Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance


bho-purged-military-for-disagreeing

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

 

You should be aware that the Obama Administration has taken a hard line toward military servicemen from private to general for minor infractions, made-up infractions or policy direction opposite to the worst President in U.S. history.

 

Sgt. Gary Stein

 

The Marine sergeant facing discharge because of critical comments about President Obama says the board that recommended his dismissal ignored the law and instead relied on “personal opinion.”

 

 

Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran including deployment to Iraq, had been recommended for dismissal and an other-than-honorable discharge by his commander for comments posted on four Facebook pages.

 

In his postings, Stein called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him and called for his defeat in this year’s election. One of the websites was an Armed Forces Tea Party page on Facebook that was created by Stein. READ ENTIRETY (Marine who criticized Obama says hearing board ignored law; Posted by NewsEditor; USIF.net; 4/11/12)

 

Lt. Michael Behenna

 

On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.

 

During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.

 

Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. READ ENTIRETY (MILITARY PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE; ARMY RANGER GOES TO PRISON FOR 25 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AL QAEDA OPERATIVE; DefendMichael.com)

 

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

 

McKiernan was succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was in turn assigned to undertake his own 60-day assessment. But when word spread that McChrystal intended to propose a substantial new increase in forces, which Pentagon gossip initially put as high as 80,000 additional troops, waves of dismay spread through the White House. In late September 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post. Its bottom line was clear: If the United States did not pour significant additional resources into Afghanistan, and fast, the likely result would be “mission failure.”

 

… Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches.

 

 

… And less than a year later, McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone profile quoted his top military aides mocking several senior civilian officials, including Eikenberry and Vice President Joe Biden. READ ENTIRETY (Obama vs. the Generals; By ROSA BROOKS; POLITICO; 11/2013)

 

General David Petraeus

 

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is now thinking of retroactively taking away one or two of Petraeus’s four stars. The potential demotion in rank, opposed by the Army, is intended as further punishment for the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty last year. Petraeus accepted two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine for allowing his mistress, Paula Broadwell, to read classified information for research on the biography she was writing about Petraeus.

Carter apparently wants to ensure that Petraeus is treated in the same fashion as other miscreant generals and admirals who have lost rank. Yet there is no evidence that Broadwell (who enjoyed a military security clearance of her own) ever shared the classified information with anyone or disclosed it in the biography.

That does not excuse the bad judgment of Petraeus. But it does invite an obvious comparison with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She not only sent classified information over her unsecured e-mail to several individuals but remains untruthful about that fact. READ ENTIRETY (The Obama Administration Needs to Abandon Its Petraeus Obsession; By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON; National Review; 1/28/16 12:00)

 

General James Mattis, USMC

 

… Mattis wanted to strike Iran in retaliation for killing U.S. troops in Iraq in 2011; however, President Obama refused to grant permission.

 

Iranian-supplied rockets killed as many as 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq in the summer of 2011, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis had a plan to retaliate. I personally recall from my years of duty in Casualty Affairs at Dover Air Force Base during this same time period, that, along with the casualties from IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices with “shaped charges” provided by Iran that could penetrate our armored vehicles) the rockets killed many U.S. troops.  We were receiving the bodies of U.S. service members virtually every day, along with thousands of family members who came to Dover for the ceremonies honoring their loved ones.

 

Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a single such attack in early June of 2011, with another three killed days later. Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, had enough and decided the U.S. must retaliate before the Iranian rockets and IEDs caused further casualties. Coordinating with then Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Mattis proposed an attack inside Iran.

 

 

The White House received the strike proposal and subsequently denied it. President Barack Obama believed such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the need for U.S. troops in Iraq, something he was trying so desperately to end. Some Administration insiders feared the plan would start a war with Iran, a country with which President Obama wanted to improve relations.

 

Of course, now we know President Obama had another reason to deny the strike request, though it was not publicly known.  At the time, the Obama Administration was secretly negotiating with Iran on its growing nuclear weapons program. READ ENTIRETY (What You Need to Know About General Mattis; By Wesley Smith; ACLJ; 1/12/17)

 

I haven’t found reliable confirmation, but some conspiracy site claim:

 

Was Fired After He Refused To Take Up Arms Against U.S. Citizens by Dave Gibson 02/17/2015. READ ENTIRETY (Obama purging top brass from the military; Posted by JS; Independence Day; 10/26/15)

 

Here is an article from FrontPageMag that lists several Generals and Admirals that paints a suspicious picture of an Obama purge of the military of Officers that may have found reasons to disagree with Obama’s military vision.

 

President Obama hasn’t just been hollowing out the military since taking office, he’s been gutting it, purging it of ideologically hostile personnel, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force, military experts say.

 

Although few with military ties are willing to say it openly, it seems the administration is leading an orchestrated effort to seriously undermine the readiness of the military. Some reports indicate that Obama has purged 197 senior military officers since moving into the White House and that many of the retired officers have been harassed at their new civilian jobs for criticizing the president’s policies. The effects of these purges will be felt long after Obama leaves office. READ ENTIRETY (PURGING AND TRANSFORMING OUR MILITARY; By Matthew Vadum; FrontPageMag; 11/7/13)

 

Here is a list of the high-level Officers mentioned in the FrontPageMag article:

 

 

  • David McKiernan

 

  • Stanley McChrystal

 

  • David Petraeus

 

  • John Allen

 

  • Carter Ham

 

  • Admiral David Gaurette

 

  • Marine Gen. James Cartwright

 

  • Vice Admiral Tim Giardina

 

  • Major Gen. Michael Carey

 

The American Left will tell you these generals served their time and retired or were caught in unethical or illegal activities and were forced to resign or retire. The unethical/illegal dismissals appear suspicious to me because these guys became generals or admirals because of military smarts. This insinuates sophomoric actions that tarnishes credibility is way out of the ordinary, especially if their stars were earned in combat situations that led to command reliability. One general says this about the apparent Obama military purge:

 

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WND that President Obama has forced out so many military leaders who have doubts about his policies that the nation’s armed forces no longer feel prepared to fight or to try to win armed conflicts. (Ibid.)

 

By this point if I were you, I’d be wondering why I am thinking about the Obama purge story which has been around for most of Obama’s two terms of Office.

 

I received an email from the mother of a Lieutenant convicted of murder while on active duty in Afghanistan. The email is quite compelling and knowing how Obama has been ripping the military apart, my first thought was to jump on the sympathetic train.

lt-lorance-setenced-20-yrs-prison

Before I jumped on board, I decided to check some other sources to see the military’s case against the Lieutenant. AND WHOAH! There are two conflicting stories that makes the difference between truth and lies because those who testified against the Lieutenant were there and followed orders. And another issue for me is this. Perhaps the story told by the Lieutenant’s soldiers is accurate about the Lieutenant’s character and actions, BUT the military prosecutors obviously withheld exculpatory evidence that make the Lieutenant less of a murderer and more of a taking the enemy combatants out.

 

So, I am going to cross post the mother’s email and then at least an excerpt of the military’s case. And you can see what I mean.

 

JRH 1/20/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

My Son Deserves his Freedom

By Mr. Anna Lorance

Sent 1/17/2017 7:44 AM

anna-lorance-mom-lt-clint-lorance

I know we have never met. But if you have children of your own, you’ll understand why I’m writing you today.

You see, the young handsome man in this photo is my son, Lt. Clint Lorance of the U.S. Army.

Like any mother, I was so scared that Clint would be hurt – or even killed – after he was deployed to Afghanistan.

Then on July 2, 2012, it almost happened.

Clint was sent to a “hot zone” on a dangerous mission to replace a lieutenant who had been injured when the Taliban attacked his platoon just days earlier.

He was warned to look for multiple riders on red motorcycles – known as “spotters” who alert the Taliban when they see U.S. troops. And every soldier was on edge. They all knew about the earlier ambush – and that just days before a U.S. soldier had been shot in the neck in this very village.

Suddenly a U.S. helicopter radioed in to Clint that a group of motorcycle riders was sitting outside of the village near a road that was used only by the Taliban.

As Clint confirmed a clear description of the enemy, a motorcycle charged toward the platoon so one of the soldiers asked permission to fire a warning shot. Clint said, “yes.”

But the riders did not stop. Instead, they continued riding and broke through the troop’s formation, jumped off the motorcycle, and headed right toward our troops. With only a split-second to make a decision, Clint ordered his marksman to fire. Two of the riders were killed. The other was captured in the village.

Meanwhile, two other Taliban members were killed by Clint’s platoon and a second man captured trying to leave the village.

When Clint and his men arrived back at base, Clint ordered both of the prisoners to be tested for explosives residue. BOTH tested positive for residue on their hands, confirming Clint’s suspicions that the motorcycle riders posed a threat.

Yet instead of imprisoning and interrogating these men, military intelligence at Brigade Headquarters released the men back into the wild.

Then they fired Clint as platoon leader.

And one year later, Clint was sitting in a military courtroom on trial for murder.

Five other members of Clint’s platoon were also charged, including the marksman who had actually shot and killed the terrorists.

But all five were promised immunity if they would agree to testify against Clint.

Every one of the statements from these five soldiers changed from their initial statements. That’s right, not one of their stories was the same as the account they gave on the day of the attack.

But Clint’s account did not change.

And when asked for his only statement during the trial, he looked into the eyes of the jury and said, “I totally take all responsibility for my actions. I gave the order because I was the leader on the ground and perceived a hostile intent.”

My friend, I’m proud that my son gave that order.

Because only weeks after the ambush on Clint’s platoon, a motorcycle with two riders rode into a village where U.S. soldiers were patrolling and detonated explosives strapped to their cycle. That leader did not react as my son did – and American soldiers died.

But none of this mattered to the military court. Even though Clint never fired his weapon, he was found “guilty” and sentenced to 20 years in Fort Leavenworth Prison.

As soon as the verdict was read, Clint turned to us. He told his brother, “Be strong and promise me that you will take care of my Momma and Dad.”

Then he took me by the shoulders and said, “Momma I can’t leave here without knowing that you are okay.”

It took every bit of strength I had to not cry. I did not want Clint to see me in tears as they took him from the courtroom. Instead I told him, “We will get through this. God loves to walk the dark hills with us.”

Now, over three years later, I’m seeing just how much God is walking with us through this terrible time thanks to Major Bill Donahue of the United American Patriots. UAP helps provide legal defenses for soldiers like Clint who have been unjustly accused of crimes for making split-second decisions in the heat of combat.

Maj. Donahue is a Marine who survived three tours of duty in Vietnam – so he knows what it’s like to make decisions behind enemy lines. And he knows you can’t second-guess our young soldiers who have been trained to defend themselves in combat.

UAP is fighting to help Clint mount an appeal, a motion for mistrial AND secure a presidential pardon. But it’s a costly process – and money our son doesn’t have.

Clint was stripped of all pay when he was indicted. He was forced to sell his house. And he lost all 10 years of his Army pension.

All we can do now is rely on UAP and the big hearts of American patriots like you who support them and their mission.

UAP is a non-profit organization. They don’t receive a dime of federal funding. And Maj. Donahue doesn’t even take a salary for his work. He just wants to help soldiers.

If you can help with a tax-deductible gift of any amount, won’t you please send it to UAP today to help them fight for my son?

While politically correct government officials are going to extreme measures to protect the “civil rights” of terrorists who want to destroy our country, soldiers like my son are sitting in prison for protecting our nation from these terrorists!

On behalf of every mother of a U.S. soldier, thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for whatever support you can send today.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Anna Lorance

P.S. During a break in the trial, I walked outside to catch some air. The last soldier who had testified against Clint was standing on the sidewalk with tears running down his face. When he looked up at me he quickly dropped his head in shame. Clearly, he knows he helped the Obama Administration send an innocent soldier to prison. Thank you for helping UAP fight to bring him home!

 

+++

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

By Michelle Tan

January 12, 2015

Army Times

 

Shortly after the soldiers from 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment set out on patrol from Strong Point Payenzai, Afghanistan, a motorcycle carrying three Afghan men came into view.

 

Pfc. James Skelton reported the sighting to 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, his new platoon leader.

 

“He told me to engage,” Skelton said, according to the transcript from Lorance’s court-martial.

 

Skelton fired two shots. He missed. The motorcycle came to a stop, the men climbed off and began walking towards the Afghan National Army soldiers who were at the front of the U.S.-Afghan patrol.

 

“The ANA started telling them to go back, waving to them to return towards the motorcycle, to stay away,” Skelton testified. “They turned around and went back towards the motorcycle.”

 

Within seconds, two of them were dead. The third man ran away.

 

A gun truck that was accompanying the soldiers on foot had opened fire with its M240B machine gun.

 

“He was told to engage by Lieutenant Lorance when they had a visual,” Skelton testified.

 

“Did he ask the vehicle what the men were doing?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“No,” Skelton said.

 

“He just told them to engage?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“Yes,” Skelton said.

 

One year after that fateful July 2, 2012, patrol, in a case that has been controversial from the start, Lorance was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

 

Lorance, now 30, is serving a 19-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but his case is far from over. Across the nation, thousands are rallying in hopes the baby-faced soldier can regain his freedom. They see him as a patriot, unfairly punished for actions taken to protect his fellow soldiers.

 

His own soldiers, however, paint a much different picture: They claim their platoon leader was ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.

 

 

But as the fight for the young officer’s freedom has gained traction online and on social media, Lorance’s own soldiers are pushing back, they say, to make sure their side of the story is told.

 

Two sides of Clint Lorance

 

“All these petitioners need to be shown what kind of man [Lorance] really is,” said a soldier who served as a team leader in Lorance’s platoon, who asked to speak on background because he is still on active duty. “This isn’t a soldier that went to war and gone done wrong. This is a soldier that had a taste for blood and wanted to have that fulfilled. And he did, but in the wrong way.”

 

Todd Fitzgerald, a former specialist and infantryman in Lorance’s platoon, said he felt betrayed by the lieutenant.

 

“I don’t believe that he really understood what he was getting into,” he said.

 

Fitzgerald testified during Lorance’s court-martial.

 

“Us testifying against him, it wasn’t a matter of not liking him, it wasn’t a matter of any type of grudge or coercion,” he said. “It was simply we knew that his actions, based on our experience, having operated in that area for months, were going to breed further insurgency. If you kill local citizens, they’re no longer willing to help you.”

 

Testimony from these solders is in stark contrast to how Lorance’s mother, Anna, describes her son.

 

 

Fight for a new trial

 

Maher said he is disappointed in Clarke’s decision regarding clemency. He also said his client has grounds for a new trial.

 

“The defense has now identified information linking five of seven Afghan military-aged males on the field that day with terror,” Maher said. “Because the government has always had that information and did not disclose it to the command or the trial defense counsel, examining 1st Lt. Lorance’s decision-making takes a back seat. We never get to that question.”

 

Basically, the government is obligated to disclose evidence that could negate guilt, reduce the degree of guilt or reduce the punishment for the accused, Maher said, citing the Rule for Courts-Martial.

 

“The first day at the Army JAG school, we’re taught you turn over everything,” said Maher, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

 

The government made a “serious legal error” by not turning over exonerating and/or mitigating evidence contained in government computer databases, Maher said.

 

“Before the government can take away any soldier’s liberty, freedom, career, income, retirement, educational benefits, and full ability to get a job, the government must follow the rules,” he said. “Here, it did not.”

 

If that information had been turned over, the defense might have taken a different approach, or the case may not even have made it to trial, said Maher, who points out Lorance never fired his weapon that day.

 

“Clint did not initiate this, nor did he engage anybody directly,” he said.

 

Though he didn’t fire the weapon, he was convicted of making the call. He was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men on the motorcycle were killed.

 

 

“Over about a three-day period, Lieutenant Lorance … committed crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty,” said Capt. Kirk Otto, who prosecuted the case for the government, according to a transcript of the court-martial.

 

First, on June 30, 2012, Lorance threatened to kill an Afghan man and his family, Otto said in his opening statement.

 

The man, a farmer, and his child, who was about 4 years old, were at the gate to talk to the Americans about the concertina wire that was blocking access to his farm field, Otto said.

 

“He said, ‘You move the c-wire, I’ll have somebody kill you,'” Spc. James Twist, who was at the scene, testified during the court-martial.

 

Lorance then tried to have the Afghan turn in IEDs to the Americans, Twist testified.

 

“He was like, ‘You bring us IEDs or we’ll have the ANA kill your family,'” Twist said. “And Lieutenant Lorance was like, ‘Well, if we ever come onto your land and we step on an IED or we find an IED, I’ll have the ANA come and kill your family.’ And he pointed to the kid and said, ‘Do you want to see your child grow up?'”

 

The next day, Lorance directed one of the platoon’s squad designated marksmen to fire his M14 rifle from one of the Strong Point’s guard towers into the neighboring village of Sarenzai, Otto said.

 

“He directs harassing fire — illegal harassing fire — at villagers,” Otto said.

 

Lorance directed his soldier to shoot near groups of people, as well as at walls and vehicles, he said. The soldier, Spc. Matthew Rush, refused to shoot when Lorance directed him to fire near a group of children, Otto said.

 

“These villagers were not doing anything,” Otto said. “There was no demonstrated hostile intent. No one heard incoming shots.”

 

The soldier who served as a team leader in the platoon, who spoke to Army Times on background, said he has pictures of Lorance on the rooftop.

 

“He was out of control,” the soldier said. “We told him, ‘Sir, I don’t think it’s a good idea.’ He was like, ‘Oh, it’s a great idea. We’re going to scare these guys so they actually attend our shura, and we won’t lose anymore guys.”

 

Lorance later tried to have Sgt. Daniel Williams, who was in the tactical operations center, falsely report that the Strong Point received incoming potshots, Otto said.

 

“He told me to report up that they had taken potshots from the village,” Williams testified. “I told him that I wouldn’t … because it’s a false report. At least I thought so, sir.”

 

Williams also testified that Lorance said “he didn’t really care about upsetting them too much because he f**king hated them.”

 

‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?’

 

The next day, as the soldiers prepared to head out on a patrol, a small group of three or four Afghan men met them at the gate.

 

The men were upset. They wanted to know why the Americans shot into their village the day before.

 

Lorance told them that if they had a problem, they could attend the shura, or meeting, he planned to have later in the week, according to testimony. The Afghans refused to budge.

 

“He told them to get out of there,” Skelton said in his testimony. “He started very aggressively yelling at them, and he started counting, and he pulled back the charging handle on his weapon and chambered a round.”

 

As the soldiers’ interpreter “panicked,” one of the other soldiers testified, the Afghans turned away and left.

 

The Americans and a squad of Afghan National Army soldiers began walking out on their patrol.

 

Just moments into the patrol, Skelton opened fire on the motorcycle and then Pvt. David Shilo, operating the M240B machine gunon the truck, killed the two Afghans.

 

Fitzgerald, who left the Army in August, said he was standing near Lorance when the men on the motorcycle were hit.

 

“I remember him asking, ‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?'” Fitzgerald said, adding that Lorance then took the radio and ordered the soldiers in the gun truck to open fire.

 

The men on the motorcycle stopped when Skelton first opened fire, Fitzgerald said.

 

“At that point, they were definitely not any type of threat,” he said. “They weren’t coming at us.”

 

The patrol then pushed on into the village, where the bodies were quickly surrounded by crying and upset villagers.

 

First, Lorance prevented Skelton, who’s trained to conduct battle damage assessments, including READ ENTIRETY

 

+++

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

December 8, 2016

Military Votes Count

 

 

The Case Against Clint Lorance –

 

His own men testified against him. They said the guys on the motorcycles were not a threat. At first, they refused to fire, but Clint ordered them to open fire. They also claimed that Lt. Lorance threatened a local farmer that he and his son would be killed if the Taliban planted an I.E.D. (improvised explosive device) on their farm land.

 

If your own troops testify against you, that has to be given heavy weight; however, that four of the six troops were granted immunity places shade on their testimony.

 

The Case In Favor of Clint Lorance –

 

Clint Lorance was sent into a heavy Taliban-invested area to replace another leuitent that had been wounded. At the trial the government may not have disclosed that the men who were killed were Taliban IED terrorists. Following the trial, this evidence came out (and here). Clint also had information that his troops did not from overhead surveillance which indicated Taliban were closing in on his position.

 

 

The Takeaway –

 

If the government withheld exculpatory evidence, then the military prosecutors should be charged. I don’t know that they did that, but if they did.

 

There are two versions of this story. In one version Clint is a blood thirsty 1st Lt. who is out of control, who is killing the very people our troops were sent there to protect. In the other version, the people he killed were the enemy, and the government knew they were the enemy. In this second version, 1st Lt. Clint Lorance had good reason to believe they were the enemy.

 

There is READ ENTIRETY

 

Supporters of Lt. Clint Lorance that send email alerts:

 

Lt. Col. Allen West

 

TruthRevolt.org

 

United American Patriots (UAP)

 

UAP Petition (to Obama – hopefully changing to President Trump)

 

UAP Donation for Lt. Clint Lorance

_______________

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

_____________

My Son Deserves his Freedom

SUPPORT CLINT LORANCE

 

United American Patriots is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Mailing Address: 121-F Shields Park Drive, Kernersville, NC 27284

© Copyright 2016, UnitedPatriots.org

___________

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

 

© 2017 Sightline Media Group Site

 

About Army Times

_________________

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

 

Copyright © 2017 Military Votes Count.

 

About Military Votes Count

 

Reagan Republicans G+ Community Pinned Post


Leftist Dems shout at NO WAR at DNC

DNC Leftists Shout ‘No More War’

 

When the DNC Leftists were shouting “No more war” to Leon Panetta & a U.S. General vainly trying to inspire Patriotism among the Dems, this Reagan video of peace through strength should have been shown.

 

JRH 7/30/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

Reagan Republicans G+ Community Pinned Post

 

Caleb Andrew

Owner

News/Discussion

Pinned Post: Jul 12, 2016

 

No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. -Ronald Reagan

Hello,

I am Caleb Andrew, the owner on the Reagan Republicans community. You see here we believe that America is and always will be the best nation on Earth. However it is in danger, our economy is weak, our infrastructure is crumbling, our influence on the world is deteriorating, and our moral values are becoming inevitably unimportant. However President Ronald Reagan was an optimistic man who loved his God and country and the American people are strong willed and courageous, we have the ability and the will to fix our country and rebuild the American Dream. This community is READ THE REST

 

VIDEO: ★ U.S. Armed Forces – We Must Fight – President Reagan (HD) 2015

 

 

Posted by Canadianmatt3

Uploaded on Feb 19, 2012

 

✯ Video by Matthew Worth (Canadianmatt3) Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/canadianmatt3★ ☆ US Armed Forces “A Time For Choosing” Speech By 40th President of the United States of America Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 — June 5, 2004) ★ ☆

Soundtrack/Audio: Steve Jablonsky – Arrival to Earth – Transformers (2007 Motion Picture) Movie Soundtrack: Transformers: The Album

“Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Memorial Day 2014 LIKE, COMMENT, SHARE & SUBSCRIBE ☆ ★ ☆ US Armed Forces “A Time For Choosing” Speech By 40th President of the United States of America Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 — June 5, 2004) ☆ ★ ☆

Video made by: Matthew Worth (Canadianmatt3)
READ THE REST

Benghazigate Matters!


Benghazigate Cover-up Conspiracy

 

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:

 

2. 

 

… 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.

 

3. …

 

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?

 

Executive Summary

 

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:

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Ad – 3 AM White House Ringing Phone

 

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!

 

JRH 5/10/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Iran, Obama and Nuclear War Part FOUR


Obamasiah toon. by Court Jones 2009

Here is Part Four of Danny Jeffrey’s “Iran, Obama and Nuclear War.” Danny continues the grand design of the Soros/Obama New World. He touches on how Obama is making the U.S. Military compliant to fire on American citizens, the probable location of where Iran will use stealth to detonate a nuclear weapon, Islamic Terrorism unleashed on American soil and more.

 

A Part Five has already been posted!

 

JRH 11/15/13

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Iran, Obama and Nuclear War Part FOUR

 

By Danny Jeffrey

November 14, 2013 1:40 AM

Fix Bayonets

 

 

This essay is the forth in a series about my belief that Hussein Obama is intentionally leading us into a nuclear crisis. The following are links to three prior articles on the topic:

 

Iran, Obama, and Nuclear War-Part One

 

Iran, Obama, and Nuclear War-Part Two

 

Iran, Obama, and Nuclear War-Part Three

Nuke Set off in US cityI have watched Obama, and his fellow progressives for years, and by rejecting the ever abundant internet tripe that ensnares so many, have gleaned an enormous amount of facts and insight into their behavior, and in doing so feel that my efforts have uncovered most of their diabolical plan, about which I have been writing for so long.


I first concluded three years ago that Obama’s policies were going to result in nuclear conflict and at that time related their plan only to the ruin of Israel, already understanding both his and George Soros’ hatred of that small nation. Time and yet more facts coming to light have led me to see a much larger picture, one that is nothing less than absolutely diabolical.

So many refer to Obama as a dictator. They are mistaken. That is his goal, but as of yet it has thankfully not come to fruition. Were he indeed a dictator, we would not be communicating freely on the internet, and the DHS would already be rounding up dissidents. That day is planned, but thus far we still have the First Amendment allowing us to communicate amongst ourselves.


There is no doubt that Hussein does indeed plan on implementing martial law when the time is right and declaring himself to be ‘The One’. That time is not yet here but is most assuredly part of his planned agenda, and I am now convinced that the success of that plan relies on a nuclear crisis. Were that not so, Hussein Obama would not be expending so much effort to guarantee that Iran is successful in their desire to construct a nuclear bomb.


In previous essays I have discussed the need for Obama to destroy our military before engaging the armed population of America, for our READ THE REST

_________________________

Fix Bayonets

 

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.

Liberty and Morality and SB 1867


We the People

 

John R. Houk

© December 12, 2011

 

I am a proponent of utilizing the Patriot Act and FISA to combat Muslim hatred of America in the fashion of transnational Islamic terrorism. Radical Islam has reached inside the very borders of America with the phenomena known as Homegrown Terrorism. Homegrown Terrorism is when the influence of Radical Islam usually directly or indirectly from a foreign source militarizes Muslim-Americans against their own nation of the United States of America.

 

Islam has declared war on America in that Radical Muslim Mullahs have encouraged violence against America and Americans and NO so-called Moderate Muslim Mullah has expressed in outrage that a religion of peace would not contradict a religion of violence.

 

Congress cannot really declare war on transnational Islamic non-sovereign terrorists (except perhaps Iran). So it is left to the Executive Branch to protect Americans from a foreign threat that is not a sovereign nation. Thus it is up the Executive Branch to find that fine line that does not involve the military battling foreign threats inside America while at the same time neutralizing foreign threats within America.

 

The Patriot ACT and updating FISA to confront Islamic terrorism allows a civilian law enforcement response with the independence similar to the military to engage a foreign enemy or Americans turned against their nation by a foreign threat.

 

President Bush’s Administration effectively used the Patriot ACT to the level that there were no terrorist successes within the American homeland on the scale of the Islamic terrorist attack in New York City, Washington, DC (i.e. the Pentagon) and the crashing of Flight of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, a huge scouring by the Left leaning MSM and the Democratic Party effectively propagandized Bush a President embroiled in war at the expense of American lives (the military) and of American personal Liberty. At this point we can say, “Enter Obama” with unfulfilled promises of “Change” from politics as usual (meaning Republican Conservatism) and “Transparency” to make the BHO Administration open to public scrutiny.

 

The only change that has occurred is to dilute the Constitution, move America into European entitlement Socialism and openly destroy the moral fabric of America by warring on Christian values. There has been ZERO transparency by BHO. The President has spent untold dollars on making sure his past did not find the light of day implying there was some kind of political embarrassment about his birth, schooling and initial moves into public life. Also BHO has issued Congressional usurping Executive Orders causing and affecting the rule of law by fiat many of which were quite secretive EOs. BHO has circumvented Constitutional accountability by creating a Czar-Commissar system that neither has Congressional oversight nor a Constitutional basis in the Executive Branch.

 

Now Republicans in Congress are showing just how unobservant they are by allowing a couple changes to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (SB 1867) to be attached. NDAA-2012 enables Obama to use the U.S. Military to detain and question American citizens as well as to be held for an indefinite amount of time without the Court System. Even the Left Wing Huffington Post is calling for President BHO to veto the Bill! You see the problem is there are loads of military funding goodies in the Bill if vetoed would slow down the military budget. Conspiracy Theorists believe this would be an opportunity for President BHO to create a domestic crisis in which the military might be used in the final push to transform America without the restraints of the U.S. Constitution.

 

If the President signs this Bill it would enable a huge amount of centralized power in the hands of the Executive Branch that certainly has crossed the line of the Constitution making the Patriot Act looking like a civil rights picnic. Now as if the NDAA-2012 is not bad enough for American Freedom, the Bill also completely transforms morality in the military. Part of SB 1867 changed Article 125 of the Unified Code of Military Justice that originally reads:

 

It states: ‘(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.’” (Emphasis SlantRight)

 

In an effort to codify homosexuality as normal and moral SB 1867 removes sodomy as a punishable crime in the Military. Now for me this is bad enough; however with all the lawyers that are lawmakers you would think that someone would catch that a blanket legalization of sodomy according Article 125 also legalizes bestiality, right?

 

You know voting constituents that finally give the Dems the boot out of the Senate and President Barack Hussein Obama the boot out of the Whitehouse will demand a return to at least “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell”. This would mean sodomy as defined by the original Article 125 would return.

 

The thing is a battle is brewing between homosexual activists and Christian activists. You have to realize Christians are growing weary of Moral Relativist Secular Humanists marginalizing the Christian faith especially when we Christian Believers know that our faith is the foundation of the rule of law that has made the American Constitution great. When all these misinterpreters of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment (erroneously labeled as Separation of Church and State) activate righteous indignation and push Christians into being just as verbally active as the anti-Christian cultural transformationists, then I believe political polarity will exist in America that will first go through the Left Wing influenced Judicial Branch ending with a Constitutional Amendment. I am guessing Original Intent Judges are outnumbered but will be vocal enough to push Christians to work on a new Amendment. The Christian-Humanist conflict will then begin to draw in a score of other Social Conservative issues with Pro-Life/Pro-Choice most likely at the top of the list.

 

Like there are Liberals and Conservatives alike dissatisfied with the Patriot Act and the portion of NDAA-2012 that gives the U.S. military power over the civilian population, there is an irony concerning making bestiality legal in the U.S. Military. That irony is an organization that most Conservatives believe are a group of Liberal nut jobs. The organization is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA became riled with the legalizing of bestiality in the Military when the Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney flippantly dismissed a question from WorldNetDaily press corps journalist Les Kinsolving.

 

Les Kinsolving of WND

 

Does the Commander-in-Chief approve or disapprove of beastiality (sic) in our armed forces?”

 

The question did not please Jay Carney. He ignored the question by saying:

 

Let’s get to something more serious

 

VIDEO of Press Conference

 

PETA sent an open letter to Press Secretary Jay Carney:

 

December 6, 2011

Mr. Jay Carney
Press Secretary to the President
The White House

Dear Mr. Carney:

 

In watching last night’s news briefing, we were upset to note that you flippantly addressed the recently approved repeal of the military ban on bestiality. With respect, this is no laughing matter. Our office has been flooded with calls from Americans who are upset that this ban has been repealed—and for good reason. As we outlined in the attached letter sent yesterday to the secretary of defense, animal abuse does not affect animals only—it is also a matter of public safety, as people who abuse animals very often go on to abuse human beings.

 

I hope that in the future, you will address important issues with sensitivity and not dismiss them with a joke.

 

Very truly yours,

 

Colleen O’Brien
Director of Communications

 

I doubt that PETA will join Conservative organizations in condemning homosexuality as an ungodly lifestyle; however I do find amusing that there is an unnamed alliance between PETA and Conservatives over the moral issue of bestiality. Check out this excerpt from the Family Research Council:

 

The White House’s decision to ignore one question on bestiality is generating plenty of others. After Jay Carney’s Monday press conference, the President has started feeling the heat from his own base. It seems People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) doesn’t take too kindly to an administration that green lights animal cruelty. And while it’s not every day that FRC finds itself on the front lines with PETA, their involvement can only lend more legitimacy to the problem. In a letter to Jay Carney, PETA says its offices have been inundated with calls “from Americans who are angry that this ban has been repealed.” And while the press corps may have snickered, PETA says the issue “is no laughing matter.”

 

JRH 12/12/11 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)

Politicizing the Pentagon


Frank Gaffney, Jr. 2

Frank Gaffney exposes reports that homosexuals in the military Service indeed have a deleterious effect on military discipline are bogus reports based on the politicizing of President Obama and homosexual activists.

 

JRH 11/11/10