Who are the human faces of the U.S. government's botched Fast and Furious gun-walking operation?
Fifty seven previously unidentified firearms linked to Operation Fast and Furious were recovered in sites associated with murders, kidnappings, and at least two gruesome massacres.
Univision News obtained the list of Fast and Furious weapons and a list containing almost 60,000 recovered firearms compiled by Mexico's SecretarÃa de la Defensa Nacional (SEDENA). A cross-reference of the serial numbers of the guns resulted in 96 full matches (several partial matches were discarded). The 96 firearms linked to Operation Fast and Furious all turned up at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2010.
In a report published on July 26, Congress mentioned there were "at least 48 recoveries involving 122 weapons [in Mexico] connected to Operation Fast and Furious." To check whether those were the same guns pinpointed by the data cross-reference, Univision News contacted congressional investigators asking for the serial numbers of the 122 guns in Congress' report. After an initial request by Univision News in mid-September and despite numerous phone calls and emails, there was no further response.
Univision News then gathered all the serial numbers available in the evidence appendixes of the major congressional investigation released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Iowa Senator Charles Grassley last July. Another data analysis showed that five of the weapons in the list of 96 were already mentioned in the hundreds of emails and the 4473 forms that the Department of Justice had given to Congress. (The 4473 forms, also known as Firearm Transaction Records, are the documents that people who are purchasing guns from a Federal Firearm Licensee must fill.)
A search of SEDENA's press releases, which often include the serial numbers of seized firearms, resulted in one more firearm whose serial number matched one of those already in Congress' list.
Finally, Univision News compared the recovery dates and locations highlighted in The Department of Justice's Operation Fast and Furious: Fueling Cartel Violence, with those found in the remaining list of 90 weapons. For the cross-reference list and Congress' list, we divided each year's recovered guns by state. After that, we compared the number of weapons found in each state on both lists. That is, we compared the number of guns recovered, say, in 2009 in Baja California, according to lists by Congress and by Univision News.
For instance, if Congress had identified seven Fast and Furious weapons recovered in Baja California in 2009, and our list mentioned 24, then we concluded that our list included at least 17 new weapons. In the end, the state-by-state analysis showed that 57 of the firearms in the cross-reference were not included in Congress' report.
Univision News started looking for unreported Fast and Weapons after discovering a SEDENA document, which said that three guns from an ATF gun-tracing operation were used in the massacre in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez.
ABC News
Monday, October 1, 2012
Democratic N.M. State Rep. Arrested
September 28, 2012 10:39 am
A Democratic state representative was arrested in New Mexico on Tuesday, local KOB news reports:
A state representative who was pulled over for running a stop sign was arrested in northern New Mexico.
Las Vegas police arrested State Rep. Richard Vigil Tuesday night. Authorities said he had an outstanding traffic warrant for failing to appear in court.
Vigil was taken to the San Miguel County jail where he spent the night. He has since bonded out.
White House Hack Attack
Chinese hackers break in to White House military office network in charge of the president’s nuclear football
Hackers linked to China’s government broke into one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive computer networks, breaching a system used by the White House Military Office for nuclear commands, according to defense and intelligence officials familiar with the incident.
One official said the cyber breach was one of Beijing’s most brazen cyber attacks against the United States and highlights a failure of the Obama administration to press China on its persistent cyber attacks.
Disclosure of the cyber attack also comes amid heightened tensions in Asia, as the Pentagon moved two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups and Marine amphibious units near waters by Japan’s Senkaku islands.
China and Japan—the United States’ closest ally in Asia and a defense treaty partner—are locked in a heated maritime dispute over the Senkakus, which China claims as its territory.
U.S. officials familiar with reports of the White House hacking incident said it took place earlier this month and involved unidentified hackers, believed to have used computer servers in China, who accessed the computer network used by the White House Military Office (WHMO), the president’s military office in charge of some of the government’s most sensitive communications, including strategic nuclear commands. The office also arranges presidential communications and travel, and inter-government teleconferences involving senior policy and intelligence officials.
An Obama administration national security official said: “This was a spear phishing attack against an unclassified network.”
Spear phishing is a cyber attack that uses disguised emails that seek to convince recipients of a specific organization to provide confidential information. Spear phishing in the past has been linked to China and other states with sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities.
The official described the type of attack as “not infrequent” and said there were unspecified “mitigation measures in place.”
“In this instance the attack was identified, the system was isolated, and there is no indication whatsoever that any exfiltration of data took place,” the official said.
The official said there was no impact or attempted breach of a classified system within the office.
“This is the most sensitive office in the U.S. government,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the work of the office. “A compromise there would cause grave strategic damage to the United States.”
Security officials are investigating the breach and have not yet determined the damage that may have been caused by the hacking incident, the officials said.
Despite the administration national security official’s assertion, one defense official said there is fairly solid intelligence linking the penetration of the WHMO network to China, and there are concerns that the attackers were able to breach the classified network.
Details of the cyber attack and the potential damage it may have caused remain closely held within the U.S. government.
However, because the military office handles strategic nuclear and presidential communications, officials said the attack was likely the work of Chinese military cyber warfare specialists under the direction of a unit called the 4th Department of General Staff of the People’s Liberation Army, or 4PLA.
It is not clear how such a high-security network could be penetrated. Such classified computer systems are protected by multiple levels of security and are among the most “hardened” systems against digital attack.
However, classified computer systems were compromised in the past using several methods. They include the insertion of malicious code through a contaminated compact flash drive; a breach by a trusted insider, as in the case of the thousands of classified documents leaked to the anti-secrecy web site Wikileaks; and through compromised security encryption used for remote access to secured networks, as occurred with the recent compromise involving the security firm RSA and several major defense contractors.
According to the former official, the secrets held within the WHMO include data on the so-called “nuclear football,” the nuclear command and control suitcase used by the president to be in constant communication with strategic nuclear forces commanders for launching nuclear missiles or bombers.
The office also is in charge of sensitive continuity-of-government operations in wartime or crises.
The former official said if China were to obtain details of this sensitive information, it could use it during a future conflict to intercept presidential communications, locate the president for targeting purposes, or disrupt strategic command and control by the president to U.S. forces in both the United States and abroad.
White House spokesmen had no immediate comment on the cyber attack, or on whether President Obama was notified of the incident.
Former McAffee cyber threat researcher Dmitri Alperovitch said he was unaware of the incident, but noted: “I can tell you that the Chinese have an aggressive goal to infiltrate all levels of U.S. government and private sector networks.”
“The White House network would be the crown jewel of that campaign so it is hardly surprising that they would try their hardest to compromise it,” said Alperovictch, now with the firm Crowdstrike.
Last week the senior intelligence officer for the U.S. Cyber Command said Chinese cyber attacks and cyber-espionage against Pentagon computers are a constant security problem.
“Their level of effort against the Department of Defense is constant” and efforts to steal economic secrets are increasing, Rear Adm. Samuel Cox, Cyber Command director of intelligence, told Reuters after a security conference.
“It’s continuing apace,” Cox said of Chinese cyber-espionage. “In fact, I’d say it’s still accelerating.”
Asked if classified networks were penetrated by the Chinese cyber warriors, Cox told the news agency: “I can’t really get into that.”
The WHMO arranges the president’s travel and also provides medical support and emergency medical services, according to the White House’s website.
“The office oversees policy related to WHMO functions and Department of Defense assets and ensures that White House requirements are met with the highest standards of quality,” the website states. “The WHMO director oversees all military operations aboard Air Force One on presidential missions worldwide. The deputy director of the White House Military Office focuses primarily on the day-to-day support of the WHMO.”
The office is also in charge of the White House Communications Agency, which handles all presidential telephone, radio, and digital communications, as well as airlift operations through both fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft.
It also operates the presidential retreat at Camp David and the White House Transportation Agency.
“To assure proper coordination and integration, the WHMO also includes support elements such as operations; policy, plans, and requirements; administration, information resource management; financial management and comptroller; WHMO counsel; and security,” the website states.
“Together, WHMO entities provide essential service to the president and help maintain the continuity of the presidency.”
Asked for comment on the White House military office cyber attack, a Cyber Command spokesman referred questions to the White House.
Regarding U.S. naval deployments near China, the carrier strike groups led by the USS George Washington and the USS Stennis, along with a Marine Corps air-ground task force, are now operating in the western Pacific near the Senkakus, according to Navy officials.
China recently moved maritime patrol boats into waters near the Senkakus, prompting calls by Japanese coast guard ships for the vessels to leave.
Chinese officials have issued threatening pronouncements to Japan that Tokyo must back down from the recent government purchase of three of the islands from private Japanese owners.
Tokyo officials have said Japan is adamant the islands are Japanese territory.
Officials said the Washington is deployed in the East China Sea and the Stennis is in the South China Sea.
About 2,200 Marines are deployed in the Philippine Sea on the USS Bonhomme Richard and two escorts.
The U.S. Pacific Command said the deployments are for training missions and carriers are not necessarily related to the Senkaku tensions.
“These operations are not tied to any specific event,” said Capt. Darryn James, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu, according to Time magazine. “As part of the U.S. commitment to regional security, two of the Navy’s 11 global force carrier strike groups are operating in the Western Pacific to help safeguard stability and peace.”
As a measure of the tensions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Chinese military leaders during his recent visit to China that the U.S. military will abide by its defense commitments to Japan despite remaining publicly neutral in the maritime dispute.
“It’s well known that the United States and Japan have a mutual defense treaty,” a defense official said of Panetta’s exchange in Beijing. “Panetta noted the treaty but strongly emphasized that the United States takes no position on this territorial dispute and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute peacefully. This shouldn’t have to get to the point where people start invoking treaties.”
A report by the defense contractor Northrop Grumman made public by the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in March stated that China’s military has made targeting of U.S. command and control networks in cyber warfare a priority.
“Chinese capabilities in computer network operations have advanced sufficiently to pose genuine risk to U.S. military operations in the event of a conflict,” the report said.
“PLA analysts consistently identify logistics and C4ISR infrastructure as U.S. strategic centers of gravity suggesting that PLA commanders will almost certainly attempt to target these system with both electronic countermeasures weapons and network attack and exploitation tools, likely in advance of actual combat to delay U.S. entry or degrade capabilities in a conflict,” the report said.
C4ISR is military jargon for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Little is known within the U.S. intelligence community about Chinese strategic cyber warfare programs.
However, recent military writings have disclosed some aspects of the program, which is believed to be one of Beijing’s most closely guarded military secrets, along with satellite weapons, laser arms, and other high-technology military capabilities, such as the DF-21 ballistic missile modified to attack aircraft carriers at sea.
A Chinese military paper from March stated that China is seeking “cyber dominance” as part of its efforts to build up revolutionary military capabilities.
“In peacetime, the cyber combat elements may remain in a ‘dormant’ state; in wartime, they may be activated to harass and attack the network command, management, communications, and intelligence systems of the other countries’ armed forces,” wrote Liu Wangxin in the official newspaper of the Chinese military on March 6.
“While great importance is attached continuously to wartime actions, it is also necessary to pay special attention to non-wartime actions,” he said. “For example, demonstrate the presence of the cyber military power through cyber reconnaissance, cyber deployment, and cyber protection activities.”
Source: Washington Free Beacon
Hackers linked to China’s government broke into one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive computer networks, breaching a system used by the White House Military Office for nuclear commands, according to defense and intelligence officials familiar with the incident.
One official said the cyber breach was one of Beijing’s most brazen cyber attacks against the United States and highlights a failure of the Obama administration to press China on its persistent cyber attacks.
Disclosure of the cyber attack also comes amid heightened tensions in Asia, as the Pentagon moved two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups and Marine amphibious units near waters by Japan’s Senkaku islands.
China and Japan—the United States’ closest ally in Asia and a defense treaty partner—are locked in a heated maritime dispute over the Senkakus, which China claims as its territory.
U.S. officials familiar with reports of the White House hacking incident said it took place earlier this month and involved unidentified hackers, believed to have used computer servers in China, who accessed the computer network used by the White House Military Office (WHMO), the president’s military office in charge of some of the government’s most sensitive communications, including strategic nuclear commands. The office also arranges presidential communications and travel, and inter-government teleconferences involving senior policy and intelligence officials.
An Obama administration national security official said: “This was a spear phishing attack against an unclassified network.”
Spear phishing is a cyber attack that uses disguised emails that seek to convince recipients of a specific organization to provide confidential information. Spear phishing in the past has been linked to China and other states with sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities.
The official described the type of attack as “not infrequent” and said there were unspecified “mitigation measures in place.”
“In this instance the attack was identified, the system was isolated, and there is no indication whatsoever that any exfiltration of data took place,” the official said.
The official said there was no impact or attempted breach of a classified system within the office.
“This is the most sensitive office in the U.S. government,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the work of the office. “A compromise there would cause grave strategic damage to the United States.”
Security officials are investigating the breach and have not yet determined the damage that may have been caused by the hacking incident, the officials said.
Despite the administration national security official’s assertion, one defense official said there is fairly solid intelligence linking the penetration of the WHMO network to China, and there are concerns that the attackers were able to breach the classified network.
Details of the cyber attack and the potential damage it may have caused remain closely held within the U.S. government.
However, because the military office handles strategic nuclear and presidential communications, officials said the attack was likely the work of Chinese military cyber warfare specialists under the direction of a unit called the 4th Department of General Staff of the People’s Liberation Army, or 4PLA.
It is not clear how such a high-security network could be penetrated. Such classified computer systems are protected by multiple levels of security and are among the most “hardened” systems against digital attack.
However, classified computer systems were compromised in the past using several methods. They include the insertion of malicious code through a contaminated compact flash drive; a breach by a trusted insider, as in the case of the thousands of classified documents leaked to the anti-secrecy web site Wikileaks; and through compromised security encryption used for remote access to secured networks, as occurred with the recent compromise involving the security firm RSA and several major defense contractors.
According to the former official, the secrets held within the WHMO include data on the so-called “nuclear football,” the nuclear command and control suitcase used by the president to be in constant communication with strategic nuclear forces commanders for launching nuclear missiles or bombers.
The office also is in charge of sensitive continuity-of-government operations in wartime or crises.
The former official said if China were to obtain details of this sensitive information, it could use it during a future conflict to intercept presidential communications, locate the president for targeting purposes, or disrupt strategic command and control by the president to U.S. forces in both the United States and abroad.
White House spokesmen had no immediate comment on the cyber attack, or on whether President Obama was notified of the incident.
Former McAffee cyber threat researcher Dmitri Alperovitch said he was unaware of the incident, but noted: “I can tell you that the Chinese have an aggressive goal to infiltrate all levels of U.S. government and private sector networks.”
“The White House network would be the crown jewel of that campaign so it is hardly surprising that they would try their hardest to compromise it,” said Alperovictch, now with the firm Crowdstrike.
Last week the senior intelligence officer for the U.S. Cyber Command said Chinese cyber attacks and cyber-espionage against Pentagon computers are a constant security problem.
“Their level of effort against the Department of Defense is constant” and efforts to steal economic secrets are increasing, Rear Adm. Samuel Cox, Cyber Command director of intelligence, told Reuters after a security conference.
“It’s continuing apace,” Cox said of Chinese cyber-espionage. “In fact, I’d say it’s still accelerating.”
Asked if classified networks were penetrated by the Chinese cyber warriors, Cox told the news agency: “I can’t really get into that.”
The WHMO arranges the president’s travel and also provides medical support and emergency medical services, according to the White House’s website.
“The office oversees policy related to WHMO functions and Department of Defense assets and ensures that White House requirements are met with the highest standards of quality,” the website states. “The WHMO director oversees all military operations aboard Air Force One on presidential missions worldwide. The deputy director of the White House Military Office focuses primarily on the day-to-day support of the WHMO.”
The office is also in charge of the White House Communications Agency, which handles all presidential telephone, radio, and digital communications, as well as airlift operations through both fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft.
It also operates the presidential retreat at Camp David and the White House Transportation Agency.
“To assure proper coordination and integration, the WHMO also includes support elements such as operations; policy, plans, and requirements; administration, information resource management; financial management and comptroller; WHMO counsel; and security,” the website states.
“Together, WHMO entities provide essential service to the president and help maintain the continuity of the presidency.”
Asked for comment on the White House military office cyber attack, a Cyber Command spokesman referred questions to the White House.
Regarding U.S. naval deployments near China, the carrier strike groups led by the USS George Washington and the USS Stennis, along with a Marine Corps air-ground task force, are now operating in the western Pacific near the Senkakus, according to Navy officials.
China recently moved maritime patrol boats into waters near the Senkakus, prompting calls by Japanese coast guard ships for the vessels to leave.
Chinese officials have issued threatening pronouncements to Japan that Tokyo must back down from the recent government purchase of three of the islands from private Japanese owners.
Tokyo officials have said Japan is adamant the islands are Japanese territory.
Officials said the Washington is deployed in the East China Sea and the Stennis is in the South China Sea.
About 2,200 Marines are deployed in the Philippine Sea on the USS Bonhomme Richard and two escorts.
The U.S. Pacific Command said the deployments are for training missions and carriers are not necessarily related to the Senkaku tensions.
“These operations are not tied to any specific event,” said Capt. Darryn James, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu, according to Time magazine. “As part of the U.S. commitment to regional security, two of the Navy’s 11 global force carrier strike groups are operating in the Western Pacific to help safeguard stability and peace.”
As a measure of the tensions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Chinese military leaders during his recent visit to China that the U.S. military will abide by its defense commitments to Japan despite remaining publicly neutral in the maritime dispute.
“It’s well known that the United States and Japan have a mutual defense treaty,” a defense official said of Panetta’s exchange in Beijing. “Panetta noted the treaty but strongly emphasized that the United States takes no position on this territorial dispute and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute peacefully. This shouldn’t have to get to the point where people start invoking treaties.”
A report by the defense contractor Northrop Grumman made public by the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in March stated that China’s military has made targeting of U.S. command and control networks in cyber warfare a priority.
“Chinese capabilities in computer network operations have advanced sufficiently to pose genuine risk to U.S. military operations in the event of a conflict,” the report said.
“PLA analysts consistently identify logistics and C4ISR infrastructure as U.S. strategic centers of gravity suggesting that PLA commanders will almost certainly attempt to target these system with both electronic countermeasures weapons and network attack and exploitation tools, likely in advance of actual combat to delay U.S. entry or degrade capabilities in a conflict,” the report said.
C4ISR is military jargon for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Little is known within the U.S. intelligence community about Chinese strategic cyber warfare programs.
However, recent military writings have disclosed some aspects of the program, which is believed to be one of Beijing’s most closely guarded military secrets, along with satellite weapons, laser arms, and other high-technology military capabilities, such as the DF-21 ballistic missile modified to attack aircraft carriers at sea.
A Chinese military paper from March stated that China is seeking “cyber dominance” as part of its efforts to build up revolutionary military capabilities.
“In peacetime, the cyber combat elements may remain in a ‘dormant’ state; in wartime, they may be activated to harass and attack the network command, management, communications, and intelligence systems of the other countries’ armed forces,” wrote Liu Wangxin in the official newspaper of the Chinese military on March 6.
“While great importance is attached continuously to wartime actions, it is also necessary to pay special attention to non-wartime actions,” he said. “For example, demonstrate the presence of the cyber military power through cyber reconnaissance, cyber deployment, and cyber protection activities.”
Source: Washington Free Beacon
Innocence of Muslims Film was Made by Terrorists
When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media uses a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.
If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Pallywood are two cases in point showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.
So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction.
Court documents reveal that Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.
Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.
He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards that include many nationalities. He then places these forms of identification into the hands of dubious characters that are not the real identity.
In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008 and the first reporting on the connection between Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14th, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which published court documents that prove these two were connected in 2009, as part of a major financial fraud scheme.
The narrative that circulates the media fails to address crucial questions about the mystery of this film.
For example, to date, no one has stepped forward or can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Bacile Nakoula is even that man. After all, he held several identifications, including Muslim names. He could have easily presented a valid I.D. when he was arrested, yet he was likely not the man on that I.D.
Such a claim isn’t easily dismissed; if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Bacile Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, to include brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, and pets, et. al., especially since the riots that spanned across 30 nations were sparked in Egypt.
In the Middle East, you are known by your clan. Yet, Egypt cannot produce neither this man’s family or his background?
Besides, why would Nakoula – who claims to be a religious Coptic activist – have extensive connections with Eiad, a man who I know hates Copts and is well-known to be among the best schemers the Middle East produced and has contacts with terror networks?
This terror connect is not devoid of evidence. The Daily Beast reported on Nakoula’s arrest:
The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah.
The Eiad Nakoula connection was likely terror-related.
Nakoula impersonated himself as an Israeli Jew, a thing Eiad also did for years and fraudulently holds an authentic Israeli passport.
To date, no one has produced proof to authenticate Nakoula. Yet, evidence shows with 100% certainty that both my cousin Eiad and Nakoula had multiple, fraudulent identities as we showed in our detailed report, which includes valid court records, a U.S. Trustee report, credit reports and our correspondence with Canadian intelligence.
How is it possible that these two strange bedfellows would snuggle up together? On the one hand, we have an Egyptian-Coptic-anti-Muslim-activist-fundamentalist-Christian turned Meth-dealer and on the other hand, we have a Muslim-Palestinian scam-artist-terrorist.
Some might counter that these two only had a fling. After all, Nakoula was simply a runner for Eiad in 2009.
What has never been disclosed until now is that the two were linked for at least a decade, from year 2000 through a bank fraud relationship in 2009.
Nakoula had used the name “P.J Tobacco” and Eiad was linked to a tobacco smuggling operation into Syria in 2001 by using a fictitious name (A & M Trading) as revealed in the U.S. Trustee report in 2001.
Nakoula used M & A Trading in 2009 with his pseudoephedrine dealings.
He simply switched letters; “A & M” became “M & A”.
Nakoula used Eiad’s last name when he assumed the identity of a one “Erwin Salameh”, portraying himself as Eiad’s brother.
We also learned – from our contact at the Peel Police Intelligence Bureau in Canada (hereafter referred to as IBC) – that Eiad was involved with someone having the last name “Tanas” and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas”.
Both clans “Nakoula” and clan “Tanas” exist in Eiad’s village, in Beit Sahour Bethlehem. It is still the little town of Bethlehem as it was in biblical times.
Now let’s examine “Nakoula’s” motives.
I obtained the Sawa radio interview in Arabic in which he was identified as “Nakoula Bacile”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mx5me1CsA&feature=player_embedded
In that interview, he was asked:
What is your position on the Jewish and the Christian faiths?
Nakoula responded,
“I have no calling for these religions.”
He continued to state that he was an author of several anti-Islam books (written in Arabic) but refused to give the titles of his books.
Yet, if court documents give his legal name as Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, I found no books under that name. Nothing – and neither was anyone able to produce any.
The media’s narrative has nothing and this supposed Nakoula was proven a liar a hundred times over.
Yet, the media purports that the man is a Christian activist Copt. All of this man’s claims have been proven to be lies.
However, this one is believed?
Even what his friend stated to the court, that Nakoula is “a God-fearing man whose first priority is his family” contradicts what he said in Arabic. He is not interested in Christianity or Judaism and is possibly a Muslim.
So who funded the film? Nakoula claimed that he produced the film with money ($50,000 to $60,000) that came from his wife’s family in Egypt.
None of this has been proven.
What has been proven is that he embezzled millions with Eiad. The money must have come from these scandalous operations, which our government finally admitted is linked to terrorist activity.
Who ever made this film, claimed Jews funded him and that he was Copt. Obviously, this was intended to do harm to his real enemies — Israel and the Copts.
Both Copts and Israel are Eiad’s ardent enemies. This is indisputable.
Now, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the feds were complacent…
Justice Department lawyers and federal agents, despite Nakoula’s two previous offenses, defended Nakoula and gave several excuses to Judge Snyder, and pushed for leniency, all because of him supposedly promising to help them catch Eiad:
…he [Nakoula] has implicated Mr. Salamay [aka Salameh] there is no question that Mr. Salamay at some point is gonna be indicted if he hasn’t already been… we all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay is gonna get arrested some day and based on the debriefing information turned over he is gonna enter a guilty plea, or if he doesn’t, then Mr. Nakoula is going to be called in to testify…
If the feds were looking to catch Eiad, he had been engaged his shenanigans for three decades, warrants were issued, his location was known and no arrests were ever made… in thirty some years.
The evidence mounted. However, Eiad was not immune in Canada and was finally caught and locked up there in January 2011. We have emails from the IBC contact who wrote us. The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States. Yet, the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him to Palestine.
On July 15th, 2011, the Canadians wrote me:
He is awaiting deportation to Palestine, unless the US hurry up and indict him…
The feds never responded to the Canadians’ last appeal and within a few days, Eiad was sent to Palestine.
I realize that people might try to shoot holes in what we are saying. However, the media has very little evidence to prove its narrative, while we present much validated facts that prove much while leaving more to uncover.
The results of this entire Innocence of Muslims fiasco will not be the apprehension of terrorists, but the continual chipping away at our First-Amendment freedoms.
Unfortunately, many Americans still practice self-blame. The film was made in the U.S., a nation that is not used to schemes like Muhammad Al Dura or what was shown in Pallywood.
Welcome to Pallywood II.
SOURCE: ShoeBat
If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Pallywood are two cases in point showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.
So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction.
Court documents reveal that Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.
Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.
He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards that include many nationalities. He then places these forms of identification into the hands of dubious characters that are not the real identity.
In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008 and the first reporting on the connection between Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14th, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which published court documents that prove these two were connected in 2009, as part of a major financial fraud scheme.
The narrative that circulates the media fails to address crucial questions about the mystery of this film.
For example, to date, no one has stepped forward or can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Bacile Nakoula is even that man. After all, he held several identifications, including Muslim names. He could have easily presented a valid I.D. when he was arrested, yet he was likely not the man on that I.D.
Such a claim isn’t easily dismissed; if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Bacile Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, to include brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, and pets, et. al., especially since the riots that spanned across 30 nations were sparked in Egypt.
In the Middle East, you are known by your clan. Yet, Egypt cannot produce neither this man’s family or his background?
Besides, why would Nakoula – who claims to be a religious Coptic activist – have extensive connections with Eiad, a man who I know hates Copts and is well-known to be among the best schemers the Middle East produced and has contacts with terror networks?
This terror connect is not devoid of evidence. The Daily Beast reported on Nakoula’s arrest:
The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah.
The Eiad Nakoula connection was likely terror-related.
Nakoula impersonated himself as an Israeli Jew, a thing Eiad also did for years and fraudulently holds an authentic Israeli passport.
To date, no one has produced proof to authenticate Nakoula. Yet, evidence shows with 100% certainty that both my cousin Eiad and Nakoula had multiple, fraudulent identities as we showed in our detailed report, which includes valid court records, a U.S. Trustee report, credit reports and our correspondence with Canadian intelligence.
How is it possible that these two strange bedfellows would snuggle up together? On the one hand, we have an Egyptian-Coptic-anti-Muslim-activist-fundamentalist-Christian turned Meth-dealer and on the other hand, we have a Muslim-Palestinian scam-artist-terrorist.
Some might counter that these two only had a fling. After all, Nakoula was simply a runner for Eiad in 2009.
What has never been disclosed until now is that the two were linked for at least a decade, from year 2000 through a bank fraud relationship in 2009.
Nakoula had used the name “P.J Tobacco” and Eiad was linked to a tobacco smuggling operation into Syria in 2001 by using a fictitious name (A & M Trading) as revealed in the U.S. Trustee report in 2001.
Nakoula used M & A Trading in 2009 with his pseudoephedrine dealings.
He simply switched letters; “A & M” became “M & A”.
Nakoula used Eiad’s last name when he assumed the identity of a one “Erwin Salameh”, portraying himself as Eiad’s brother.
We also learned – from our contact at the Peel Police Intelligence Bureau in Canada (hereafter referred to as IBC) – that Eiad was involved with someone having the last name “Tanas” and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas”.
Both clans “Nakoula” and clan “Tanas” exist in Eiad’s village, in Beit Sahour Bethlehem. It is still the little town of Bethlehem as it was in biblical times.
Now let’s examine “Nakoula’s” motives.
I obtained the Sawa radio interview in Arabic in which he was identified as “Nakoula Bacile”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mx5me1CsA&feature=player_embedded
In that interview, he was asked:
What is your position on the Jewish and the Christian faiths?
Nakoula responded,
“I have no calling for these religions.”
He continued to state that he was an author of several anti-Islam books (written in Arabic) but refused to give the titles of his books.
Yet, if court documents give his legal name as Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, I found no books under that name. Nothing – and neither was anyone able to produce any.
The media’s narrative has nothing and this supposed Nakoula was proven a liar a hundred times over.
Yet, the media purports that the man is a Christian activist Copt. All of this man’s claims have been proven to be lies.
However, this one is believed?
Even what his friend stated to the court, that Nakoula is “a God-fearing man whose first priority is his family” contradicts what he said in Arabic. He is not interested in Christianity or Judaism and is possibly a Muslim.
So who funded the film? Nakoula claimed that he produced the film with money ($50,000 to $60,000) that came from his wife’s family in Egypt.
None of this has been proven.
What has been proven is that he embezzled millions with Eiad. The money must have come from these scandalous operations, which our government finally admitted is linked to terrorist activity.
Who ever made this film, claimed Jews funded him and that he was Copt. Obviously, this was intended to do harm to his real enemies — Israel and the Copts.
Both Copts and Israel are Eiad’s ardent enemies. This is indisputable.
Now, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the feds were complacent…
Justice Department lawyers and federal agents, despite Nakoula’s two previous offenses, defended Nakoula and gave several excuses to Judge Snyder, and pushed for leniency, all because of him supposedly promising to help them catch Eiad:
…he [Nakoula] has implicated Mr. Salamay [aka Salameh] there is no question that Mr. Salamay at some point is gonna be indicted if he hasn’t already been… we all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay is gonna get arrested some day and based on the debriefing information turned over he is gonna enter a guilty plea, or if he doesn’t, then Mr. Nakoula is going to be called in to testify…
If the feds were looking to catch Eiad, he had been engaged his shenanigans for three decades, warrants were issued, his location was known and no arrests were ever made… in thirty some years.
The evidence mounted. However, Eiad was not immune in Canada and was finally caught and locked up there in January 2011. We have emails from the IBC contact who wrote us. The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States. Yet, the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him to Palestine.
On July 15th, 2011, the Canadians wrote me:
He is awaiting deportation to Palestine, unless the US hurry up and indict him…
The feds never responded to the Canadians’ last appeal and within a few days, Eiad was sent to Palestine.
I realize that people might try to shoot holes in what we are saying. However, the media has very little evidence to prove its narrative, while we present much validated facts that prove much while leaving more to uncover.
The results of this entire Innocence of Muslims fiasco will not be the apprehension of terrorists, but the continual chipping away at our First-Amendment freedoms.
Unfortunately, many Americans still practice self-blame. The film was made in the U.S., a nation that is not used to schemes like Muhammad Al Dura or what was shown in Pallywood.
Welcome to Pallywood II.
SOURCE: ShoeBat
Free Phones and the Loss of Freedoms
September 30, 2012
Statistics are odd things. They can grab one’s attention; they can utterly fascinate, or they can make one’s eyes glaze over.
Election seasons are a great time for such examples – candidates, parties, and commentators all use statistics to make their points, but all too often, the important issues are lost in the shuffle of challenges or defenses to the statistics.
The modern welfare state presents such a problem. Consider the “rise of the Obamaphone” in recent years, as a three-decade-old policy of providing the most indigent with a subsidized landline has been translated by the current administration as a commitment to provide 12.5 million voters with the latest cellphones. Honestly, shouldn’t the recipients be offended that their party hopes their votes can be bought with a free phone?
First, the statistics: there were about 7.1 million federally-subsidized cellphones in 2008, and that number nearly doubled to 12.5 million during the Obama presidency. Politicians are sure that these statistics will affect the November elections, especially with the news that about a million of them are in Ohio, the battleground of all battlegrounds.
The Democrats hope that people who receive their phones from the government will vote for the Party of Government. The Republicans, the Party of the People, fear that the Democrats might be right, that this statistic may indeed represent 12.5 million certain Democrat votes. Even more infuriating and unfair, Republicans are disgusted that their own tax dollars have been used, again and again, to finance the opposition party.
There are similar statistics worth considering. Over 46 million people currently receive taxpayer-funded food stamps. In a nation of 300 million, that’s a sixth of the population! Officially published unemployment rates are consistently over 8%, but are really north of 15% when one counts the part-timers, the underemployed, and the forcibly retired. Many cities and states are far higher, with urban areas, ethnic groups and age groups suffering an unemployment rate over a horrifying 33%. Unemployment insurance and all these other forms of government coverage are bankrupting local, state, and federal governments and businesses from coast to coast.
The national cost of spending
Yes, it’s certainly true that these statistics are terrifying. The government should not be spending so much on these programs. As the old saying goes, government cannot put any coin in your right pocket that it has not already taken out of your left.
The more we spend on any program, the more we must take from the public. Nothing is free from the government; Washington and our state capitals must either raise the money today in taxes, or borrow today to raise more taxes later, or monetize it by printing more money and devaluing the currency for everyone. All these methods make every product and service cost more, usually much more, than it appears.
For example, if our free phone is only ten dollars per month – the government pays the cellphone provider $120 per year for each allegedly indigent person to have one of these phones – then it actually costs much more than that, for two reasons:
One is that the government doesn’t have $120 in surplus to pay today, so it will really cost three, four, or five times that, when we finally finish paying off our national debt in two or three generations (if ever) and actually finish paying off that bill, with interest.
The other is that the phone actually costs the provider more than the provider’s agreement with the government, so part of the cost – the part in addition to the $10 per phone federal subsidy – is actually paid by other private cellphone subscribers. If a product ought to be $15/month, and they can only get $10 from the government (through the fee on our bills, or other sources), then they must split the other five dollars in cost across their non-government customers.
All Americans therefore pay several times, in several ways, for our neighbors’ “free” phones. Our taxes go up today, our children’s taxes will go up tomorrow, and our own phone bills go up as well, both today and tomorrow, for as long as these double-subsidized programs remain in place. It isn’t even “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” because Paul too, who gets the benefit today, sees his own other taxes or employment prospects suffer as a result. So it’s “robbing both long-term to pay one short-term.”
What do we get for it? A segment of the society gets something from the government. At a crippling cost of half to three quarters of government spending, an ever-growing segment of our society receives entitlements of all sorts, from phones to food, from housing to college. And not only is there no end in sight, there’s no end to the rate of growth, in sight, either.
As the entitlements grow, the taxes climb, the spending climbs, and government crowds out the private sector. We can say that quite literally; the nation is blanketed with towns in which businesses closed down and government offices moved in. We’ve all seen neighborhoods in which whole city blocks have flipped from business district to government district, as the loss of one after another of yesterday’s employers has “necessitated” new welfare offices, unemployment offices, police precinct houses, and public-private partnership “charities”… all of which would be unneeded if the region was growth-oriented enough to keep the people employed.
People need to eat, people need to be educated; people need to be housed and clothed… and today, some people even think they “need” a phone. When the government offers to provide all these things, people forget the one need that takes care of them all without reliance on government: people need a job.
But the growth of government, and specifically, the growth of entitlement spending, has crowded out those very jobs. As entitlement statistics have climbed, so too have the unemployment statistics, and many forget which direction the causal relationship really goes.
Before voters who receive such things decide to base their votes on which candidate promises them the most, they should consider what this largesse actually does to them, personally. Because, in the end, all these statistics aren’t just a danger to our election season and a crippling cost to our economy; they’re also a danger to the recipients.
The personal cost of spending
When an unemployed person receives a little momentary help – an excused postponement of utility bills, for example – this makes sense, and watching the continued growth of the debt, even while payments are suspended, can be a wonderful inspiration to keep the jobseeker focused on the goal of finding or creating a new (and hopefully better) job.
When the unemployed person – or even an employed but not wealthy person – receives direct assistance, however, it warps the system. Not only does it add to the burden of government, raising his own and everyone else’s taxes, but in addition, it warps the individual’s own situation.
These programs come with rules, as they should. But if you get some benefits for keeping your salary under $20K, it may cost much more than the difference to be worth it to get a salary over $20K. And if you get benefits for keeping your salary under $50K, then it costs even more to be worthwhile to work for that next raise too. There are benefits in this country for people making $100,000 per year! Not the same ones, necessarily, but the government writes a LOT of checks, each with different qualification thresholds, each one quickly becoming a financial “necessity,” each one becoming harder and harder to give up… each one an additional obstacle, discouraging the recipient from advancing.
Our country is now at the point that the vast majority of us factor government benefits into our life decisions. We choose what city to live in, based on whether the taxpayer-funded public schools are good or bad. We sometimes even choose our very state, based on the quality of its subsidized colleges. There might be a better job with better opportunities in another state, but we choose this one for the taxpayer-funded college system. After spending ten or twenty years paying taxes to fund Champaign-Urbana, or Madison, or William and Mary, one would feel such a loss in moving to another state with poorer state colleges (in one’s own opinion, anyway – others may disagree).
Retirees might enjoy working, and want to return full time – and their employers may want them back! – but the fear of diminished Social Security benefits puts a ceiling on their willingness to work. The company suffers as a result, missing out on the knowledge of the most experienced workers they know.
But worst of all is the effect of entitlement benefits on the poor and the working poor themselves. The more our government hands out to the unworking, the more expensive an entry level role has to be, just to be worthwhile. Imagine trading $20,000 in tax-free benefits for $20,000 in taxed benefits. Or thirty for thirty. Or even forty for forty. The system heavily discourages the transitions from unemployment to work, or from a lesser job to a better one. It discourages advancement.
Hard-working people don’t lose their work ethic overnight, but after years, or after generations, there’s eventually no more work ethic to lose. People need to work for necessities, and strive for luxuries. When you’re working a forty hour week just to get by, you’re motivated to do better so that the forty hours can pay for luxuries as well. And then once you get a taste of some luxuries, you’re motivated to work harder still, to have a chance at more and more luxuries – the better home, the better computer, the better television, the better restaurants, the better entertainment.
This is the path to the American Dream, the honorable, responsible desire to focus your efforts on a career that will earn you the kind of life you desire.
Entitlements warp this focus. Some people work hard for housing; now we give it away free. Some people work hard for a cellphone; now we give that away free too. Some work hard – focusing their entire careers on being able to send their children to the best college. What happens to our work ethic if that too becomes taxpayer-funded, and therefore, “free”?
Someone still has to pay these bills. Someone has to pay for the phones, the housing, the food, the schools. Our nation needs growth – not stagnation, not the status quo, certainly not the current downward spiral – we need real growth to be able to pay these bills and enable the path to prosperity that we all desire.
If all you have is a room provided by your neighbors, groceries provided by your neighbors, a war zone of a public school provided by your neighbors, and a cellphone provided by your neighbors, then all you really have, all you really own, is your dependence.
The modern American Democrat emphasizes these programs, and many more, because they are counting on ever more Americans voting for the Democratic Party who robs them of opportunity… for the same Democratic Party that warps their priorities and locks their futures in a downward spiral.
The Democratic candidate for public office is counting on people voting against their own best interests; the candidate counts on their voting block voting to remain dependent, to remain limited. You’ve heard of the glass ceiling, so difficult to break through? Try being capped by the concrete ceiling of the welfare state, for now and forever. The modern American Democrat counts on his constituents embracing their dependence.
It is the job of the Republicans, the job of the conservatives, to remind them which party is really looking out for their best interests, long term: because the right knows that when all you have is dependence, then you have nothing at all.
Copyright 2012 John F. Di Leo
Statistics are odd things. They can grab one’s attention; they can utterly fascinate, or they can make one’s eyes glaze over.
Election seasons are a great time for such examples – candidates, parties, and commentators all use statistics to make their points, but all too often, the important issues are lost in the shuffle of challenges or defenses to the statistics.
The modern welfare state presents such a problem. Consider the “rise of the Obamaphone” in recent years, as a three-decade-old policy of providing the most indigent with a subsidized landline has been translated by the current administration as a commitment to provide 12.5 million voters with the latest cellphones. Honestly, shouldn’t the recipients be offended that their party hopes their votes can be bought with a free phone?
First, the statistics: there were about 7.1 million federally-subsidized cellphones in 2008, and that number nearly doubled to 12.5 million during the Obama presidency. Politicians are sure that these statistics will affect the November elections, especially with the news that about a million of them are in Ohio, the battleground of all battlegrounds.
The Democrats hope that people who receive their phones from the government will vote for the Party of Government. The Republicans, the Party of the People, fear that the Democrats might be right, that this statistic may indeed represent 12.5 million certain Democrat votes. Even more infuriating and unfair, Republicans are disgusted that their own tax dollars have been used, again and again, to finance the opposition party.
There are similar statistics worth considering. Over 46 million people currently receive taxpayer-funded food stamps. In a nation of 300 million, that’s a sixth of the population! Officially published unemployment rates are consistently over 8%, but are really north of 15% when one counts the part-timers, the underemployed, and the forcibly retired. Many cities and states are far higher, with urban areas, ethnic groups and age groups suffering an unemployment rate over a horrifying 33%. Unemployment insurance and all these other forms of government coverage are bankrupting local, state, and federal governments and businesses from coast to coast.
The national cost of spending
Yes, it’s certainly true that these statistics are terrifying. The government should not be spending so much on these programs. As the old saying goes, government cannot put any coin in your right pocket that it has not already taken out of your left.
The more we spend on any program, the more we must take from the public. Nothing is free from the government; Washington and our state capitals must either raise the money today in taxes, or borrow today to raise more taxes later, or monetize it by printing more money and devaluing the currency for everyone. All these methods make every product and service cost more, usually much more, than it appears.
For example, if our free phone is only ten dollars per month – the government pays the cellphone provider $120 per year for each allegedly indigent person to have one of these phones – then it actually costs much more than that, for two reasons:
One is that the government doesn’t have $120 in surplus to pay today, so it will really cost three, four, or five times that, when we finally finish paying off our national debt in two or three generations (if ever) and actually finish paying off that bill, with interest.
The other is that the phone actually costs the provider more than the provider’s agreement with the government, so part of the cost – the part in addition to the $10 per phone federal subsidy – is actually paid by other private cellphone subscribers. If a product ought to be $15/month, and they can only get $10 from the government (through the fee on our bills, or other sources), then they must split the other five dollars in cost across their non-government customers.
All Americans therefore pay several times, in several ways, for our neighbors’ “free” phones. Our taxes go up today, our children’s taxes will go up tomorrow, and our own phone bills go up as well, both today and tomorrow, for as long as these double-subsidized programs remain in place. It isn’t even “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” because Paul too, who gets the benefit today, sees his own other taxes or employment prospects suffer as a result. So it’s “robbing both long-term to pay one short-term.”
What do we get for it? A segment of the society gets something from the government. At a crippling cost of half to three quarters of government spending, an ever-growing segment of our society receives entitlements of all sorts, from phones to food, from housing to college. And not only is there no end in sight, there’s no end to the rate of growth, in sight, either.
As the entitlements grow, the taxes climb, the spending climbs, and government crowds out the private sector. We can say that quite literally; the nation is blanketed with towns in which businesses closed down and government offices moved in. We’ve all seen neighborhoods in which whole city blocks have flipped from business district to government district, as the loss of one after another of yesterday’s employers has “necessitated” new welfare offices, unemployment offices, police precinct houses, and public-private partnership “charities”… all of which would be unneeded if the region was growth-oriented enough to keep the people employed.
People need to eat, people need to be educated; people need to be housed and clothed… and today, some people even think they “need” a phone. When the government offers to provide all these things, people forget the one need that takes care of them all without reliance on government: people need a job.
But the growth of government, and specifically, the growth of entitlement spending, has crowded out those very jobs. As entitlement statistics have climbed, so too have the unemployment statistics, and many forget which direction the causal relationship really goes.
Before voters who receive such things decide to base their votes on which candidate promises them the most, they should consider what this largesse actually does to them, personally. Because, in the end, all these statistics aren’t just a danger to our election season and a crippling cost to our economy; they’re also a danger to the recipients.
The personal cost of spending
When an unemployed person receives a little momentary help – an excused postponement of utility bills, for example – this makes sense, and watching the continued growth of the debt, even while payments are suspended, can be a wonderful inspiration to keep the jobseeker focused on the goal of finding or creating a new (and hopefully better) job.
When the unemployed person – or even an employed but not wealthy person – receives direct assistance, however, it warps the system. Not only does it add to the burden of government, raising his own and everyone else’s taxes, but in addition, it warps the individual’s own situation.
These programs come with rules, as they should. But if you get some benefits for keeping your salary under $20K, it may cost much more than the difference to be worth it to get a salary over $20K. And if you get benefits for keeping your salary under $50K, then it costs even more to be worthwhile to work for that next raise too. There are benefits in this country for people making $100,000 per year! Not the same ones, necessarily, but the government writes a LOT of checks, each with different qualification thresholds, each one quickly becoming a financial “necessity,” each one becoming harder and harder to give up… each one an additional obstacle, discouraging the recipient from advancing.
Our country is now at the point that the vast majority of us factor government benefits into our life decisions. We choose what city to live in, based on whether the taxpayer-funded public schools are good or bad. We sometimes even choose our very state, based on the quality of its subsidized colleges. There might be a better job with better opportunities in another state, but we choose this one for the taxpayer-funded college system. After spending ten or twenty years paying taxes to fund Champaign-Urbana, or Madison, or William and Mary, one would feel such a loss in moving to another state with poorer state colleges (in one’s own opinion, anyway – others may disagree).
Retirees might enjoy working, and want to return full time – and their employers may want them back! – but the fear of diminished Social Security benefits puts a ceiling on their willingness to work. The company suffers as a result, missing out on the knowledge of the most experienced workers they know.
But worst of all is the effect of entitlement benefits on the poor and the working poor themselves. The more our government hands out to the unworking, the more expensive an entry level role has to be, just to be worthwhile. Imagine trading $20,000 in tax-free benefits for $20,000 in taxed benefits. Or thirty for thirty. Or even forty for forty. The system heavily discourages the transitions from unemployment to work, or from a lesser job to a better one. It discourages advancement.
Hard-working people don’t lose their work ethic overnight, but after years, or after generations, there’s eventually no more work ethic to lose. People need to work for necessities, and strive for luxuries. When you’re working a forty hour week just to get by, you’re motivated to do better so that the forty hours can pay for luxuries as well. And then once you get a taste of some luxuries, you’re motivated to work harder still, to have a chance at more and more luxuries – the better home, the better computer, the better television, the better restaurants, the better entertainment.
This is the path to the American Dream, the honorable, responsible desire to focus your efforts on a career that will earn you the kind of life you desire.
Entitlements warp this focus. Some people work hard for housing; now we give it away free. Some people work hard for a cellphone; now we give that away free too. Some work hard – focusing their entire careers on being able to send their children to the best college. What happens to our work ethic if that too becomes taxpayer-funded, and therefore, “free”?
Someone still has to pay these bills. Someone has to pay for the phones, the housing, the food, the schools. Our nation needs growth – not stagnation, not the status quo, certainly not the current downward spiral – we need real growth to be able to pay these bills and enable the path to prosperity that we all desire.
If all you have is a room provided by your neighbors, groceries provided by your neighbors, a war zone of a public school provided by your neighbors, and a cellphone provided by your neighbors, then all you really have, all you really own, is your dependence.
The modern American Democrat emphasizes these programs, and many more, because they are counting on ever more Americans voting for the Democratic Party who robs them of opportunity… for the same Democratic Party that warps their priorities and locks their futures in a downward spiral.
The Democratic candidate for public office is counting on people voting against their own best interests; the candidate counts on their voting block voting to remain dependent, to remain limited. You’ve heard of the glass ceiling, so difficult to break through? Try being capped by the concrete ceiling of the welfare state, for now and forever. The modern American Democrat counts on his constituents embracing their dependence.
It is the job of the Republicans, the job of the conservatives, to remind them which party is really looking out for their best interests, long term: because the right knows that when all you have is dependence, then you have nothing at all.
Copyright 2012 John F. Di Leo
VA: Military absentee ballots going AWOL in 2012
FREDERICKSBURG — A 92 percent drop in absentee-ballot requests by military personnel in Virginia is raising concerns that the Pentagon is failing to carry out a federal voting law.
With only 1,746 military voters in Virginia requesting absentee ballots so far this year — out of 126,251 service members in the state —the Military Voter Protection Project says the system has broken down.
And it’s not just in the Old Dominion. MVPP Executive Director Eric Eversole reports significant declines in absentee-ballot requests by service members across the nation.
Compiling data from Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Alaska, Colorado and Nevada, Eversole’s organization found that military families have requested 55,510 absentee ballots so far this year. That’s a sharp decline from the 166,252 sought in those states in 2008.
Read more at the Virginia Watchdog
With only 1,746 military voters in Virginia requesting absentee ballots so far this year — out of 126,251 service members in the state —the Military Voter Protection Project says the system has broken down.
And it’s not just in the Old Dominion. MVPP Executive Director Eric Eversole reports significant declines in absentee-ballot requests by service members across the nation.
Compiling data from Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Alaska, Colorado and Nevada, Eversole’s organization found that military families have requested 55,510 absentee ballots so far this year. That’s a sharp decline from the 166,252 sought in those states in 2008.
Read more at the Virginia Watchdog
Police Stop Prayers Outside White House
Sep 30 2012
But protesters return, willing to face jail for religious freedom
Dozens of people have already been arrested over the weekend for kneeling and praying in front of the White House.
ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”
The group claims Acts 5:29 – “But Peter and the Apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” – as their basis for protesting the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services mandate requiring employer-provided health insurance cover birth control measures.
“Obamacare will force institutions, churches and individuals to purchase abortion-inducing drugs and pay for sterilization and abortion in direct opposition to their beliefs, conscience and historic teachings of the Church,” says the group. “With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming Obamacare, the future of religious freedom in America is at risk and in grave danger of being entirely wiped out.”
On Saturday afternoon, 22 members of the group knelt on the sidewalk in prayer and were arrested by Capitol Police, with the prayer rally (and possible arrests) planned to continue through Oct. 2.
The group says that the only basis for their arrest is that the sidewalk in front of the White House is a “restricted zone” for free speech.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life told WND, “We have stood up for life and religious freedom in hundreds of cities. Today we do so at the president’s house. I am delighted to be here.”
The group says that the president is “dictating to Christians how they should live their faith” and that they are taking a stand, while risking arrest for doing so.
Bryan Kemper, director of youth outreach at Priests for Life, told WND that he was arrested on Saturday afternoon for kneeling on the sidewalk near the White House while holding a sign that said, “Stand Up for Religious Freedom.”
“I am here today as a father of seven children who is willing to lose my freedom to protect my children’s future freedom,” he told WND. “I was arrested yesterday when I knelt and prayed holding a sign for religious freedom, and I will kneel and pray again today, risking arrest again.”
He told WND that this issue is vital for all American’s to understand.
“We must take this stand now, or we will have no freedom to do so tomorrow,” he said. “I will obey God rather than man.”
He finished, “The HHS mandate violates God’s law and forces us to sin, and I will not comply.”
Brandi Swindell, National Director of Generation Life, a pro-life group dedicated to mobilizing activists, students, artists, musicians and young professionals to end abortion and spread the message of sexual integrity, told WND that she had a “divine appointment” in Washington today.
“Three of us chose to attend church at St. John’s this morning,” Swindell said, “and at the last minute found out that Kathleen Sebelius, the architect of the HHS Mandate was holding an adult forum between services.”
Swindell told WND that she got the secretary’s attention, and in front of a packed auditorium asked her, “Why are you forcing the American people to pay for abortion-inducing drugs that harm women? It’s a severe violation of religious freedom.”
The secretary ignored the question and left the stage.
Video of the exchange, and the critical reaction of other church attendees, can be seen here.
Swindell told WND that just four years ago she was arrested and deported from communist China for standing up for religious freedom there.
“I stood in Tiananmen Square holding a banner that said, ‘Jesus Christ is King’ and was arrested,” Swindell said. “I never imagined that just four years later I’d be standing in front of the White House risking the very same thing.”
She told WND that she intended to hold the same banner declaring “Jesus Christ is King” in front of the White House Sunday afternoon, and fully expected to be arrested for it.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, says of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally, being held across the street from the White House, “For the faith community, we can never be silent or indifferent when it comes to matters of justice, human rights and religious freedom.”
He continued, “As people of principle and faith, we must purpose in our hearts that we will never comply with an unjust or immoral government mandate [that] would require us to violate our conscience, the teachings of the Scriptures and the historic teachings of the church.”
“We want to make it clear to President Obama and all public officials,” he concluded, “that we would rather spend time in jail than to be forced into complying with a mandate that crushes religious freedom.”
Source: WND
But protesters return, willing to face jail for religious freedom
ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”
The group claims Acts 5:29 – “But Peter and the Apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” – as their basis for protesting the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services mandate requiring employer-provided health insurance cover birth control measures.
“Obamacare will force institutions, churches and individuals to purchase abortion-inducing drugs and pay for sterilization and abortion in direct opposition to their beliefs, conscience and historic teachings of the Church,” says the group. “With the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming Obamacare, the future of religious freedom in America is at risk and in grave danger of being entirely wiped out.”
On Saturday afternoon, 22 members of the group knelt on the sidewalk in prayer and were arrested by Capitol Police, with the prayer rally (and possible arrests) planned to continue through Oct. 2.
The group says that the only basis for their arrest is that the sidewalk in front of the White House is a “restricted zone” for free speech.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life told WND, “We have stood up for life and religious freedom in hundreds of cities. Today we do so at the president’s house. I am delighted to be here.”
The group says that the president is “dictating to Christians how they should live their faith” and that they are taking a stand, while risking arrest for doing so.
Bryan Kemper, director of youth outreach at Priests for Life, told WND that he was arrested on Saturday afternoon for kneeling on the sidewalk near the White House while holding a sign that said, “Stand Up for Religious Freedom.”
“I am here today as a father of seven children who is willing to lose my freedom to protect my children’s future freedom,” he told WND. “I was arrested yesterday when I knelt and prayed holding a sign for religious freedom, and I will kneel and pray again today, risking arrest again.”
He told WND that this issue is vital for all American’s to understand.
“We must take this stand now, or we will have no freedom to do so tomorrow,” he said. “I will obey God rather than man.”
He finished, “The HHS mandate violates God’s law and forces us to sin, and I will not comply.”
Brandi Swindell, National Director of Generation Life, a pro-life group dedicated to mobilizing activists, students, artists, musicians and young professionals to end abortion and spread the message of sexual integrity, told WND that she had a “divine appointment” in Washington today.
“Three of us chose to attend church at St. John’s this morning,” Swindell said, “and at the last minute found out that Kathleen Sebelius, the architect of the HHS Mandate was holding an adult forum between services.”
Swindell told WND that she got the secretary’s attention, and in front of a packed auditorium asked her, “Why are you forcing the American people to pay for abortion-inducing drugs that harm women? It’s a severe violation of religious freedom.”
The secretary ignored the question and left the stage.
Video of the exchange, and the critical reaction of other church attendees, can be seen here.
Swindell told WND that just four years ago she was arrested and deported from communist China for standing up for religious freedom there.
“I stood in Tiananmen Square holding a banner that said, ‘Jesus Christ is King’ and was arrested,” Swindell said. “I never imagined that just four years later I’d be standing in front of the White House risking the very same thing.”
She told WND that she intended to hold the same banner declaring “Jesus Christ is King” in front of the White House Sunday afternoon, and fully expected to be arrested for it.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, says of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally, being held across the street from the White House, “For the faith community, we can never be silent or indifferent when it comes to matters of justice, human rights and religious freedom.”
He continued, “As people of principle and faith, we must purpose in our hearts that we will never comply with an unjust or immoral government mandate [that] would require us to violate our conscience, the teachings of the Scriptures and the historic teachings of the church.”
“We want to make it clear to President Obama and all public officials,” he concluded, “that we would rather spend time in jail than to be forced into complying with a mandate that crushes religious freedom.”
Source: WND
Obama's Anti-Romney Ad Shows American Flag in Trash Heap
Pause at 1 minute and 4 seconds. Not the flag waving LEFT of center, but the flag bunched up on the trash heap RIGHT of center. Both flags are equidistant from the center of the video.
BarackObama.Com YouTube Channel >>
BarackObama.Com YouTube Channel >>
The Obama Administration’s Deadly Scandals
October 1, 2012
Of the many scandals associated with the Obama administration, two stand out above the rest: the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal and the current disinformation campaign surrounding the assassination of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. The president and his minions, aided by media that are “all in” with respect to getting Obama re-elected, have managed to tamp down most of the damming information about the Fast and Furious scandal. They also remain committed to putting out enough conflicting information about the Benghazi scandal that Americans become confused about what actually happened and perhaps lose interest as a result. And in light of the seriousness of these debacles, individuals willing to hold the administration to account seem to be in short supply.
It is critical to remember that these are not the garden variety, “they said-we said” types of scandals that have arisen in past administrations. As a result of the attack in Benghazi and the running of guns into Mexico people were murdered. Hundreds of people. With respect to Fast and Furious, Univision, apparently one of the few media organizations with an ounce of integrity, revealed the scope of such carnage. They have identified several of the massacres committed using guns “walked” into Mexico, including the killing of 16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010.
Last Friday, the network released a promo of their efforts. “Univision News’ Investigative Unit was also able to identify additional guns that escaped the control of ATF agents and were used in different types of crimes throughout Mexico,” the network revealed. “Furthermore, some of these guns–none of which were reported by congressional investigators–were put in the hands of drug traffickers in Honduras, Puerto Rico, and Colombia. A person familiar with the recent congressional hearings called Univision’s findings ‘the holy grail’ that Congress had been searching for.”
Yet while Congress has been searching, the Obama administration has been stonewalling. Despite more than a year’s worth of Congressional investigations conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Judiciary Committee–both of which were precipitated by the murder of American Border Agent Brian Terry–the essential questions of who knew what and when, and what purpose the program was meant to serve, remain unanswered.
An internal investigation conducted by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)–essentially the DOJ investigating itself–was trumpeted by the mainstream media as the definitive report on the matter. Yet the facts say otherwise. Kevin O’Reilly, one of the key players the IG sought out, “declined through his personal counsel our request for an interview.” Furthermore, the White House refused to produce internal documents related to the investigation, claiming such documents were “beyond the purview” of the inspector general. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few reporters willing to follow this scandal wherever it leads, reveals just how far the White House was willing to go to avoid congressional threats to subpoena O’Reilly. “Just days after [lead ATF official on the case Special Agent in Charge Bill] Newell testified to Congress on July 26, 2011 that he’d shared information with O’Reilly, whom he described as a long time friend, O’Reilly was transferred to Iraq and not available for questioning,” writes Attkisson.
Add President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to the mix, which allowed Eric Holder to thumb his nose at congressional investigators’ subpoenas, along with the continuing refusal of the DOJ to cooperate (despite Holder being found in contempt of Congress), and the stunning level of administration callousness is clear. In short, the preservation of bureaucratic careers trumps a genuine investigation into hundreds of murders.
Equally as callous is the mainstream media’s calculated indifference to this scandal. Despite the pile of corpses this utterly misguided program produced, they sought to make moral equivalence to a Bush-era program called Operation Wide Receiver, where no one was killed. Furthermore, the media herd ran with the idea that Eric Holder was exonerated, even as they largely ignored the reality that the report said no such thing, and that the OIG reports directly to the Attorney General.
The administration’s icy indifference was again on display following the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. The Obama team’s ongoing attempts to brazenly lie their way through this scandal have been fairly well-documented. Even some of the president’s more reliable useful idiots have been cowed by the level of utter duplicity demonstrated by this administration’s efforts to obscure the truth.
Yet what remains largely under radar, save for the effort of conservative news outlets, is the documentation of this president’s twisted priorities. One day after American officials in Benghazi were murdered, and their bodies were dragged through the streets, President Obama saw no reason to alter his campaign schedule. He attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas, where he told a crowd of 8,000 adoring fans about the “tough day that we’ve had today.” After a brief tribute to the four slain Americans, it was back to the class warfare rhetoric that is the hallmark of his re-election campaign.
That’s pretty callous. But it was his “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft that should disgust every decent American. Kroft asked Obama if recent developments in the Middle East have given him any pause about his support for the governments that came to power during so-called Arab Spring. “I said even at the time this was going to be a rocky path,” Obama answered. “I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road,” he added. Four dead Americans, including the first ambassador killed since the 1979 murder of Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan — during Carter administration — are considered “bumps in the road”?
It is difficult to imagine such a callous characterization being ignore by the mainstream media, but they remained true to form. In a speech given at an Accuracy in Media (AIM) conference last Thursday, former Democratic Pollster Pat Caddell put the media’s role in perspective. “This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together,” said Caddell.
He aimed his most scathing words at the coverage of the Benghazi attack: “First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because [the Obama administration] can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this….If a President of either party…had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!” he contended. “It would have been–it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s ‘flying over Katrina’ moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said,” he added.
Caddell is somewhat in error. In fact something was said. Mitt Romney was excoriated for “politicizing” the debacle.
As for Obama, even as the ongoing scandals of Fast and Furious and Benghazi continue to deteriorate, it remains almost certain no one will call this administration or its standard-bearer to account for their blood-chilling indifference. They are people who have amply demonstrated that honor, respect and decency can be brushed aside in favor of political expediency as easily as one brushes lint off one’s suit jacket. And the silent media, which both forgive and forget the pile of bodies that have accrued in two major scandals, is equally reprehensible.
SOURCE: Front Page Magazine
It is critical to remember that these are not the garden variety, “they said-we said” types of scandals that have arisen in past administrations. As a result of the attack in Benghazi and the running of guns into Mexico people were murdered. Hundreds of people. With respect to Fast and Furious, Univision, apparently one of the few media organizations with an ounce of integrity, revealed the scope of such carnage. They have identified several of the massacres committed using guns “walked” into Mexico, including the killing of 16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010.
Last Friday, the network released a promo of their efforts. “Univision News’ Investigative Unit was also able to identify additional guns that escaped the control of ATF agents and were used in different types of crimes throughout Mexico,” the network revealed. “Furthermore, some of these guns–none of which were reported by congressional investigators–were put in the hands of drug traffickers in Honduras, Puerto Rico, and Colombia. A person familiar with the recent congressional hearings called Univision’s findings ‘the holy grail’ that Congress had been searching for.”
Yet while Congress has been searching, the Obama administration has been stonewalling. Despite more than a year’s worth of Congressional investigations conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Judiciary Committee–both of which were precipitated by the murder of American Border Agent Brian Terry–the essential questions of who knew what and when, and what purpose the program was meant to serve, remain unanswered.
An internal investigation conducted by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)–essentially the DOJ investigating itself–was trumpeted by the mainstream media as the definitive report on the matter. Yet the facts say otherwise. Kevin O’Reilly, one of the key players the IG sought out, “declined through his personal counsel our request for an interview.” Furthermore, the White House refused to produce internal documents related to the investigation, claiming such documents were “beyond the purview” of the inspector general. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few reporters willing to follow this scandal wherever it leads, reveals just how far the White House was willing to go to avoid congressional threats to subpoena O’Reilly. “Just days after [lead ATF official on the case Special Agent in Charge Bill] Newell testified to Congress on July 26, 2011 that he’d shared information with O’Reilly, whom he described as a long time friend, O’Reilly was transferred to Iraq and not available for questioning,” writes Attkisson.
Add President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to the mix, which allowed Eric Holder to thumb his nose at congressional investigators’ subpoenas, along with the continuing refusal of the DOJ to cooperate (despite Holder being found in contempt of Congress), and the stunning level of administration callousness is clear. In short, the preservation of bureaucratic careers trumps a genuine investigation into hundreds of murders.
Equally as callous is the mainstream media’s calculated indifference to this scandal. Despite the pile of corpses this utterly misguided program produced, they sought to make moral equivalence to a Bush-era program called Operation Wide Receiver, where no one was killed. Furthermore, the media herd ran with the idea that Eric Holder was exonerated, even as they largely ignored the reality that the report said no such thing, and that the OIG reports directly to the Attorney General.
The administration’s icy indifference was again on display following the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. The Obama team’s ongoing attempts to brazenly lie their way through this scandal have been fairly well-documented. Even some of the president’s more reliable useful idiots have been cowed by the level of utter duplicity demonstrated by this administration’s efforts to obscure the truth.
Yet what remains largely under radar, save for the effort of conservative news outlets, is the documentation of this president’s twisted priorities. One day after American officials in Benghazi were murdered, and their bodies were dragged through the streets, President Obama saw no reason to alter his campaign schedule. He attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas, where he told a crowd of 8,000 adoring fans about the “tough day that we’ve had today.” After a brief tribute to the four slain Americans, it was back to the class warfare rhetoric that is the hallmark of his re-election campaign.
That’s pretty callous. But it was his “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft that should disgust every decent American. Kroft asked Obama if recent developments in the Middle East have given him any pause about his support for the governments that came to power during so-called Arab Spring. “I said even at the time this was going to be a rocky path,” Obama answered. “I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road,” he added. Four dead Americans, including the first ambassador killed since the 1979 murder of Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan — during Carter administration — are considered “bumps in the road”?
It is difficult to imagine such a callous characterization being ignore by the mainstream media, but they remained true to form. In a speech given at an Accuracy in Media (AIM) conference last Thursday, former Democratic Pollster Pat Caddell put the media’s role in perspective. “This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together,” said Caddell.
He aimed his most scathing words at the coverage of the Benghazi attack: “First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because [the Obama administration] can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this….If a President of either party…had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!” he contended. “It would have been–it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s ‘flying over Katrina’ moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said,” he added.
Caddell is somewhat in error. In fact something was said. Mitt Romney was excoriated for “politicizing” the debacle.
As for Obama, even as the ongoing scandals of Fast and Furious and Benghazi continue to deteriorate, it remains almost certain no one will call this administration or its standard-bearer to account for their blood-chilling indifference. They are people who have amply demonstrated that honor, respect and decency can be brushed aside in favor of political expediency as easily as one brushes lint off one’s suit jacket. And the silent media, which both forgive and forget the pile of bodies that have accrued in two major scandals, is equally reprehensible.
SOURCE: Front Page Magazine
In Case You Missed It Dept.:
Thanks to EPA regulations, one coal company is shutting 8 mines and firing 1200 workers. Now you know why it's nicknamed the "Employment Prevention Agency".
The Department of Homeland Security is planning to purchase over 200 million more rounds of ammunition. Wonder if they'll share any with embassy guards in the Middle East?
Intelligence sources now say the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi involved a former Gitmo detainee. Great. And these are the only illegals Obama wants to ship out of the country.
Campaigning in North Carolina, Michelle Obama said Barack "has been struggling with us". Yes, like that time he almost got heat stroke playing the back nine at Andrews.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's illegal campaigning for Obama an "inadvertent error". Of course. I mean, who HASN'T accidentally blurted out "reelect Obama"?
While on Letterman, President Obama said of the national debt, "we don't have to worry about it short term." I'll bet the President of Greece used to think the same thing.
A senior Iranian commander threatened a "a pre-emptive attack" on Israel. This is serious. Expect Obama to get booked on Leno ASAP.
The DNC is now offering lunch with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi as a prize to people who make donations. It's better than their original thought for 1st place: a root canal.
In Italy, police arrested a man who posed as a pilot and joined the cabin crew in a plane cockpit. Turns out he also once posed as Elizabeth Warren's genealogist.
A coalition of golf organizations is asking Republicans to stop making so many jokes about President Obama's love for the game. Kinda hard when Obama's asking for a mulligan on his whole first term.
New Jersey has banned "big" smiles in driver's license photos, saying that they could interfere with new facial recognition software. Considering how Obama's handled the economy, it's hard to believe this is a problem.
During an interview on Univision, President Obama said "you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside." Don't worry, Mr. President. We're on it.
-- Fred Thompson
The Obama campaign website offered donors an altered American flag with an O in the box in place of the fifty stars Thursday. Everyone's offended by them. They ran one up the flagpole at a U.S. Embassy in the Middle East and the Muslims refused to burn it.
U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters was cleared by the Ethics Committee of getting money for her husband's bank. She threw her grandson overboard to save herself. It's working so well with Social Security, she thought she'd try it with the Ethics Committee.
The Pentagon was cited in a report Friday for failing to spend money that's allocated to register U.S. soldiers overseas to vote. It's highly controversial. The Obama administration isn't urging soldiers to vote unless they can prove they were born in Mexico.
CBS's 60 Minutes held dueling interviews Sunday between the President of the United States and his GOP challenger. The two clearly don't like each other. This week it was discovered that the Secret Service is using NFL replacement referees to guard Mitt Romney.
President Obama spoke in Milwaukee Tuesday in an arena with a lot of empty seats in it. The president was a lot more popular four years ago than now. Back then the motto was Hope and Change, and now it's Come for the Free Health Care, Stay for the Guillotining.
Mitt Romney was accused by Democrats of upping his tax payments by not subtracting all his charity deductions. Imagine the opposition's fury. Democrats say Mitt gave four million dollars to charity last year and all that money could have gone to helping the needy.
President Obama taped an interview on The View before his U.N. speech Tuesday. He needed to clarify what really caused the embassy attack in Libya. He was forced to admit that a video of a high school production of Fiddler on the Roof is not an anti-Muslim movie.
President Obama referred to Israel Sunday as one of our closest allies in the region, not our closest, and he called Netanyahu's concerns noise. It set off alarms. This could cause Florida voters to agree with Paul Ryan that guarding Social Security isn't everything.
Monica Lewinsky was reported Monday to have signed a twelve million dollar book deal with an unnamed publisher. It's hard to believe, but she's about to turn forty. It seems like only yesterday that she was crawling around on the floor of the Oval Office.
President Obama drew criticism on Tuesday for going on with the ladies of The View on ABC rather than meet world leaders at the U.N. He's simply following in the tradition of FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton. A Democrat isn't a Democrat unless he makes time for Whoopi.
President Obama gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday. He did not cite terrorism but blamed Mideast violence on an anti-Muslim video on YouTube. He's acting like if he can get a billion Muslims to watch the video by Sunday he wins a free game.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared in his U.N. speech that Israel will be eliminated and has no roots in the Middle East. He was upset when officials wouldn't allow him to visit Ground Zero. They didn't want to tell him that it'll visit him soon enough.
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu tried to speak with President Obama at the U.N. Monday but was rebuffed. He tried another way that didn't work. He put on suspenders and glasses and pretended to be Larry King so the president would think it was a softball interview.
Madonna stood onstage at her concert in Washington D.C. Monday and told the crowd she will strip completely naked onstage if American voters re-elect President Obama. The next morning the betting line in Las Vegas moved nine points. She just elected Romney.
President Obama drew heat Tuesday for not talking to any Mideast leaders at the U.N. in New York. It's quite defensible. You get so hooked on that AFTRA minimum of two grand for every talk show appearance, and you begin to wonder why you should give it away for free.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denounced Mitt Romney for sullying the Mormon faith Tuesday. He's one to talk. Like most lawmakers who have served in Washington D.C. for over thirty years, Senator Reid credits his longevity in office to insufficient evidence.
-- Argus Hamilton
In an interview with Univision, President Obama said if there's one thing he's learned, it's that you can't change Washington from within. So what is he saying — that if we want real change, we should throw him out?
Obama has gone from "Yes we can." to "I'm sorry. No one can."
Mitt Romney's campaign released his 2011 tax return. Democrats still want him to release all his tax returns for the last 10 years. Romney says he can't do it, and he's got a good excuse. He says his dog ate them and then Obama ate the dog.
The economy is so bad, instead of Secret Service protection, the White House is using replacement refs to guard President Obama.
The president's re-election campaign slogan is "Forward," which is also his policy on paying for stuff.
Jobs & 0bama (video)
-- Leno
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed on Piers Morgan's show. I can't believe CNN let that shady dude into the building and gave him air time — and also the guy from Iran.
– Craig Ferguson
It's fall in New York City and today Mayor Bloomberg banned 16-ounce cups of chowder.
You know who's at the U.N. today? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran. A creepy, little guy, huh? He just dropped by the U.N. for another hate-filled rant. Then he went back in line for the new iPhone.
– Letterman
President Obama's campaign is trying to appeal to single women in Florida over 65. Which explains Obama's new slogan, "Hope, change, and Boniva."
– Jimmy Fallon
At a recent concert, Madonna told the audience she would strip naked if President Obama is re-elected. In a related story, President Obama is now trailing in the polls by 97 percent.
– Conan
Source: The Right Reasons
Obama’s Cool Wars Sponsored by Peaceniks and Social Justice Puppeteers
October 1, 2012
Attention peaceniks, social justice puppeteers, Occupy Wall Streeters and other hypocrites on the Left who cried for peace, peace under Bush: After three and a half years, there is no peace.
Your support of Obama has gotten you only war!
Continue Reading>>
Attention peaceniks, social justice puppeteers, Occupy Wall Streeters and other hypocrites on the Left who cried for peace, peace under Bush: After three and a half years, there is no peace.
Your support of Obama has gotten you only war!
Continue Reading>>
Is Barack Obama a Compulsive Liar?
October 1, 2012
Barack Obama has lied about the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Libya for over 15 days, even going so far as to overtly imply that this attack was prompted by an obscure internet movie trailer in his speech at the United Nations two weeks after it was confirmed the White House knew it was an Al Qaeda sponsored attack. Additionally, during the current campaign the lies and obfuscations about Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been so fast and furious that it is nearly impossible to keep up with them.
The administration's reaction to what went on in Libya is not a surprise, as reliance on prevarications and the attendant dishonesty is part and parcel of Obama's normal behavior. There rarely has been a speech or an off the cuff comment since he entered the national stage that does not contain some deliberate or insinuated falsehood. This tendency is exemplified in his recent interview with Univision wherein Obama lied about why he never introduced immigration reform and when the ill-fated Fast and Furious program was raised, he began blaming the Republicans and George Bush respectively.
There is now a near universal mistrust of Obama among world leaders as well as many members of Congress who candidly admit they cannot deal with Barack Obama, as he has proven himself to be untrustworthy and unbelievable -- particularly as he refuses to accept any responsibility for the outcome of his actions and policies. The diminished status of the United States around the globe and the greatly eroded standard of living for the vast majority of Americans are testament to these character flaws.
At times even the most diehard of his sycophants in the mainstream media are forced to report on this disturbing trait in their hero. This past spring the Washington Post ran a lengthy front page article on Obama's machinations during the debt ceiling debate. The highlight of the piece: Barack Obama deliberately lied to the American people concerning the intransigence of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. It was an amazing admission for a pillar of the sycophantic mainstream media to write a story claiming that their hero lied. A further example of the media's awakening to the deceit and fabrications of the Obama administration is the recent reporting on the Libyan scandal which is actively pursuing the lies and cover-up.
However, there has been five years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call Mr. Obama what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation, those who oppose his agenda only adds to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by the sycophants around him; thus he is who he is and cannot change.
In an earlier column I asked the question is Barack Obama a compulsive liar or a sociopath? (h)
A Sociopath:
A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused--it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.
A compulsive liar:
A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.
While Barack Obama exhibits traits from both categories, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is primarily a compulsive liar. How else to explain the lies and obfuscations that so easily come forth regardless of whom he may be talking to or the subject matter. His sociopathic skills come to the fore in his ability to manipulate others to join him in his these prevarications, or to exploit the celebrity culture that has overwhelmed a deliberately ill-educated American society.
In the United States there is great deference paid to the occupant of the White House. Justifiably so, as that person is the chief operating officer of the country, but more importantly he or she is the head of state representing the nation around the globe. The President's actions and demeanor set the tone for not only the political class but the country as a whole. Over the centuries there have been many exceptional but also a few inept men to hold the office of President.
Today so much power is vested in the Office of President that honor and integrity must be a hallmark of a president's character. It is not with Barack Obama; he is perhaps the most dishonest and disingenuous occupant of the oval office in history, and has the potential to do more long-term damage to the United States than all his predecessor combined.
His failings can no longer be excused by this historical deference or timidity fostered by race with the euphemisms of spin or politics as usual being used to avoid the truth. It is extraordinarily difficult to run against someone such as Barack Obama -- a stranger to truth and integrity willing to do anything to win -- but Mitt Romney must do so by candidly admitting who he is dealing with.
While the future of the country depends on dramatically altering the economic and governing landscape, it cannot do so unless the opposition politicians and average citizens recognize and forcefully challenge the lies and machinations of Barack Obama and his allies without fear of what may be said about them or to them by either the Obama machine or their sycophants in the media.
Source: American Thinker
Barack Obama has lied about the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Libya for over 15 days, even going so far as to overtly imply that this attack was prompted by an obscure internet movie trailer in his speech at the United Nations two weeks after it was confirmed the White House knew it was an Al Qaeda sponsored attack. Additionally, during the current campaign the lies and obfuscations about Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been so fast and furious that it is nearly impossible to keep up with them.
The administration's reaction to what went on in Libya is not a surprise, as reliance on prevarications and the attendant dishonesty is part and parcel of Obama's normal behavior. There rarely has been a speech or an off the cuff comment since he entered the national stage that does not contain some deliberate or insinuated falsehood. This tendency is exemplified in his recent interview with Univision wherein Obama lied about why he never introduced immigration reform and when the ill-fated Fast and Furious program was raised, he began blaming the Republicans and George Bush respectively.
There is now a near universal mistrust of Obama among world leaders as well as many members of Congress who candidly admit they cannot deal with Barack Obama, as he has proven himself to be untrustworthy and unbelievable -- particularly as he refuses to accept any responsibility for the outcome of his actions and policies. The diminished status of the United States around the globe and the greatly eroded standard of living for the vast majority of Americans are testament to these character flaws.
At times even the most diehard of his sycophants in the mainstream media are forced to report on this disturbing trait in their hero. This past spring the Washington Post ran a lengthy front page article on Obama's machinations during the debt ceiling debate. The highlight of the piece: Barack Obama deliberately lied to the American people concerning the intransigence of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. It was an amazing admission for a pillar of the sycophantic mainstream media to write a story claiming that their hero lied. A further example of the media's awakening to the deceit and fabrications of the Obama administration is the recent reporting on the Libyan scandal which is actively pursuing the lies and cover-up.
However, there has been five years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call Mr. Obama what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation, those who oppose his agenda only adds to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by the sycophants around him; thus he is who he is and cannot change.
In an earlier column I asked the question is Barack Obama a compulsive liar or a sociopath? (h)
A Sociopath:
A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused--it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.
A compulsive liar:
A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.
While Barack Obama exhibits traits from both categories, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is primarily a compulsive liar. How else to explain the lies and obfuscations that so easily come forth regardless of whom he may be talking to or the subject matter. His sociopathic skills come to the fore in his ability to manipulate others to join him in his these prevarications, or to exploit the celebrity culture that has overwhelmed a deliberately ill-educated American society.
In the United States there is great deference paid to the occupant of the White House. Justifiably so, as that person is the chief operating officer of the country, but more importantly he or she is the head of state representing the nation around the globe. The President's actions and demeanor set the tone for not only the political class but the country as a whole. Over the centuries there have been many exceptional but also a few inept men to hold the office of President.
Today so much power is vested in the Office of President that honor and integrity must be a hallmark of a president's character. It is not with Barack Obama; he is perhaps the most dishonest and disingenuous occupant of the oval office in history, and has the potential to do more long-term damage to the United States than all his predecessor combined.
His failings can no longer be excused by this historical deference or timidity fostered by race with the euphemisms of spin or politics as usual being used to avoid the truth. It is extraordinarily difficult to run against someone such as Barack Obama -- a stranger to truth and integrity willing to do anything to win -- but Mitt Romney must do so by candidly admitting who he is dealing with.
While the future of the country depends on dramatically altering the economic and governing landscape, it cannot do so unless the opposition politicians and average citizens recognize and forcefully challenge the lies and machinations of Barack Obama and his allies without fear of what may be said about them or to them by either the Obama machine or their sycophants in the media.
Source: American Thinker
As college student, Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of Columbia University ROTC office
Monday, October 01, 2012
(Daily Caller) - As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed —
FULL STORY>>
(Daily Caller) - As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed —
FULL STORY>>
Open Borders - Stealth Mode: Obama USDA met 30 times with Mexican gov’t to promote food-stamp use among Mexican immigrants
Monday, October 01, 2012
(Daily Caller) - Department of Agriculture personnel in the Obama administration have met with Mexican Government officials dozens of times since the president took office to promote nutrition assistance programs — notably food stamps — among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America. Writing in response to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions’ July request for information about the USDA’s little known partnership with the Mexican government to educate citizen and noncitizen immigrants from Mexico about the availability of food stamps and other nutrition assistance programs, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the partnership as a way to curb hunger in America.
Continue reading>>
(Daily Caller) - Department of Agriculture personnel in the Obama administration have met with Mexican Government officials dozens of times since the president took office to promote nutrition assistance programs — notably food stamps — among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America. Writing in response to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions’ July request for information about the USDA’s little known partnership with the Mexican government to educate citizen and noncitizen immigrants from Mexico about the availability of food stamps and other nutrition assistance programs, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the partnership as a way to curb hunger in America.
Continue reading>>
Plain and Simple: Back Akin or Else You Will Be Endorsing McCaskill
Ex-Sens. Bond, Talent now backing Akin Senate bid
Two of Mitt Romney's senior advisers say they are backing Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican Senate candidate they once shunned.
Former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, Romney's go-to on Russia and defense policy, said Friday that he's behind the congressman who's been apologizing for weeks for his comments on "legitimate rape." Earlier this week, Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, Romney's liaison to Congress, announced that he'd back Akin, too.
Former Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri also endorsed Akin on Friday. All three had called on Akin to drop out of his campaign against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. Akin stayed in, and has won the endorsements of a key conservative group and some Republicans.
Former Missouri Republican Sens. John Danforth and John Ashcroft still are not backing Akin.
Source: OneNewsNow
Two of Mitt Romney's senior advisers say they are backing Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican Senate candidate they once shunned.
Former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, Romney's go-to on Russia and defense policy, said Friday that he's behind the congressman who's been apologizing for weeks for his comments on "legitimate rape." Earlier this week, Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, Romney's liaison to Congress, announced that he'd back Akin, too.
Former Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri also endorsed Akin on Friday. All three had called on Akin to drop out of his campaign against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. Akin stayed in, and has won the endorsements of a key conservative group and some Republicans.
Former Missouri Republican Sens. John Danforth and John Ashcroft still are not backing Akin.
Source: OneNewsNow
WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters
October 01, 2012
One of the most amazing — and significant — statistics of this election season has gone almost completely unnoticed:
Only 9% of sampled households gave an answer to pollsters in 2012:
It has become increasingly difficult to contact potential respondents and to persuade them to participate. The percentage of households in a sample that are successfully interviewed – the response rate – has fallen dramatically. At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today.
The general decline in response rates is evident across nearly all types of surveys, in the United States and abroad. At the same time, greater effort and expense are required to achieve even the diminished response rates of today. These challenges have led many to question whether surveys are still providing accurate and unbiased information.
PJ Tattler has the FULL STORY>>
One of the most amazing — and significant — statistics of this election season has gone almost completely unnoticed:
Only 9% of sampled households gave an answer to pollsters in 2012:
It has become increasingly difficult to contact potential respondents and to persuade them to participate. The percentage of households in a sample that are successfully interviewed – the response rate – has fallen dramatically. At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today.
The general decline in response rates is evident across nearly all types of surveys, in the United States and abroad. At the same time, greater effort and expense are required to achieve even the diminished response rates of today. These challenges have led many to question whether surveys are still providing accurate and unbiased information.
PJ Tattler has the FULL STORY>>
Some illegal immigrants may get drivers licenses under new California law
Monday, October 01, 2012 6:17:29 AM
Some illegal immigrants could get California drivers licenses under a bill that Gov. Jerry Brown announced he signed into law late Sunday.
AB2189 by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, will let the Department of Motor Vehicles issue licenses to illegal immigrants eligible for work permits under a new Obama administration policy. The bill requires the department to accept as proof of legal residence whatever document the federal government provides to participants in its deferred action program.
Cedillo said his bill will make roads safer while letting young immigrants drive to school and to work. His reasoning drew support from several Republican lawmakers, while other Republicans argued the state should leave immigration issues to the federal government.
"It is a victory for those who were brought here through no choice of their own, played by the rules, and are only asking to be included in and contribute to American society," Cedillo said in a statement.
Full Story>>
 |
| FILE: June 15, 2012: Niouseline St. Jean, from Turks and Caicos Islands who lives in the U.S. illegally reacts to the new immigration ruling for students. (AP) |
Some illegal immigrants could get California drivers licenses under a bill that Gov. Jerry Brown announced he signed into law late Sunday.
AB2189 by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, will let the Department of Motor Vehicles issue licenses to illegal immigrants eligible for work permits under a new Obama administration policy. The bill requires the department to accept as proof of legal residence whatever document the federal government provides to participants in its deferred action program.
Cedillo said his bill will make roads safer while letting young immigrants drive to school and to work. His reasoning drew support from several Republican lawmakers, while other Republicans argued the state should leave immigration issues to the federal government.
"It is a victory for those who were brought here through no choice of their own, played by the rules, and are only asking to be included in and contribute to American society," Cedillo said in a statement.
Full Story>>
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Why Democrats, including me, are abandoning Obama
Logical... Flawlessly logical....
I wrote an article last month for this website discussing how I – along with other Democrats and independents – might just cast our vote for Romney, although I didn't fully explain the rationale for the change. While I'm not claiming there is a new wave of supporters for Mitt Romney, there is no denying that there is a large number of disgruntled Democrats and independents who are dissatisfied with President Obama. And that may just be enough to elect Mitt Romney.
At this week's Democratic Convention, president Obama spoke of his many hopes and dreams for America. He has often said that he expects to leave a legacy of great achievements, like those of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Kennedy was able to galvanize the nation not simply because he wanted to do so, but as a result of methodical campaigning and stumping that culminated with a cross-country trip in 1956, where he introduced himself to voters, delegates and politicians. Lyndon Johnson was able to pass numerous bills into law, not merely for the reason that they were morally right, but because he was a skilled politician who understood and accepted the workings of our political system.
JFK was a relentless and industrious campaigner. He came from a level of wealth and privilege that placed him at the top of the one percent of his day, yet instead of rejecting the mandatory campaign requirements of politicians of that era, he embraced the daily rigors of handshaking, personal visits and ward style politics, exploiting them further than anyone ever had before.
Lyndon Johnson was the consummate politician who truly understood that the art of the deal was all about bipartisanship and he worked tirelessly to unite our country. It’s been said that while most men were content to read a book or watch a sporting event for recreation, Lyndon Johnson would follow the results of a local Texas school board election for fun. His love for politics was unflagging. That was his tennis.
President Obama is said to abhor the daily machinations of Washington politics. He refuses to miss more than two dinners a week with his daughters. He prefers not to meet with senators, congressmen or significant donors, yet he still expects to reap the benefits normally provided by those circumstances.
Obama snubbed the advice of George Soros (perhaps his wealthiest and most influential donor) and has alienated many other important supporters. What President Obama may perceive as altruistic is nothing more than intractable behavior along with a refusal to accept the reality of American politics and – ultimately – the basic job description of president of the United States.
Perhaps President Obama should consider that his dislike of Washington politics has contributed to the inertia and current stalemate that exists in Washington. He promised hope and change, but his current campaign is divisive with negative advertisements and driven by class warfare.
In Thursday night's convention address, President Obama reprised the same promises he made in 2008, again with no feasible suggestions of how to pay for them.
The president has a wonderful vision for America, but it's nothing more than a delusion that can't be achieved during a time of record – and climbing – deficits. Our government has built roads, bridges and schools that have educated us. However, it has also become a bloated money burning machine in desperate need of reform – a word that does not seem to exist in Obama's vocabulary.
Democrats are jumping ship because President Obama is offering nothing but blame for the previous administration and his own pipe dreams at a time when voters need some real assurance if they’re going to believe the economy can be saved. Unfortunately, speaking as one of those Democrats, I have little hope that President Obama will change.
Source: Rob Taub
I wrote an article last month for this website discussing how I – along with other Democrats and independents – might just cast our vote for Romney, although I didn't fully explain the rationale for the change. While I'm not claiming there is a new wave of supporters for Mitt Romney, there is no denying that there is a large number of disgruntled Democrats and independents who are dissatisfied with President Obama. And that may just be enough to elect Mitt Romney.
At this week's Democratic Convention, president Obama spoke of his many hopes and dreams for America. He has often said that he expects to leave a legacy of great achievements, like those of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Kennedy was able to galvanize the nation not simply because he wanted to do so, but as a result of methodical campaigning and stumping that culminated with a cross-country trip in 1956, where he introduced himself to voters, delegates and politicians. Lyndon Johnson was able to pass numerous bills into law, not merely for the reason that they were morally right, but because he was a skilled politician who understood and accepted the workings of our political system.
JFK was a relentless and industrious campaigner. He came from a level of wealth and privilege that placed him at the top of the one percent of his day, yet instead of rejecting the mandatory campaign requirements of politicians of that era, he embraced the daily rigors of handshaking, personal visits and ward style politics, exploiting them further than anyone ever had before.
Lyndon Johnson was the consummate politician who truly understood that the art of the deal was all about bipartisanship and he worked tirelessly to unite our country. It’s been said that while most men were content to read a book or watch a sporting event for recreation, Lyndon Johnson would follow the results of a local Texas school board election for fun. His love for politics was unflagging. That was his tennis.
President Obama is said to abhor the daily machinations of Washington politics. He refuses to miss more than two dinners a week with his daughters. He prefers not to meet with senators, congressmen or significant donors, yet he still expects to reap the benefits normally provided by those circumstances.
Obama snubbed the advice of George Soros (perhaps his wealthiest and most influential donor) and has alienated many other important supporters. What President Obama may perceive as altruistic is nothing more than intractable behavior along with a refusal to accept the reality of American politics and – ultimately – the basic job description of president of the United States.
Perhaps President Obama should consider that his dislike of Washington politics has contributed to the inertia and current stalemate that exists in Washington. He promised hope and change, but his current campaign is divisive with negative advertisements and driven by class warfare.
In Thursday night's convention address, President Obama reprised the same promises he made in 2008, again with no feasible suggestions of how to pay for them.
The president has a wonderful vision for America, but it's nothing more than a delusion that can't be achieved during a time of record – and climbing – deficits. Our government has built roads, bridges and schools that have educated us. However, it has also become a bloated money burning machine in desperate need of reform – a word that does not seem to exist in Obama's vocabulary.
Democrats are jumping ship because President Obama is offering nothing but blame for the previous administration and his own pipe dreams at a time when voters need some real assurance if they’re going to believe the economy can be saved. Unfortunately, speaking as one of those Democrats, I have little hope that President Obama will change.
Source: Rob Taub
On the Road to Benghazi
September 30, 2012
By Clarice Feldman
American Thinker
In retrospect, the Democratic Convention highlighted a liar, Elizabeth Warren. She was hired by Harvard law school because she lied about her ethnicity to gain affirmative action benefits, exaggerated her scholarship which was shoddy, practiced law for years in Massachusetts out of her law school office without being a member of that state's bar -- and possibly at the time a member of no bar at all. She gummed on before the crowd about working for the middle class hiding from the audience that she had made hundreds of thousands of dollars representing big corporations in disputes against steel workers and asbestos victims among others. This week, Professor William Jacobson exposed all of that.
But she was hardly the only world class mythomaniac from Harvard law school on the podium at that Convention, the theme of which was Obama the bold slayer of Bin Laden and destroyer of Al Qaeda, the experienced and aggressive counter terrorist expert. After all, his domestic policies, are so bad they were hardly anything about which to spike the ball so the brain trust picked international anti-terrorist hero theme.
If you've been too busy to keep track of the lies about the origin and perpetrators of the tragedy in Libya, Iowahawk has once again condensed this to its essence:
"Fast & Furious, Benghazi edition?"
Let's review the sad history of an Obama foreign policy initiative which resulted in the murder of our Ambassador, and three other Americans in an action which suggests that (reminiscent of Fast & Furious) the Administration let loose countless dangerous weapons , cannot trace them and has unloosed even more destruction -- including against the U.S. -- in this highly unstable region.
March 2012
According to Mark Hosenball of Reuters, sometime in that month, Obama decided to aid the rebels in ousting Gaddafi, a man who was at the time seemingly much subdued after we invaded Iraq and no longer creating the trouble in the region he'd been infamous for.
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."
Congress was not consulted. Congress did not authorize this. The entire decision and responsibility is Obama's.
While it may have appeared that we were only providing air support to the rebels, Obama announced at the time he had not ruled out supplying the rebels with arms, and from the nature of the attack on our consulate and a nearby "farm" in Benghazi we can assume that we, in fact, provided them. I can think of no other reason why we had so many former Seals and outside contractors in these locations except that we were trying unsuccessfully to retrieve these arms before they fell in the hands of Al Qaeda. And this development was as Hosenball reported something of great concern to people with a great deal more experience and historic knowledge than Obama:
Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.
There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."
"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.
A Little song, A Little dance, A little Seltzer Down Your Pants
It was reasonably obvious from the outset -- especially considering the words of the Libyan government and the reports on the ground -- that the attacks on the consulate and at a nearby " farm" were not spontaneous outbursts occasioned by fury at a video which was critical of Muhammad, "Innocence of Muslims." At the Daily Beast, Eli Lake reported it was known within 24 hours of the incident that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the well-supplied and orchestrated attacks, but the Administration persisted for a week using various spokespersons, especially Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Secretary of State Clinton, to lie and suggest that was the cause of the murder of the Ambassador and three others.
Charles Krauthammer is the go to guy on why such an obviously juvenile effort to deflect blame onto a stupid video (probably few people have seen) was made:
This was clearly deception on part of the administration in sending Susan Rice to say this was a spontaneous demonstration, when as you reported, it was known inside the administration within a day that it was not. It was a terror attack. So why did they deceive? It's obvious. Because the attack took place five days after the Democrats had spent a week in Charlotte touting, spiking the football on Osama. And essentially, since it's the only foreign policy achievement of the four years they repeated it over and over again, the great triumph over al-Qaeda. Well, within a week, al-Qaeda sacks a U.S. embassy, kills an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit it so it spent a week deceiving Americans to think it's about demonstration, it's about a film, thinking, I think correctly that if it strung it out long enough the media would let it slide and now that it becomes it's obvious and true, nobody will care, I guarantee you. This is not a headline in the mainstream media.
John Nolte at Breitbart shared that point of view:
The false White House narrative blaming the murders on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video never really passed the smell test. But Obama maintained that illusion straight through to his speech before the United Nations two days ago, even as reports surfaced that our government knew al-Qaeda was behind the attack within 24 hours. Apparently, this has become too much to sweep under the rug for some of the mainstream press and Democrats.
The behavior of Obama and Secretary of State Clinton over the past 14 days is a scandal of the highest order. Lies, cover ups, and neglect for security of American intelligence and personnel that borders on criminal.
I've been skeptical that the same media, that early on conspired in this cover up by intentionally pouring all of its focus and fire on Mitt Romney's criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology, would go near this before the election. But the sins are so great and glaring, it doesn't look as though ignoring it will be possible for another 40 days.
After lying the Administration is now refusing to respond to inquiries based on a phony claim that the matter is "under investigation," an investigation that is nonexistent. (See video2 here.)
And Now a Little Two Step
Even though the make believe scenario has fallen apart, Obama still publicly continues to act as if it were true.
His Attorney general got involved and the film maker was widely photographed being hustled off (for questioning) by the Los Angeles police department and was just jailed on a pretense -- a probation violation. The "offense" seems at best a technical violation and at worst a signal to the Middle Eastern fanatics that while we say we can't do anything to stop them from being offended because the First Amendment forecloses such action, we really can and will punish those who offend them,
The same message was made more explicit in Obama's silly and groveling statement before the UN: "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam."
The use of the word "Prophet" in this context is bizarre. Do we refer to "Lord Jesus" or "Prophet Moses" in news accounts and secular speech? The suggestion that criticism of Islam is the equivalent of slander (a justiciable offense) and must result in the defeat of the speaker is nonsensical. The entire statement indicates to me the President is appeasing our attackers, bowing to the jihadis as earlier he touched the ground before the Saudi King. The entire claim that we must not give religious offense, moreover, is odd coming from a President who sees nothing wrong with "piss Christ" exhibits in publicly financed museums and whose Secretary of State publicly indicated she thought a play mocking Mormons was terrifically funny.
The pretense that Islam is entitled to some special protection because otherwise the world will suffer has even spread to NYC where after an MSNBC commenter was arrested for spray painting a pro-Israel poster the transit authority decided to remove those posters to avoid giving further offense to people like the defacer!
To recap, this was an armed assault, not a spontaneous demonstration. The weapons used against us were likely in the hands of Al Qaeda because our President on his own put them there, and we are being denied our free speech rights as part of an elaborate ruse to keep the press from reporting the scandal and the voters from learning before the election what really went down.
Other Implications
My friend Matt Holtzmann adds a coda, a description of the current state of play as a result of this series of administration blunders:
Susan Rice, our ambassador to the U.N., decided to have lunch with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday instead of attending Israeli PM Netanyahu's speech. Diplomatically this was the equivalent of flipping the bird. I believe this sends as clear a message as possible of the Administration's intentions in the Middle East.
That Mohammed Morsi released Mostafa Hamza, a leader of The Islamic Group, who was responsible for the Luxor temple bombing in 1997, is indicative of a new phase in the global war on terror.
In that attack, which killed 58 foreign tourists, the terrorists locked the gates of the temple grounds and for over 30 minutes raped, terrorized, and murdered almost everyone within the grounds. From the survivors' descriptions it was an orgy of violence. It was the worst terrorist attack in Egyptian history.
Morsi is also pressing for the release of the Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and who is at the center of an extradition battle in the U.K. trying to evade imprisonment in the United States.
With what we have just learned about the Administration's prevarications regarding the nature of the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Libya, the refusal to maintain some form of common front with our greatest ally in the region should ring alarm bells regarding our commitments and obligations to allies in the region.
Should Iran advance its agenda there is a very high probability that not only Israel, but the Gulf States will also go nuclear.
By Clarice Feldman
American Thinker
In retrospect, the Democratic Convention highlighted a liar, Elizabeth Warren. She was hired by Harvard law school because she lied about her ethnicity to gain affirmative action benefits, exaggerated her scholarship which was shoddy, practiced law for years in Massachusetts out of her law school office without being a member of that state's bar -- and possibly at the time a member of no bar at all. She gummed on before the crowd about working for the middle class hiding from the audience that she had made hundreds of thousands of dollars representing big corporations in disputes against steel workers and asbestos victims among others. This week, Professor William Jacobson exposed all of that.
But she was hardly the only world class mythomaniac from Harvard law school on the podium at that Convention, the theme of which was Obama the bold slayer of Bin Laden and destroyer of Al Qaeda, the experienced and aggressive counter terrorist expert. After all, his domestic policies, are so bad they were hardly anything about which to spike the ball so the brain trust picked international anti-terrorist hero theme.
If you've been too busy to keep track of the lies about the origin and perpetrators of the tragedy in Libya, Iowahawk has once again condensed this to its essence:
"Fast & Furious, Benghazi edition?"
Let's review the sad history of an Obama foreign policy initiative which resulted in the murder of our Ambassador, and three other Americans in an action which suggests that (reminiscent of Fast & Furious) the Administration let loose countless dangerous weapons , cannot trace them and has unloosed even more destruction -- including against the U.S. -- in this highly unstable region.
March 2012
According to Mark Hosenball of Reuters, sometime in that month, Obama decided to aid the rebels in ousting Gaddafi, a man who was at the time seemingly much subdued after we invaded Iraq and no longer creating the trouble in the region he'd been infamous for.
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."
Congress was not consulted. Congress did not authorize this. The entire decision and responsibility is Obama's.
While it may have appeared that we were only providing air support to the rebels, Obama announced at the time he had not ruled out supplying the rebels with arms, and from the nature of the attack on our consulate and a nearby "farm" in Benghazi we can assume that we, in fact, provided them. I can think of no other reason why we had so many former Seals and outside contractors in these locations except that we were trying unsuccessfully to retrieve these arms before they fell in the hands of Al Qaeda. And this development was as Hosenball reported something of great concern to people with a great deal more experience and historic knowledge than Obama:
Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.
There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."
"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.
A Little song, A Little dance, A little Seltzer Down Your Pants
It was reasonably obvious from the outset -- especially considering the words of the Libyan government and the reports on the ground -- that the attacks on the consulate and at a nearby " farm" were not spontaneous outbursts occasioned by fury at a video which was critical of Muhammad, "Innocence of Muslims." At the Daily Beast, Eli Lake reported it was known within 24 hours of the incident that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the well-supplied and orchestrated attacks, but the Administration persisted for a week using various spokespersons, especially Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Secretary of State Clinton, to lie and suggest that was the cause of the murder of the Ambassador and three others.
Charles Krauthammer is the go to guy on why such an obviously juvenile effort to deflect blame onto a stupid video (probably few people have seen) was made:
This was clearly deception on part of the administration in sending Susan Rice to say this was a spontaneous demonstration, when as you reported, it was known inside the administration within a day that it was not. It was a terror attack. So why did they deceive? It's obvious. Because the attack took place five days after the Democrats had spent a week in Charlotte touting, spiking the football on Osama. And essentially, since it's the only foreign policy achievement of the four years they repeated it over and over again, the great triumph over al-Qaeda. Well, within a week, al-Qaeda sacks a U.S. embassy, kills an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit it so it spent a week deceiving Americans to think it's about demonstration, it's about a film, thinking, I think correctly that if it strung it out long enough the media would let it slide and now that it becomes it's obvious and true, nobody will care, I guarantee you. This is not a headline in the mainstream media.
John Nolte at Breitbart shared that point of view:
The false White House narrative blaming the murders on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video never really passed the smell test. But Obama maintained that illusion straight through to his speech before the United Nations two days ago, even as reports surfaced that our government knew al-Qaeda was behind the attack within 24 hours. Apparently, this has become too much to sweep under the rug for some of the mainstream press and Democrats.
The behavior of Obama and Secretary of State Clinton over the past 14 days is a scandal of the highest order. Lies, cover ups, and neglect for security of American intelligence and personnel that borders on criminal.
I've been skeptical that the same media, that early on conspired in this cover up by intentionally pouring all of its focus and fire on Mitt Romney's criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology, would go near this before the election. But the sins are so great and glaring, it doesn't look as though ignoring it will be possible for another 40 days.
After lying the Administration is now refusing to respond to inquiries based on a phony claim that the matter is "under investigation," an investigation that is nonexistent. (See video2 here.)
And Now a Little Two Step
Even though the make believe scenario has fallen apart, Obama still publicly continues to act as if it were true.
His Attorney general got involved and the film maker was widely photographed being hustled off (for questioning) by the Los Angeles police department and was just jailed on a pretense -- a probation violation. The "offense" seems at best a technical violation and at worst a signal to the Middle Eastern fanatics that while we say we can't do anything to stop them from being offended because the First Amendment forecloses such action, we really can and will punish those who offend them,
The same message was made more explicit in Obama's silly and groveling statement before the UN: "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam."
The use of the word "Prophet" in this context is bizarre. Do we refer to "Lord Jesus" or "Prophet Moses" in news accounts and secular speech? The suggestion that criticism of Islam is the equivalent of slander (a justiciable offense) and must result in the defeat of the speaker is nonsensical. The entire statement indicates to me the President is appeasing our attackers, bowing to the jihadis as earlier he touched the ground before the Saudi King. The entire claim that we must not give religious offense, moreover, is odd coming from a President who sees nothing wrong with "piss Christ" exhibits in publicly financed museums and whose Secretary of State publicly indicated she thought a play mocking Mormons was terrifically funny.
The pretense that Islam is entitled to some special protection because otherwise the world will suffer has even spread to NYC where after an MSNBC commenter was arrested for spray painting a pro-Israel poster the transit authority decided to remove those posters to avoid giving further offense to people like the defacer!
To recap, this was an armed assault, not a spontaneous demonstration. The weapons used against us were likely in the hands of Al Qaeda because our President on his own put them there, and we are being denied our free speech rights as part of an elaborate ruse to keep the press from reporting the scandal and the voters from learning before the election what really went down.
Other Implications
My friend Matt Holtzmann adds a coda, a description of the current state of play as a result of this series of administration blunders:
Susan Rice, our ambassador to the U.N., decided to have lunch with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday instead of attending Israeli PM Netanyahu's speech. Diplomatically this was the equivalent of flipping the bird. I believe this sends as clear a message as possible of the Administration's intentions in the Middle East.
That Mohammed Morsi released Mostafa Hamza, a leader of The Islamic Group, who was responsible for the Luxor temple bombing in 1997, is indicative of a new phase in the global war on terror.
In that attack, which killed 58 foreign tourists, the terrorists locked the gates of the temple grounds and for over 30 minutes raped, terrorized, and murdered almost everyone within the grounds. From the survivors' descriptions it was an orgy of violence. It was the worst terrorist attack in Egyptian history.
Morsi is also pressing for the release of the Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and who is at the center of an extradition battle in the U.K. trying to evade imprisonment in the United States.
With what we have just learned about the Administration's prevarications regarding the nature of the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Libya, the refusal to maintain some form of common front with our greatest ally in the region should ring alarm bells regarding our commitments and obligations to allies in the region.
Should Iran advance its agenda there is a very high probability that not only Israel, but the Gulf States will also go nuclear.
The Obama Administration's Coordinated Effort To Mindfuck Democratic Voters
Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices
The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.
The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.
But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.
The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.
Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”
“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”
The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.
Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.
But the new guidance would appear to address one of the chief concerns from the companies — that they could be liable to compensate employees who were laid off if the companies don’t issue the notices.
The GOP senators complained, however, that this tactic would push the cost of the layoffs onto taxpayers.
A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told The Hill that the company is still reviewing the documents.
Source: Jeremy Herb - The Hill
09/28/12 07:25 PM ET
The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.
The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.
But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.
The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.
Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”
“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”
The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.
Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.
But the new guidance would appear to address one of the chief concerns from the companies — that they could be liable to compensate employees who were laid off if the companies don’t issue the notices.
The GOP senators complained, however, that this tactic would push the cost of the layoffs onto taxpayers.
A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told The Hill that the company is still reviewing the documents.
Source: Jeremy Herb - The Hill
09/28/12 07:25 PM ET
TODAY IS BURN OBAMA’S CREEPY FLAG DAY!
September 22, 2012: Sadly, many of us may have missed it.... But fear not dear friends! Any day is a great day to burn the flag of an egotistical maniac who thinks he can transfer ownership of our great country into his own. (Letter "h" intentionally non-capitalized, colored pink)
First he had his own symbol, now he has his own flag. We are accurate in calling him a black Hitler.
Posted by davidbenmoshejtf
First he had his own symbol, now he has his own flag. We are accurate in calling him a black Hitler.
Posted by davidbenmoshejtf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)