Tom Tancredo
3rd November, 2012
The four American deaths in Benghazi are a direct result of decisions
and actions by President Obama that undermine the national-security
interests of the United States. Those deaths may well be only a
foretaste of the catastrophe awaiting the United States if Barack
Hussein Obama remains in office four more years.
As we all know, Obama may be removed by a vote of the people Nov. 6.
But if not, if the lapdog media succeed in hiding his malfeasance and
incompetence well enough for Obama to win a narrow victory at the polls,
then Congress may summon the courage to exercise its constitutional
duty to impeach and remove him.
Obama’s foreign-policy disasters have not been a major focus of the
presidential race, and that is unfortunate. The grave national-security
issues raised in the Benghazi fiasco cannot be easily or intelligently
addressed in a 30-second television spot, but they are nonetheless
critical to our future safety and well-being. Obama’s pro-Islamist
policies are more than mere blips on the political radar screen.
In the view of many, Obama had earned impeachment even before the
Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11. His open abuse of power in making recess
appointments when the Senate was not in recess, his open defiance of
Congress in his administrative amnesty for 2 million illegal aliens, his
misuse of “executive privilege” in withholding documents pertaining to
the illegal Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – those actions alone
qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
However, if treason is added to the mix, Congress will find it hard
to shirk its duty to impeach him. The many people who think those other
offenses do not rise to the constitutional standard of “high crimes and
misdemeanors” will not be so charitable with regard to the crime of
treason.
But when does a foreign policy “blunder” cross the line into treason?
Well, maybe when it is not a blunder at all but the entirely
predictable consequence of a deliberate policy that invites attack on
our embassies and indeed our homeland.
The word treason means a betraying, treachery, or breach of
allegiance. Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against
the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. If radical Islam
is a self-declared enemy of the United States, as can be easily
demonstrated, Obama has certainly given them aid and comfort: Most
Americans will think that welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into the
White House and appointing Muslim Brotherhood members to important posts
does in fact constitute “aid and comfort.”
If the Muslim Brotherhood is not an avowed enemy of the United
States, what else should we call an organization that openly and
officially calls for the replacement of the U.S. Constitution by Shariah
law? Apparently, an Islamist armed to the teeth must carry an al-Qaida
membership card to qualify for Obama’s distrust.
Here is the brute fact of the matter. The attack on the United States
consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist act. Obama’s foreign policies and
decisions not only left the consulate vulnerable to attack but in fact
invited the attack – and then he blamed an unknown American film for the
attack and turned a blind eye on the al-Qaida allied terrorists who
were responsible.
Despite the establishment media’s best efforts to protect Obama from
any fallout from the Benghazi deaths, we now know that Obama and his
team lied about those events.
Obama lied when he said the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous
act in response to an obscure film no one in Libya had yet seen. He
knew differently. He lied when he said the Libyan embassy staff had not
requested additional security for its Benghazi consulate. He lied in the
weeks leading up to the Benghazi attack when he said al-Qaida had been
“knocked back on its heels” and is no longer a threat to the United
States.
Obama’s lies about the Benghazi attack and the four American deaths
are lies told to cover up not State Department “incompetence” but the
predictable consequences of policies of denial, neglect and stupidity
toward our nation’s enemy, radical Islam.
But here is the most damning aspect Obama’s behavior. Obama is
unwilling even today to name the enemy that has declared war on the
United States and to deal forthrightly with that imminent threat. Our
pro-Islamist president will not name Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood
and the government of Iran as enemies of the United States even though
they have declared war on us and are engaged in numerous plots to bring
death and destruction to the American homeland.
Why are we so reluctant to call this by its right name – treason?
The failure in Benghazi was more than a State Department failure to
provide needed security for the embassy personnel in our Libyan outpost.
That failure is bad enough, but it is only part of a larger betrayal.
Additional security was denied to Benghazi consulate because doing so
would have been an admission that eastern Libya was under the effective
control of armed militias allied with al-Qaida. Making that admission
would have undermined one of the pillars of Obama’s re-election.
When the attack was under way, military assistance that was only two
hours away was denied. Today’s revelation by the CIA that it sent a
four-person support team from the capital, Tripoli, does not answer the
question of why military backup was denied and who denied it. Sending
additional CIA support to the post was admirable but was too little and
too late. Why was military support at AFRICOM – less than two hours
distant – denied when it was available and ready to deploy? Did
Secretary of Defense Panetta consult Obama in making that decision?
The many unanswered questions about Benghazi are unanswered for only
one reason: Truthful answers would embarrass Obama and jeopardize his
re-election. This is election fraud conducted not from Chicago but
straight from the West Wing of the White House.
Thanks to a compliant media, the American people will not have those
answers in time to make an informed choice on Tuesday. It will fall to
the people’s representatives in Congress to find those answers. And when
the full truth is known, Congress must consider removing Barack Obama
for giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies – and that is treason
against the United States.
3 November 2012
Obama’s Benghazi investigator tied to Libya bombing
Aaron Klein
3rd November, 2012
JERUSALEM – The Obama administration’s lead investigator into the Benghazi attack, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, previously held clandestine meetings with Hamas aimed at opening U.S. dialogue with the terrorist group, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.
Sources within Hamas previously disclosed to WND the June 2009 meeting. The gathering allegedly took place in Geneva with two Hamas leaders, Bassem Naim and Mahmoud al-Zahar. Naim is Hamas’ health minister, while al-Zahar is one of the main Hamas leaders in Gaza.
Pickering is further tied to the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa through his role as a member of the small board of the International Crisis Group, or ICG, one of the main proponents of the international “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
The doctrine is the very military protocol used to justify the NATO bombing campaign that brought down Moammar Ghadafi’s regime in Libya.
Gareth Evans, president emeritus of the ICG, is the founder and co-author of the doctrine.
Billionaire activist George Soros is on the ICG’s executive board. Soros’ Open Society Institute is also one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the group that devised the doctrine.
The ICG itself has long petitioned for talks with Hamas as well as normalized relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, for years urging the Egyptian government to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party, as WND previously reported.
The crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease “excessive” military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.
Pickering’s meeting with Hamas in 2009 served as an “important step” to open eventual dialogue between the Islamic group and the Obama administration, Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, Ahmed Yousef, told WND that year.
At the time, the State Department told the Jerusalem Post the meeting between Pickering and Hamas was not sanctioned by the White House and that official U.S. policy regarding the group remained unchanged: Hamas first must recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements as a precondition for dialogue with the U.S.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stressed Pickering acted as a private citizen. Kelly said he was unaware of any prior U.S. governmental coordination with the former diplomat about the meeting with Hamas.
Pickering is not the only member of the ICG that was accused of serving as a conduit between the Obama administration and Hamas.
Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He resigned after it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas. WND reported Malley long had petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.
Other ICG board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; and Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security adviser.
Military doctrine used to bomb Libya
The ICG is one of the main proponents of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, championing the doctrine in its official mission statement.
Doctrine founder Evans is the ICG’s president emeritus.
President Obama’s national security adviser, Samantha Power, helped to found Responsibility to Protect, which was also devised by several controversial characters, including Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Powers, last April, was named the head of the new White House Atrocities Prevention Board.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”
The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.
The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, founded by Power, had a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect.
The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.
The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Power was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.
With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
Soros funded
The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world’s leading champion of the military doctrine.
Soros’ Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.
Several of the doctrine’s main founders sit on boards with Soros.
The committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Ashrawi.
Two of the global group’s advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the doctrine, with the duo even coining the term “responsibility to protect.”
Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.
The Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Annan once famously stated: “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are … instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa.”
Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’ borders’
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”
In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”
“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.
“In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”
More Soros ties
“Responsibility” founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairmen, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term “responsibility to protect.”
In his capacity as co-chairman, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to “sovereignty as responsibility.”
Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.
Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.
Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a “crisis management organization” for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.
‘One World Order’
Doctrine founder Thakur has advocated a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”
In a piece in March 2011 in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote, “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”
He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.
“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote.
“A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train,” he added.
Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”
Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ western power.”
3rd November, 2012
JERUSALEM – The Obama administration’s lead investigator into the Benghazi attack, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, previously held clandestine meetings with Hamas aimed at opening U.S. dialogue with the terrorist group, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.
Sources within Hamas previously disclosed to WND the June 2009 meeting. The gathering allegedly took place in Geneva with two Hamas leaders, Bassem Naim and Mahmoud al-Zahar. Naim is Hamas’ health minister, while al-Zahar is one of the main Hamas leaders in Gaza.
Pickering is further tied to the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa through his role as a member of the small board of the International Crisis Group, or ICG, one of the main proponents of the international “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
The doctrine is the very military protocol used to justify the NATO bombing campaign that brought down Moammar Ghadafi’s regime in Libya.
Gareth Evans, president emeritus of the ICG, is the founder and co-author of the doctrine.
Billionaire activist George Soros is on the ICG’s executive board. Soros’ Open Society Institute is also one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the group that devised the doctrine.
The ICG itself has long petitioned for talks with Hamas as well as normalized relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, for years urging the Egyptian government to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party, as WND previously reported.
The crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease “excessive” military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.
Pickering’s meeting with Hamas in 2009 served as an “important step” to open eventual dialogue between the Islamic group and the Obama administration, Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, Ahmed Yousef, told WND that year.
At the time, the State Department told the Jerusalem Post the meeting between Pickering and Hamas was not sanctioned by the White House and that official U.S. policy regarding the group remained unchanged: Hamas first must recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements as a precondition for dialogue with the U.S.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stressed Pickering acted as a private citizen. Kelly said he was unaware of any prior U.S. governmental coordination with the former diplomat about the meeting with Hamas.
Pickering is not the only member of the ICG that was accused of serving as a conduit between the Obama administration and Hamas.
Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He resigned after it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas. WND reported Malley long had petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.
Other ICG board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; and Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security adviser.
Military doctrine used to bomb Libya
The ICG is one of the main proponents of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, championing the doctrine in its official mission statement.
Doctrine founder Evans is the ICG’s president emeritus.
President Obama’s national security adviser, Samantha Power, helped to found Responsibility to Protect, which was also devised by several controversial characters, including Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Powers, last April, was named the head of the new White House Atrocities Prevention Board.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”
The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.
The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, founded by Power, had a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect.
The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.
The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Power was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.
With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
Soros funded
The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world’s leading champion of the military doctrine.
Soros’ Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.
Several of the doctrine’s main founders sit on boards with Soros.
The committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Ashrawi.
Two of the global group’s advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the doctrine, with the duo even coining the term “responsibility to protect.”
Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.
The Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Annan once famously stated: “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are … instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa.”
Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’ borders’
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”
In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”
“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.
“In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”
More Soros ties
“Responsibility” founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairmen, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term “responsibility to protect.”
In his capacity as co-chairman, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to “sovereignty as responsibility.”
Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.
Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.
Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a “crisis management organization” for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.
‘One World Order’
Doctrine founder Thakur has advocated a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”
In a piece in March 2011 in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote, “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”
He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.
“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote.
“A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train,” he added.
Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”
Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ western power.”
1 November 2012
31 October 2012
Glenn Beck: The President Is Lying (video)
Highly Recommended Website! http://bwcentral.org/author/bear-witness/
Problem found at board of elections
Incorrect inputs irritate voter
Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.
It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.
“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.
Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.
Stevens also reported the issue to Sophia Rogers, the director of the board of elections for Marion County.
Rogers said the machine worked fine when she and others tried voting on it. No one else had reported problems with the voting machines malfunctioning.
Rogers suggested the issue may have been caused by not hitting the button directly or tapping with more than one finger. Stevens was aware the machine had to be operated a certain way.
“I know how to do the voting,” Stevens said.
Despite no problems with that particular machine, Rogers decided to take all precautions. She contacted the vendor and had them inspect the device.
“Because of her issue, we had that machine recalibrated,” Rogers said. “I am certain the equipment works properly.”
Rogers said that those still skeptic about using the electronic stations have the option of filling out a paper ballot, even voting from home and mailing via absentee ballot.
Voting in-person is open daily to all voters at 222 West Center Street through Election Day on November 6. All qualified Ohio voters can also submit an absentee ballot by filling out a form found at the Marion elections website at marionelections.com
Oct 31, 2012
MARION — Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.
It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.
“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.
Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.
Stevens also reported the issue to Sophia Rogers, the director of the board of elections for Marion County.
Rogers said the machine worked fine when she and others tried voting on it. No one else had reported problems with the voting machines malfunctioning.
Rogers suggested the issue may have been caused by not hitting the button directly or tapping with more than one finger. Stevens was aware the machine had to be operated a certain way.
“I know how to do the voting,” Stevens said.
Despite no problems with that particular machine, Rogers decided to take all precautions. She contacted the vendor and had them inspect the device.
“Because of her issue, we had that machine recalibrated,” Rogers said. “I am certain the equipment works properly.”
Rogers said that those still skeptic about using the electronic stations have the option of filling out a paper ballot, even voting from home and mailing via absentee ballot.
Voting in-person is open daily to all voters at 222 West Center Street through Election Day on November 6. All qualified Ohio voters can also submit an absentee ballot by filling out a form found at the Marion elections website at marionelections.com
[ed. As I am sure you are aware when you go to vote at these elections everyone needs to be extra vigilant. Dirty tricks are par for the course when it comes to politics and this time is no exception. An unpopular sitting President is on the ropes but that doesn't necessarily mean 'finished'.
If something suspicious occurs WRITE down everything that was said by whom and to whom and when it was said, straight away. Don't leave key points to memory. Take photographs if necessary. Call the police if you must. Please be civil at all times but don't be afraid to make a fuss. I encourage everyone to take someone with them if possible as an extra set of eyes and ears.
Obviously this reflects a heightened state of alert but we simply can't let them steal this election from us...]
30 October 2012
Facebook Censors Navy SEALS to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate
Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.
by AWR Hawkins30 Oct 2012
The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Here's what Ward told me:
We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook "feedback comment" inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.
Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.
Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours.
In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.
How low can you go?
Breaking! Obama Uses Storm for Campaign
by Rev. Austin Miles
10/29/12
Washington, D.C.(10/29/12). Anyone who has ever been in show business can immediately spot when an answer to a question is spontaneous or staged.
Earlier today, Obama set up his teleprompter to address the nation regarding the impact of Hurricane Sandy that is roaring its way up the East Coast. It is described by weather professionals as the most powerful storm in history to hit the East Coast.
In a beautifully scripted account of the storm, a question was asked of Obama, the only question allowed; "How will this storm affect the election?"
In another beautifully scripted response, Obama said, "The election is the last thing on my mind. The first and foremost concern is the safety of the people...." and yakity yak. That question and answer were no doubt safely on the teleprompter. It was a staged question and answer.
The clincher is that [in] a fleeting view of the attendees of the press briefing, the one who asked the question appeared to be David Axelrod,
the architect of the Obama campaign. A second quick view of the
attendees seemed to confirm that indeed, it was Axelrod. This holds true
to Obama's slogan: Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Before addressing the nation, Obama actually attended a morning briefing which is unusual since he has refused to attend the briefings except for a few...less than half of them.
The briefings in general have to do with critical security threats to America, which would be of no interest to the fraud in the White House. The daily intelligence briefings are to ascertain dangers that might destroy America. Obama was placed into the Oval Office by CPUSA (Communist Party United States of America), for the specific purpose of assisting in the destruction of America, beginning with the church and making morals and ethics something to sneer at.
As the attack on the Libyan Embassy took place, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Obama made a trip to Las Vegas to play with the stars.
The only thing he had to say in response to the Libyan attack and the murders was that it was a spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video that was offensive to Muslims, for which he apologized to the Muslims. He flatly denied that it was a planned terrorist attack to break on the anniversary of 9/11.
In following appearances, like The View, he stated that he knew nothing about the attacks and is now "launching a full investigation."
Again-here is the clincher. It was reported today that Obama was watching the entire attack in the Situation Room.
The only reason for his appearance before America this morning regarding the storm had to do with his concern for his ELECTION campaign. He doesn't want to give up his cushy position where he and Michelle can be treated to lavish extravagance and entertainment vacations.
No doubt, he is miffed because he cannot get out of Washington during this devastating storm to go to Vegas to take it easy and play a few rounds of golf until the whole thing blows over.
So what are YOU going to do next Tuesday, November 6, 2012?
28 October 2012
You can never have free immigration and a welfare state
Leo McKinstry
28th October, 2012
THE welfare state was meant to be an expression
of social solidarity between British citizens. But now that uplifting
ideal is being torn apart by mass immigration.
Welfare was supposed to protect the poor and the vulnerable. But it is fast becoming a bottomless money pit for foreign scroungers and opportunists.
The growing abuse of the British public was illustrated this week by the release of new figures which show that a staggering £36.6million is paid in child benefit to families whose offspring do not even live in Britain.
According to the Treasury, European migrants living or working in Britain are claiming this cash support for 40,000 youngsters based abroad. The vast majority of the claimants were from Eastern Europe, especially Poland.
The idea that we have any duty to underwrite the lifestyles of foreigners is complete madness. Our obligations are towards our fellow citizens, not to children in Warsaw.
What makes this scheme all the more offensive is that the Government is about to cut child benefit for more affluent British taxpayers earning over £50,000 while individuals earning more than £60,000 will lose the bene- fit altogether from next year.
There is also a spectacular unfairness in slashing child benefit for more than one million Britons while keeping the same benefit in place for Europeans.
SADLY this is part of a pattern of contempt for the British people. Jobholders find their living standards squeezed and taxes driven up yet at the same time a fortune is squandered on benefits for the foreigners who continue to flood into this country.
Contrary to all the fashionable official claims about the dynamic boost given to Britain by mass immigration, at least 370,000 migrants here are receiving out-of-work benefits such as the jobseekers' allowance, costing the taxpayer an estimated £2.1billion.
Similarly, the £22billion housing benefits system acts as an expensive gravy train for migrants. Its excesses are symbolised by the large number of cases where foreigners are provided with luxurious, publicly funded accommodation far beyond the dreams of nearly all British mortgage-holders.
A classic example was that of Manal Mahmoud, a Palestinian mother of seven who came to Britain in 2000. Though she has never had a job here she was recently given a £1.25million townhouse in west London, which had been renovated at a cost of £76,000. Showing not a hint of gratitude she and her family appeared to wreck the house.
The same nauseating sense of entitlement was show earlier this year by unemployed Romanian Big Issue seller Firuta Vasile who, not content with the £25,000 in social security she received from the public purse, fought a legal battle to have the rent on her Bristol home met by housing benefit.
Inevitably she won her case. It is no wonder that the bill for the welfare state is now completely unaffordable at £220billion a year, almost a third of all Government spending.
Through cases like Firuta Vasile's, the message has gone out that Britain feels it owes the rest of the world a living.
But the cocktail of immigration, the eU and welfare is not just lethal in financial terms. It also has other dire consequences for our nation.
One disastrous outcome is that it dramatically undermines public faith in the bene- fits system. The concept of reciprocity was at the heart of the modern welfare state when it was created in the Forties.
Payments in hard times were meant to be based on contributions made through taxes and national insurance. "The plan is not one for giving to everybody something for nothing and without trouble," said the scheme's creator Sir William Beveridge.
But that is exactly what is happening today. The "something for nothing" culture is epitomised by the handouts and subsidised homes dished out to new migrants who have made no contribution to Britain.
Quite rightly, this injustice breeds severe resentment from Britons who may receive nothing from the Government but have to fund the whole racket through their taxes.
Another problem is that the profligate generosity of the welfare system acts as a magnet for huge numbers of migrant families. left-wingers often claim that all arrivals "come here to work" but that is just deceitful propaganda.
In fact, welfare dependency is higher among many migrant communities than in the indigenous population; 90 per cent of Somalians, for instance, live in taxpayer-funded housing. We are trapped in a vicious downward spiral. Soaring immigration, running at 600,000 arrivals a year, is fuelling the gargantuan costs of welfare.
As the economist Milton Friedman once said: "It is obvious that you cannot have free immigration and a welfare state. It really is an impossible thing." What we must do is to break the cycle.
So far the Government has taken a few timid steps, such as the cap on housing benefit. But we need much more radical action if we are to rebuild Britain.
That means a temporary freeze on immigration to sort out our borders, a withdrawal from the eU and severe restrictions on the social security that can be claimed by foreigners.
Immigration has long been presented by its cheerleaders as an engine of growth. In truth it has been a terrible drain on our economy.
Big bank boss: U.S. showing signs of socialism
Warns growing dependency may force America to brink of insolvency
WND.com
28th October, 2012
The CEO of a major European bank is warning that swelling the ranks of people dependent upon government may help to win elections, but it sets nations on an irreversible decline into socialism.
Lars Christiansen is CEO at Denmark-based Saxo bank, which has a strong presence in many areas of Europe. He told WND’s Greg Corombos the hallmarks of socialism are evident throughout Europe and increasingly in the U.S.
“European socialism is a system whereby there’s very generous entitlements, lot of social transfer payments (and) a tendency to victimize people so they go on social welfare instead of actually being active in the labor market,” Christensen said. “The real risk is when too large a component of the total population are on social transfer systems they become self-sustaining and increase simply because a very large part of the voter base will have no interest in promoting free markets and liberty but will have much more direct interest in increasing the size of government and state and of the transfer payments that they benefit from.”
Christensen said he fears the U.S. is determined to go down the same path, despite seeing what happens in the end. He argued that many U.S. politicians have a “romanticized view” of the public services people think are free and the ever-growing number of entitlement programs.
He said southern Europe is very far down this path, with Greece routinely teetering on the brink of insolvency and the likes of Spain and Italy heading closer to that chaos. But he added that other areas of Europe are on the same road to failure. They just aren’t as far down that road.
“There’s only about 35 percent of the population that works in the private sector, generating all the necessary wealth for the entire system,” Christensen said of the people in his native Denmark. “As you can imagine in a system where 65 percent of the voters basically have an intrinsic interest in receiving more from the government, that’s not a very healthy place to develop capitalist values and develop economic growth. It is not something to be envied. It is not something that is desirable. It’s important that the U.S. doesn’t go down that route.”
Denmark is nowhere near the debt crisis unfolding in Greece, but Christensen said that’s due to a massive tax burden, which reaches 49 percent of gross domestic product compared to 27 percent in the U.S. To pay for greater entitlement programs, income taxes are at 60 percent in Denmark, and capital gains rates are at 42 percent. There’s a 25 percent sales tax and citizens are paying $10 per gallon of gasoline.
Christensen believes the upcoming elections will have a profound impact on the long-term priorities of our nation, but he sees America with one major advantage that the other nations do not.
“It’s much more part of your nature to value freedom to value creativity to value the American dream,” he said. “We don’t have much of that in Europe.”
The illusion of choice
by Patrice Lewis
27th October, 2012
I hate politics. I really do.
I hate politics because I see what our elected officials are doing to America. No matter what wonderful things are promised prior to an election, I know the reality is the government will continue to further erode our constitutional freedoms, involve us in wars we can never win and trash our economy.
I didn’t bother watching any of the presidential or vice-presidential debates because I knew exactly what the script would be: one candidate would try to convince listeners he wears a halo while his opponent holds a pitchfork, and vice versa. It’s always the same. Always.
That’s because politicians don’t live in the real world. They live in a surreal bubble around Washington, D.C., that bears no resemblance to the vast stretches of America where real people must scratch out a living as best they can in the economic climate created by the politicians.
My column is entitled Real America because that’s who we are. My family and I are not Beltway insiders who are unfamiliar with everyday conditions in the heartland of this nation. We’re just ordinary people like millions of others, doing whatever it takes get by. We’re not “occupying” anything, we’re not taking handouts, we’re not sucking on the government teat. Instead, we’re among the taxpaying half of America tottering under the weight of the other half (including, I might add, our entire political body) who take instead of give.
And while politicians promise lofty beneficent-sounding policies from their ivory towers, it’s the little people (the peasants?) who must deal with the day-to-day realities of what those policies entail. We’re the ones getting our income “redistributed.” We’re the ones sending our sons and daughters to fight unwinnable wars. We’re the ones seeing food and energy prices increase because money is decreasing in value.
I know it may come as a shock to many politicians, but a lot of people in Real America aren’t concerned with the debates, or candidate promises, or anything else. We know from long and weary experience that the impact comes from what politicians DO, rather than what they SAY. In this harsh and unforgiving economic climate, two men flapping their gums on national television just doesn’t mean much. While the big boys manipulate the global economy, it’s Joe and Mary Smallfry who are dealing with the realities on the ground-floor level, a level most politicians never see and have no interest in seeing.
Real Americans are worried about the economy, but I don’t just mean on a national level. Their worries are personal. They’re worried about the security of their jobs, how to pay their bills, buy groceries, pay for gas, make the mortgage, educate their children and a host of other concerns that don’t affect the royalty … er, the politicians. With an unemployment rate of 23 percent (according to ShadowStats, which I trust a whole lot more than the [cough] “official” unemployment rate put out by the government), that’s a lot of people in this country affected by shaky and insecure finances.
The feeling here in the heartland is frustration that the candidates just don’t know what it’s like to live hand-to-mouth. Joe and Mary Smallfry are the ones who must deal with the reality of whatever foolish policies our politicians force down our throats. If the government chooses to manipulate markets and clash with international forces, if gas prices spike, if food prices go through the roof, if nationalized health care cause our costs to skyrocket, who do you think will suffer more? The royalty or the peasants?
And the frustrating thing is, there is nothing Joe and Mary Smallfry can do about it. None of us can do anything about it. Most of us are blown like sparrows before a massive storm, clinging to whatever mooring we can, desperately trying not to be overcome by forces far beyond our control.
When you think about it, all a politician can do is promise a government solution to whatever problem we face. No matter what side of the coin you’re looking at, the answer will be “more government,” not less. Very few politicians are brave enough (or survive long enough) to suggest slashing government back to its constitutional levels. Too many people have been seduced over to the dark side of the force and are dependent on the State, either for assistance or for employment.
That’s because government solutions are darkly seductive. If someone is unemployed, they can bypass the tedious process of looking for work or creating a job, and simply sign up for food stamps and other benefits. In fact, Washington is doing its best to convince people to take food stamps whether they want them or not. Or if someone can’t find a job in the private sector because it has been strangled by excessive regulations and taxes, they can always find a government job. The private sector isn’t hiring; the government is. What does that tell you?
The more people who can be seduced to the dark side of government assistance (welfare or employment), the more future votes are assured. It doesn’t matter who wins the election; this trend will continue.
But it’s not just government assistance that’s at issue, it’s the horrific fiscal cliff of unsustainable debt we’re approaching. Regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans triumph, that debt cliff is unavoidable. It’s too late to reverse course. The best we can do is put on the brakes and hope the inevitable crash happens a little later rather than sooner.
Please spare me the rhetoric that a Romney win means America will get back on course. I don’t believe it. The course is already set. It was set long before Obama took office, though Obama certainly increased our speed. No matter how much we “clean house” during this upcoming election, politicians will still propose government solutions to government-caused problems and further increase our debt. The question becomes who will do less damage over the next four years, not who is the best man for the job. For some reason people think it will make a difference if we drown in deep water or in shallow water. We still drown.
I will vote for Romney, not because I like Romney but because I like Obama less. But even if Romney wins, I’m under no illusion that he can solve our nation’s problems. I can only hope the collapse will be slower (allowing more people to brace themselves) rather than faster.
We have no other choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
