panetta) to stand down, and we all heard about the stand-down order for two military personnel. That order is undeniable. They were told not to get on – get off the airplane and kind of stand by – and they’re going to characterize it wasn’t stand down. But when we’re done with Benghazi, the real question is, Was there a stand-down order to Leon Panetta or did he just not do his job? Was there a stand-down order from the president, who said he told them to use their resources and they didn’t use them? Those questions have to be answered.”
The February interim report from the Republicans on the Armed Services Committee, including panel chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., said Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson wanted to take three special operators from Tripoli to Benghazi after the first attack. Military commanders were concerned about the safety of Americans in the capital city, fearing a wave of attacks and the possibility of hostage taking.
According to testimony, Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, the Africa commander, told Gibson to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there. In addition, six U.S. security personnel were already en route to Benghazi on a chartered Libyan aircraft to evacuate Americans. The plane with the evacuees on a return flight to Tripoli would have crossed paths with Gibson and three others if they had left for Benghazi.
In committee interviews, Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., asked Gibson whether he agreed that his team was ordered to stand down.
“I was not ordered to stand down,” Gibson testified. “I was ordered to remain in place. ‘Stand down’ implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli.”
Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Issa’s panel, said the panel understands that Gibson doesn’t perceive the order he received as fitting the military definition of a “stand down” order.
“But at the same time the committee does remain concerned about why the decision was made for Lt. Col. Gibson to not be allowed to go to Benghazi to assist Americans who were fighting at the time there but instead was given a different task to do in Tripoli and trying to understand fully, with all different circumstances existed at that time why the priority was for him to stay in Tripoli and not assist Americans under fire,” Hill said. (Bold Emphasis Editors - House GOP pursues Benghazi ‘stand down’ probe; By DONNA CASSATA; Associated Press – Washington Times; 3/28/14)
Jim B the “stand down order” rather than being debunked is thrown into the area of cover-up wording.
Jim B’s contention number four causes incredulity to suggest that President Bush reading of a children’s story to an Elementary School class is something similar to the suggestion President Obama was snoozing at night when FOUR Americans were being murdered by Islamic terrorists. Yes, about 3000 died in the Twin Towers, BUT that attack was a Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack. The FOUR murdered Americans was preventable if security protocol was followed and perhaps two of the four dead may have been rescued if Special Forces were allowed to be dispatched from Tripoli to Benghazi in which Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods managed to kill 60 attackers over a seven hour period.
4. The attack happened at night U.S. time, I would imagine the president was in bed. I’m struggling to figure out why this is even relevant. If this point is relevant then President Bush should have been investigated for sitting through the remainder of “My Pet Goat” while the twin towers were under attack. (Didn’t he care that 3,000 Americans were about to lose their lives?)
When I read Jim B’s contention-point four, the first thing that came to mind was the Hillary Clinton 2008 Presidential campaign ad:
Was Obama snoozing at 3 AM? Was Hillary snoozing at 3 AM? Worse! What if neither were snoozing at 3 AM and they were thinking of their political futures rather than doing whatever was possible to alleviate security mistakes?
5. Secretary Clinton asked Congress for more money to increase security at embassies and consulates. She was rebuffed and had to make due with the security details that were available to the state dept. To hold her accountable and hold Congress blameless for refusing her request seems like a myopic approach to an investigation.
Even the ARB report does not blame Congress for the lack of security at the Benghazi diplomatic mission. But let’s look at that tiring Dem position of blaming Republicans in the House for not providing the proper funding for security in Benghazi.
Does anyone think it was stupid to spend money on Benghazi security to the February 17 Martyrs Brigade which has been proven to have the same Islamic ideals as al Qaeda? I’m just saying, that is EXACTLY what the State Department did while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State! How much sense does it make to pay Islamic terrorist sympathizers for security protection of U.S. diplomats when they could have paid the salaries of Marines or whoever is typically tasked to defend U.S. Embassy personnel? If Benghazi security was cut for budget reasons, WHY in the world would the State Department not scale back Embassy funding in Western nations in which there is more dedication by the host nations’ to Embassy sovereignty and Diplomatic Immunity AND not increase funding security in less stable nations such as Libya?
In full disclosure Jim B was not the only Google+ commenter on Judge Jeanine Pirro implying that Obama should be impeached, but he was the detractor that offered the most specific defense for the Dem Party line that Benghazi is a phony scandal and that the GOP should just move on and quit politicizing the FOUR Benghazi murders. Every time I hear that “GOP politicizing” accusation I scoff in the extreme! It was Obama and the Dems that politicized Benghazi in the first place by successfully manipulating the 2012 national voters. Voters need to know just how nefarious the Dem leadership is in maintaining political control of America to continue the Obama Change-Transformation of Americans in a stealth Marxist manner a la F.M. Davis-Alinsky-et all.
So does Benghazigate matter? You are down tootin’ it matters!