Obama Commits Treason With The Muslim Brotherhood (Video)

Heckler Ridicules Black Friday Shoppers (video)

Obama's Southeast Asia Trip All Style, No Substance

20th November, 2012


Diplomacy: So amid all the colorful and flirty photos from President Obama's first tour of Southeast Asia, what did he actually accomplish? As usual, he served himself politically in what was largely a Potemkin mission abroad.
It was obvious enough from the rubelike gaffes that the president hasn't been particularly interested or attentive to the affairs of Thailand, Burma or Cambodia as he made his first trip since his re-election. It was pretty much all style over substance.
In his tour of Burma, billed as an historic first visit since Burma's 2007 move to democracy, it was clear he was in way over his head, even on small things. Obama repeatedly referred to the country's Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader Aung San Suu Kyi as Aung Yan Suu Kyi, an astonishing error given her global fame.
He also bungled the norms of Burmese polite address, calling Thein Sein, the nation's leader "President Sein," an error comparable to addressing Cambodia's Pol Pot as Mr. Pot.
But he also undermined his supposed democracy mission, first by telling the Burmese leaders that he too wished he could govern without opposition, calling into question whether he himself believed in the representative government he was advocating.
It didn't help that he ignored the real heroes who helped push Burma toward a more open system — President and Mrs. Bush, as well as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, seeming to take credit for it himself.
That emptiness of purpose left showy photo-ops in all three countries, with the president flirting around with Thailand's photogenic Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and visiting the Buddha statues, effectively trivializing Thailand as a tourist trap instead of a major trading partner and the U.S.'s oldest ally in Asia.
Neither trade nor military matters were addressed substantively. Obama's lecture to Thailand about its democracy needing "improvement" was a fairly strong signal that he had no intention of restoring free-trade talks with the Thais, who lost their access to that a few years ago after a military coup that has since restored democracy.
The other cornerstone of the U.S.-Thai relationship — the military — wasn't advanced either, given Obama's efforts to cut the U.S. Navy to 1918 levels even as he talks of a "strategic pivot" to Asia.
No substance, no influence. Nothing underlined this quite like the lack of crowds greeting Obama in all three nations. When a leader's visit is cause for hope and a catalyst for change — think Pope John Paul II's 1978 Poland visit — crowds turn out. Obama, supposedly representing the greatest nation on earth, couldn't draw so much as an Occupy-sized crowd. Nor did he draw respect.
On his trip to Cambodia, a country he claimed didn't deserve a visit due to its strongman government, first lady Bun Rany greeted Obama with a traditional "sampeah" pressed-hands greeting reserved for servants, a little dig that was probably lost on him but not to Asians.
So what is really Obama's tour about? Apparently a get-out-of-town photo-op all about himself as a means of avoiding pressing problems back home. The Asians deserve better — and so do the Americans.

Who will wear the Benghazi death shroud?

Sherman Frederick
Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2012

 

The death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in Benghazi on Sept. 11 of this year -- and the subsequent cover-up of the circumstances -- tightens around the Obama White House.
The more detail that dribbles out, the more it looks like the Benghazi death shroud fits President Barack Obama.
The news today that the White House refuses to release photos and details of that night in Benghazi -- the same information the White House gleefully released of the night Osama bin Laden was killed -- only serves to draw more suspicion to what the White House is hiding.
But the news yesterday that Intel chief James Clapper was set to take the blame for editing out the terrorism angle in the talking points for the Obama Administration makes for an iron-clad case of damnation on the matter against the White House.
It was no less than the president himself who told us in the debates that he recognized it as "terror" the morning after Benghazi. Yet, he sent out his spokesman, the U.N. Ambassador and himself to lie about it because Clapper edited out al-Qaeda? That makes no sense, except in a Watergate sort of way.
How can the president and the former CIA director tell us that they immediately knew for an absolute fact that Benghazi was the work of al-Qaeda terrorists, then proceed for days to tell the world that it was the result of a riot over a film -- a "riot" that never occurred.
A president desiring to be straight with the nation would never have allowed that kind of lie to go forward. Yet, it is circumstantially clear that he did. The point is now what are we going to do about it? What is the media going to do about it? Shrug it off, or root out the infection and expose the lie no matter how much it hurts?
The comparison to Watergate is an apt comparison, as the Investor's Business Daily recently asserted.
"The whole underlying purpose of the 1972 attempted bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters was to get President Nixon re-elected. The whole underlying purpose of lying about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, was to get President Obama re-elected."
The nation deserves the real, unvarnished answer.

Feds open investigation into Obama money

by Bob Unruh
21st November, 2012

Federal investigators confirmed an investigation has been opened into allegations that Barack Obama’s re-election campaign stuffed its war chest with illegal donations.
Jeff Jordan, a supervisory attorney for the Federal Election Commission, wrote in a letter that the complaint had been received and that the Obama campaign will be notified.
“You will be notified as soon as the Federal Election Commission takes final action on your complaint,” he said.
WND reported that details of alleged illegal activity were provided to the federal overseers.
The complaint sent to the FEC in Washington cited the Obama for America campaign and treasurer Martin H. Nesbitt. It is signed by Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WND.com, which has been running a series of stories about the controversy.
The complaint alleged the Obama campaign systematically violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as well as the regulations of the FEC, specifically by “soliciting, processing, accepting and confirming contributions from foreign nationals and non-U.S. citizens” in contravention of federal law.
The complaint argues it is unlawful for a foreign national to directly or indirectly make a contribution of money or to promise a contribution of money in connection with a federal, state or local election.
It also is illegal for a person to accept or receive such a contribution.
“Notwithstanding the clear legal prohibitions against soliciting and accepting foreign contributions, the Obama campaign has repeatedly and willfully ignored the law in order to amass a vast campaign war chest, primarily of non-disclosed donors,” the complaint states.

“Reports have increasingly noted evidence of the Obama campaign’s unwillingness and continued failure to install the safeguards used by other campaigns, such as the Romney for President campaign, as well as to utilize industry standard protections against illegal contributions.”
It was documented that “Osama bin Laden” used a Pakistani proxy server to run a grassroots fundraising page titled “Fatwa: Foreign Donations” on Obama’s campaign website, which openly sought foreign donations.
“Bin Laden’s” foreign donors page was not removed by the Obama campaign after a WND report prior to the election exposed how the same “bin Laden” account had successfully donated twice to Obama’s presidential re-election campaign. After the WND report, one of the donations was officially returned while another was listed as pending.
The “bin Laden” foreign donors page was still active even after “bin Laden” sent an email to the Obama campaign alerting them to the page.


The email concerned a campaign competition for supporters who had donated $3 to meet President Obama on Election Day. “Bin Laden” had donated the $3 for the competition and had asked the campaign in the email whether he could bring wanted al-Qaida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri as a guest. The email also provided a link to “bin Laden’s” grassroots page seeking foreign donations.
“Bin Laden’s” page was set up by WND staff as a test after media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign.
The test was also in response to a nonprofit group’s report alleging Obama’s campaign had solicited foreigners for political donations through its social media websites.
The FEC complaint notes that stories about Obama’s acceptance of donations from foreigners arose during the 2008 election, when Newsweek, the Washington Post and ABC News all cited such claims.
In the past few months, the complaint said, “there have been increasing published reports of individuals making contributions to the Obama campaign using foreign names and/or addresses, foreign IP addresses and many other serious breaches of security that would have prevented such contributions. ”
The reports have been cited in RedState.com, the Washington Examiner and other publications.
Farah explained “to ascertain whether the other published reports were true or exaggerated,” his news staff “planned and executed transactions using clearly bogus names, addresses, and, in particular, a foreign (Pakistani) Internet protocol address.”
For example, a $15 donor came from Osama bin Laden of 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, Calif. His occupation was listed as deceased terror chief and his employer was al-Qaida.
“The contribution from this source, with this information, to the Obama campaign was accepted and the disposable credit card was charged the amount of $15.00,” the complaint explains. “We then conducted the same transaction with the Romney for President campaign. The attempted contribution was rejected immediately.”
Other donations that should have been rejected were made to Obama, to make certain the first donation was not an anomalous result.
“Clearly, the Obama campaign is more concerned with fundraising than in abiding by federal law,” the complaint said. “The Obama campaign has made it clear that despite the multiple stories confirming illegal foreign contributions to the campaign, it has no intention of establishing the safeguards necessary to halt the flow of illegal funds into his campaign coffers.”
Said the complaint, “It is well past time for the Federal Election Commission to conduct an audit of the Obama campaign to ascertain, once and for all, the extent of the foreign and illegal funding of the Obama presidential campaign.”
In an attached affidavit, Farah explained that the Obama donation system was set “to accept all credit card contributions, regardless of source or other information.”
“From WND.com’s own investigative and reporting experience in 2008, we established that Palestinians in Gaza successfully donated to the 2008 Obama campaign. Only after our story was published and the illegal contributions reported did the Obama campaign claim to refund the money. WND.com has … been unable to verify that claim by the Obama campaign from 2008,” he explained. “With no safeguards against illegal foreign campaign contributions, and absent a forensic audit of the Obama campaign’s fundraising by a government agency or an independent auditor, there is no way to know the extent of the funds raised illegally by the Obama campaign, including from non-US citizens. ”
He noted the Obama campaign refuses to release the names of donors who give less than $200, the threshold for required disclosure.

John Birch Society: Massive Voter Fraud (video)

Report: Obama Was Briefed on Benghazi Terrorism Connection Days Before Susan Rice's Public Denials

by Guy Benson
Nov 19, 2012

Just last week, the president adamantly defended his Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who is widely rumored to be a leading contender to replace Hillary Clinton at State.  Rice appeared on all five Sunday morning shows on September 16, five days after the deadly 9/11 attacks.  She advanced three core assertions for public consumption:

(1) The the violence had spilled over from "spontaneous" protests over an internet video.  (There were no protests outside of the Benghazi consulate leading up to the attack).
(2) The US government "had no information" indicating that the assault was "pre-meditated or preplanned.  (There were, in fact, many signs pointing to that conclusion, even before the raid began).
(3) Our security presence at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "substantial."  (The fact that the consulate was sacked -- and four Americans, including a sitting ambassador, were murdered in the process -- is clear evidence that our security measures was unforgivably and demonstrably insubstantial.  To try to say otherwise is outright insulting.  To say nothing of the various subsequent revelations that Amb. Stevens and his team begged for more security on numerous occasions, but were denied.  The State Department actually reduced its American security presence in the country; this, in spite of glaring warning signs that our interests were far from protected.

Obama's primary defense of Rice was that she simply articulated the talking points she was provided "at the request of the White House:"

“As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her,” Obama said at the press conference, defending the statements the ambassador to the U.N. made regarding the Benghazi attack.

He also famously urged Republican critics to "go after" him, and lay off Rice.  Big, strong tough guy that he is, and all that.  Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified under oath last week that the US intelligence community knew "almost immediately" that the Benghazi ambush was the handiwork of a terrorist network, suggesting that the talking points Rice disseminated on television were crafted to drive a narrative other than the facts.  (Remember, Obama has taken faux umbrage at the mere suggestion that any information was withheld from the public at any stage).  Over the weekend, a journalist at the Washington Guardian (and formerly of the Associated Press and Washington Post) revealed that President Obama was personally and specifically briefed within three days that the massacre was an organized jihadist operation:

U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday. Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM. Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

The report, which cites numerous US intelligence officials, alleges that the script provided to Rice was watered down, with references to Al Qaeda "edited or excluded:"

Rice's performance on the Sunday talk shows has become a source of controversy between Congress and the White House. Lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have questioned whether the administration was trying to mislead the country by suggesting the Benghazi attack was like the spontaneous protests that had occurred elsewhere on Sept. 11, in places like Egypt. Obama has defended Rice, and he and his top aides have insisted politics was not involved. They argue the administration's shifting story was the result of changing intelligence. U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, however, the assessment that the tragedy was an attack by extremists with al-Qaida links was well defined within 48 to 72 hours.  

So just in case there was any lingering doubt about if and when President Obama was made aware of the truth, now we know.  Of course, one would imagine that if (a) if our people in Benghazi were urgently warning of an imminent organized assault several hours before it occurred, and (b) if people inside the White House watched the raid unfold in real time over a video feed for seven hours, and (c) if there were reports of an Al Qaeda affiliate claiming credit for the attack within two hours, the president probably would have been informed about the terrorism intel far sooner than 72 hours later -- even if he did sleep through the attack itself, during which our besieged personnel were pleading for back-up that never came.

All that aside, Susan Rice wasn't merely allowed to appear on television with faulty talking points, she was specifically given a bowdlerized version of events to share with the public.  Also, Obama himself was still hemming and hawing about whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack during his appearance on The View -- two weeks later.  Why?  Obama's defenders will simultaneously claim that all of this will be covered in the "ongoing investigation," while insisting that it had absolutely nothing to do with politics.  Senator McCain doesn't believe that for a second, and neither should you.  The White House would have us believe that we just couldn't be told basic truths about the nature of the attack....because of "national security," or something.  This is an entirely insufficient explanation that strains credulity, to put things politely.  If this administration was so concerned about national security why were our ambassador's requests related to his own personal safety disregarded?  And why was our bombed-out consulate left unattended and unsecured for weeks (update: months) after the attack, allowing random journalists and God knows who else to sift through the sensitive documents that were strewn throughout the compound?  I'll leave you with liberal columnist Dana Milbank making the case against Susan Rice for Secretary of State:

Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Particularly in comparison with the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her. Back when she was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she appalled colleagues by flipping her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department, according to witnesses. Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults...
It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. True, Rice was following orders from the White House, which she does well. But the nation’s top diplomat needs to show more sensitivity and independence — traits Clinton has demonstrated in abundance. Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

Watch it, Dana.  You wouldn't want to be labeled a sexist racist, now would you? 

Is This The Way Out?

By TEA PARTY NATION

November 18, 2012 

There are a number of words we can use to describe Republicans.   However in the last few years, the word courage has not been associated with many Republicans.    Courage is the one quality Republicans need right now to save themselves as a Party, to save America and potentially stop a second Obama term.
How can they do any of these things, including preventing the reelection of Barack Obama?
Conservatives are warning the GOP.  It must show courage.  It must stop being John Boehner’s Democrat-lite, party of surrender.  Newt Gingrich warned Republicans about this in a recent article in Newsmax.   Gingrich warned Republicans in Washington that they should not be going along with Barack Obama and agreeing to raise taxes.    David Bossie of Citizens United made the same warning in an interview, also with Newsmax.
Both are right.  Both are men the GOP should listen to.
The GOP should listen to them and millions of other conservatives.   First, these conservatives are right on policy.  Abandoning conservatism will be a disaster for this nation and for the Republican Party.   If the GOP gives up on conservatism, conservatives are going to give up on the GOP.
If the Republicans abandon conservatism in favor of “moderate” politics, led by people like Mitt Romney who cannot even articulate a message, the GOP is doomed.
Republicans are going to have to show courage in the next few months, as they must do everything possible to stop the Obama agenda.   The Obama propaganda media and the Regime will pillory them mercilessly.
Of course, there is another way out.  It is still possible to block a second Obama term.
Most people believe Barack Obama was reelected on November 6^th.  That is not true.  We had a national election on November 6^th but people voted for the Electors for the Electoral College, not the President.
The Electoral College will meet on December 17^th to officially select the President.
The Democrats pioneered a tactic that Republicans should use.   In recent years, in Wisconsin and in Texas, Democrats who were in the minority in the state legislatures refused to participate in the process, thus denying the legislature a quorum needed.
The 12^th Amendment specifics the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3.  In other words, if 17 states refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum.   If the Electoral College cannot meet or decide who wins the Presidency, then that task devolves to the House of Representatives.
With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, presumably they will vote for Mitt Romney.    The Vice President would be selected by the Senate, so presumably Joe Biden will be reelected, although as goofy as he has been the last few months, there is no telling.
Is this a dangerous precedent?
Absolutely.  Could it come back to haunt us later down the road?
Absolutely.
However, the situation is so grim we really have no other choice.   Does anyone really believe America can survive four more years of Barack Obama?  What will America look like in four years?   Obama will be hell bent in the next four years to transform America from that shining city on a hill into a third world shantytown, with massive unemployment and a corrupt government.
How do we do this?
We need to contact the Republican Party in the states that Mitt Romney carried.  We must get the electors in those states to refuse to participate in the Electoral College on December 17^th.
I am under no illusions that Mitt Romney will be a great President.   Based on the collapse of his campaign and his actions after the election, he will be pretty bad.  However, he is not Barack Obama and that is the best thing that can be said about him.
The alternative of a second Obama term is simply unacceptable.  This is our last, and only hope.  Will Republicans show courage or will they be the Party of the White Flag of Surrender?
For America and for future generations, let’s hope the Republican Party can be courageous.

Fight Erupts Over Obama's Spy Orders To NSA

By Bob Unruh

November 18, 2012 

FOIA seeks details of agency’s ‘authority to invade civilian Internet networks’

An organization that monitors and reports on privacy issues wants to see of copy of a “secret law” announced by Barack Obama regarding the National Security Agency and its reach into private Internet communications.
“This (Freedom of Information Act) request involves information on the National Security Agency’s authority to invade civilian networks,” a letter from the Electronic Privacy Information Center to the NSA headquarters in Fort George G. Meade, Md., says.

The letter submitted this week is a request for the public release of Presidential Policy Directive 20.
“On Nov. 14, 2012, the Washington Post reported President Obama had signed Presidential Policy Directive 20 … in October. According to the Washington Post, the directive ‘enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.’ The text of the directive has not been made public,” the letter explains.
But the letter said the Post reported previous attempts by the president to expand the military’s cybersecurity authority had been rejected as posing “unacceptable risks” and potentially “harmful consequences.”
Further, EPIC wrote, the directive “may violate federal law that prohibits military deployment within the United States without congressional approval.”
The organization noted that it took similar action, which was unsuccessful, when President George W. Bush issued a directive (54) in 2008, which defined the cybersecurity authority of the NSA.
EPIC noted that [the older directive] is equivalent to “secret law,” the very thing the “FOIA seeks to prevent.”
See what the government also is doing, in “One Nation Under Surveillance.”
“Transparency in cybersecurity is crucial to the public’s ability to monitor the government’s national security efforts and ensure that federal agencies respect privacy rights and comply with their obligations under the Privacy Act,” EPIC wrote. “This FOIA request involves information on the National Security Agency’s authority to invade civilian Internet networks. Responsive documents will hold a great informative value regarding activities of the government that will have a significant public impact.
“There is a particular urgency for the public to obtain information about the NSA’s cybersecurity activities within the United States. As previously discussed, numerous bills are currently being considered by Congress to address U.S. cybersecurity policy. In order for meaningful public comment on these bills, as well as subsequent cybersecurity measures, the public must be aware of the authority that the president’s directive establishes,” it argued.
The potential is huge, the organization said.
“The NSA has an almost boundless capacity to intercept private communications. The need to establish effective oversight for government surveillance, including matters involving national security, is well-understood and a long-standing concern.”
The organization noted it also has sought public release of the technical arrangement between the NSA and Google that was adopted in 2010, because federal law prevents the agency, a part of the Department of Defense, from conducting operations within the U.S.

CIA role during Benghazi (video)

Petraeus Sex Scandal Could Have Sunk Obama

Cliff Kincaid
November 16, 2012

A week before the election, an FBI whistleblower went to a Republican member of Congress with explosive details about a national security scandal that could have stopped President Obama’s re-election campaign dead in its tracks. But the potentially devastating “October Surprise” was hushed up by Republicans.

Although all the details are not yet available and new disclosures are coming every day, it appears that the scandal involves the CIA director leaking classified information to his mistress and the FBI not holding David Petraeus accountable for his immoral and illegal conduct. In short, it is the worst scandal of the Obama Administration and makes the third-rate burglary in the Watergate scandal look minor by comparison.

Despite the explosive nature of the allegations, two Republican members of Congress, Dave Reichert and Eric Cantor, decided to pass on the information to the FBI director and take no action themselves. They didn’t even inform their colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee or in the House leadership. It was a terrible mistake on their part that enabled Obama to escape the damaging repercussions of the scandal right before what many conservatives called the most important presidential election of our lifetimes.

Major news personalities now seem to be in a rush to play down the scandal even more. Suzanne Kelly, CNN’s Intelligence Correspondent based in Washington D.C., said on Monday that “It is not illegal to have an affair,” in regard to Petraeus admitting one. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer wrote, “Within the military, there are rules about adultery. But within civilian life, should there be?”

Retired Army Maj. Glenn MacDonald, editor-in-chief of MilitaryCorruption.com, told Accuracy in Media that, “While Petraeus is a retired Army general and a civilian, most recently director of the CIA, he is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). According to regulations, if an officer is drawing retired pay, they can be called back on active duty to face charges at court-martial. Since adultery is a crime in the military, it is possible, although unlikely, that General Petraeus could face legal action.”

He added, “If he was charged, my guess is he would pay a fine and perhaps be reduced in rank one grade. Barring a finding of treason or leaking secrets, it is my educated guess Petraeus would not do any jail time.”

The leaking of secrets, however, has now become the subject of several news reports, with claims of classified information on his mistress Paula Broadwell’s computer and Broadwell herself publicly giving information about the attack in Libya that appears to be classified. What’s more, the New York Times reports that FBI agents on Monday night went to Broadwell’s home “and were seen carrying away what several reporters at the scene said were boxes of documents.” The Washington Post reports that a senior law enforcement official said the agents were searching for any classified or sensitive documents that may have been in Broadwell’s possession.

Because of Cantor’s failure to go public, the scandal exploded only after the election, as Petraeus submitted his resignation as CIA director and Obama accepted it. “I would like to congratulate President Obama on his re-election,” Cantor had actually said on his blog, knowing that Obama’s administration was engaged in a massive cover-up. Only later did he acknowledge, in response to a New York Times report, that he had the information that could have derailed Obama’s presidential campaign and possibly given Mitt Romney the presidency.

Cantor, the House Majority Leader, had produced an 8,000-word report on October 23 assailing Obama for instituting an imperial presidency. He and his colleagues had been extremely critical of Obama’s management of U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the war on terrorism had been badly mishandled and that the administration was covering up what really happened when four Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11. Petraeus was right in the middle of this scandal and was scheduled to testify before Congress about it.

It was in this context that a whistleblower approached Reichert and then Cantor with information about the FBI cover-up of the CIA director’s activities. The whistleblower undoubtedly thought that the Republicans would take the information and act on it, exposing the high-level cover-up before the presidential election. Instead, Cantor was content to let FBI director Robert Mueller, who was re-appointed by Obama, handle the investigation.

But Cantor knew at that point, because of what the whistleblower had told him, that Mueller had not informed Congress about the probe and was failing to hold Petraeus accountable for his affair and the handling of the classified information. So turning the information over to Mueller was the equivalent of muzzling the whistleblower.

“On Saturday, Oct. 27, Cantor spoke by phone to an FBI employee who told him about an investigation, including the details about Petraeus’ affair, and said he was concerned that classified information had been compromised,” reports Jonathan Karl of ABC News. The FBI employee first contacted Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., who then put the employee in touch with Cantor, Karl added. Notice the reference to “details about Petraeus’ affair.”

The revelation of Republicans being in possession of advance detailed knowledge of the scandal was first disclosed by the New York Times, which reported, “…the F.B.I. agent who had helped get a preliminary inquiry started, and learned of Mr. Petraeus’s affair and the initial concerns about security breaches, became frustrated.” It is clear that that he went to Congress out of frustration with the failure of the FBI to go after Petraeus and his mistress.

Cantor’s official statement was, “I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain Director Mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security.” (emphasis added).
The FBI, of course, was completely aware of these “serious allegations” all along. The FBI knew about the scandal but was not acting on it, which is why the whistleblower went to Reichert and Cantor in the first place.

By going to Mueller, Cantor put the FBI whistleblower’s career in jeopardy. This helps explain why the whistleblower is fast becoming the subject of various negative news reports about his personal life. He trusted the Republicans and they failed him.

[ed.  If this is true then Cantor should resign immediately. America hasn't time for this fake "Rs vs Ds" game the establishment are playing...]

Poll Watcher: Massive Voter Fraud in Virginia (video)

Why Is Everyone Talking About United Nations Agenda 21?

Tom DeWisse

November 17, 2012

Agenda 21 in your County

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL
Have you wondered where these terms “sustainability” and “smart growth” and “high density urban mixed-use development” came from? Doesn’t it seem like about 10 years ago you’d never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with…what?
Far from being a“conspiracy theory” or a “tin-foil hat” fantasy, this is an actual United Nations plan, signed onto in 1992 by President George HW Bush along with 178 other world leaders. The UN called it Agenda 21 because it is the Agenda for the 21st century. According to UN Secretary General Maurice Strong, the“affluent middle-class American lifestyle is unsustainable.” That includes single family homes, private vehicles, appliances, air-conditioning, dams, farming and meat-eating. They are a threat to the planet.
This might sound like a silly plan that doesn’t affect you. But look around. This economic collapse is UN Agenda 21. You’ll hear that this plan is non-binding, that it’s a dusty old plan with no teeth. That is a lie. In fact over the last 20 years this plan has been implemented all over the United States. It’s called Sustainable Development. The 3 E’s: ecology, economy, equity.
After George Bush signed it in 1992, it was brought back to the US by President Clinton (1993) when he created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development for the sole purpose of getting it into every city, county, and state in the US through federal rules, regulations, and grants. This is a global plan but is implemented locally. You’ll see it in our regional plans. and in our Taylor County Vision 2060 plan. They call for stack and pack housing, restricted mobility, and regional government. Domestic surveillance, smart meters, GMO’s, loss of freedom—all UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. You are losing your rights..
WHAT’S WRONG WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
How could something that sounds so good be bad? Who wouldn’t want to be sustainable? Vibrant? Walkable? Bikeable? Green? These buzz words were designed to make you think that you’re doing something good for the planet. This is the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world.
Sustainable Development was created and defined by the United Nations in 1987. Clinton began to implement it in the US in 1993 by giving the American Planning Association a multi-million dollar grant to write a land use legislative blueprint for every municipality in the US. It is called Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. This was completed in 2002 and is being used to train planners in every university, college and government planning office in the nation. Growing Smart is Smart Growth. Growing Smart is in our planning department and its principles are in our city and county plan. Right now. Beside this is The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide put out by ICLEI and the United Nations. Groups like the National Association of Counties and the Florida Association of Counties are promoting Agenda21/Sustainable Development. Our county is continuing to fund these groups. Urban areas are being consolidated and rural areas are gradually being emptied of people through restrictive land use policies, gasoline costs, vehicle miles traveled, taxes, loss of rural road maintenance, closure of rural schools, closure of rural post offices, water well monitoring, smart meters, and regionalization pressures.
Smart Growth, livable communities and comprehensive/vision plans are not just the preferred building style for UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development; it is the ideology. Moving people into centralized urban areas in high density housing creates the perfect opportunity for domestic surveillance. This ideology is being used as the justification to radically change every city in the United States and to impose regulations dictated by unelected regional boards and commissions. It is remaking government. This dramatic revolution in private property rights extends to every facet of our lives: education, energy, food, housing and transportation. We are being told that this is OUR PLAN but it is not. We object to this manipulation and refuse to be subjected to it. Educate yourself. Speak out. BE the Resistance. Google “Agenda 21 for Public Officials” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fFIcZkEzc8I) for a short video presentation.
Thanks to Rosa Koire and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 for providing this letter for us to use.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/flyers.html . This letter is taken from the first flyer on the page, feel free to print the flyer and hand it out.

Agenda 21 and Private Property (Cont.)

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

Reinvention of Government

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” -Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” -Dave Foreman, Earth First.

What is not sustainable?

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” -UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people



“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Officials divulge that Obama was told it was armed extremists, not a spontaneous mob...

Officials divulge that Obama was told it was armed extremists, not a spontaneous mob, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens

 

by John Solomon

November 16, 2012

 U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.
Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.
Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.
The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.
Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.
"There were multiple agencies involved, not for political reasons, but because of intelligence concerns," one official explained.
Rice's performance on the Sunday talk shows has become a source of controversy between Congress and the White House. Lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have questioned whether the administration was trying to mislead the country by suggesting the Benghazi attack was like the spontaneous protests that had occurred elsewhere on Sept. 11, in places like Egypt.
Obama has defended Rice, and he and his top aides have insisted politics was not involved. They argue the administration's shifting story was the result of changing intelligence.
U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, however, the assessment that the tragedy was an attack by extremists with al-Qaida links was well defined within 48 to 72 hours.
"We knew this was an attack by extremists, a terror attack, and that this was more violent than the embassy protests we saw that day," one official said. "But it also had an element of spontaneous opportunity and disorganization."
The Washington Guardian was first to report just 48 hours after the attack that U.S. officials believed the attack was linked to al-Qaida sympathizers and may have evolved from spontaneous early attacks to a more organized mortar shelling.
Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the preisdent and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia -- the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya --and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.
The use of rocket propelled grenades and mortars also indicated the players were engaged in more than a spontaneous uprising, though ground reports also showed some of the attackers were somewhat disorganized during the early waves of attacks, the officials said.
Senior officials were briefed within 72 hours of the attack that the attackers may have staged or used a spontaneous crowd that formed outside the consulate in Benghazi to launch the first wave of attacks with gunfire and rocket-fired grenades, and that they may have been aided by sympathesizers inside Libyan security forces who were supposed to protect the consulate, the officials said. Stephens is believed to have been killed in the first attacks, most likely from smoke from related fires, officials have said.
Officials were also told a second-wave attack -- about four hours after the first evacuations of the consulate -- focused on an annex where the CIA and others had significant assets. It was more sophisticated and lethal in force, though only 11 minutes in length. Two mortars missed, while three struck the building, killing two former Navy SEALs who worked for the CIA and were trying to fend off that attack, the officials said.
The Washington Guardian was among the first to report that the Navy SEALs were not part of the official State Department embassy security team but nonetheless stepped into the breach to protect the diplomatic staff.
U.S. officials acknowledge that annex housed an American intelligence operation that was buying back weapons from Libyan rebels that had been provided by the West during the effort to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi.
The president and other officials were also told during the early briefings about other attempted acts of violence that had occurred in Benghazi and around the consulate before the deadly attack. They were also told that there was at least some intelligence indicating some efforts to surveil U.S. assets in Benghazi had occurred in the days and weeks before.
Fragmentary intelligence briefed to the president also offered several possible motives for the attack, including a desire to join other Sept. 11 uprisings at embassies around the globe, and a videotaped call by al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for LIbyans to avenge the death of al-Libi, who was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan in June. The videotape was released early on Sept. 11, just hours before the attack on the consulate.
"By that first Friday, we already knew the al-Qaida signatures and players, specifically Ansar al-Sharia, and the senior-most leadership was briefed," one official said.
Officials also provided the Washington Guardian a detailed timeline of the CIA's response the night of Sept. 11 and morning of Sept. 12 as the waves of attacks pounded the compound and annex, showing:

• Around 9:40 p.m. (local), the first call comes in to the Annex that the Mission is coming under attack.
• Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the Annex for the Mission.
• Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons, and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.
• At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone arrives over the Mission compound.
• By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for the missing Ambassador Stephens, depart the Mission.  The exiting vehicles come under fire.
• Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the Annex receives sporadic small arms fire and RPG rounds; the security team returns fire, and the attackers disperse around 1 a.m. local time.
• At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport, negotiates for transport into town, and upon learning the Ambassador was missing and that the situation at the Annex had calmed, focused on locating the Ambassador and trying to secure information on the security situation at the hospital.
• Still pre-dawn timeframe, that team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort and -- having learned that the Ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain -- heads to the Annex to assist with the evacuation.
• They arrive with Libyan support at the Annex by 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the Annex.  The two security officers were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy.  That attack lasted only 11 minutes.
• Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrived to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.