Juan Williams is beginning to look more like a Liberal whack-job every day. At one point he occasionally made at some valid points, but now he makes none while defending this heinous Obama administration. Watch this exchange between Bill O’Reilly and Juan Williams and decide for yourself.
[loveclaw_buttons]
General Carter Ham is finally scheduled to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee.
Ham, who was the head of AFRICOM during Benghazi attack, will brief members behind closed doors, about why military assets that were available were not sent to Benghazi to help the Americans who were under attack.
Breitbert reports: General Carter Ham is scheduled to testify to the House Armed Services Committee on June 26 at a classified briefing about his knowledge of events that took place when the attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya happened last September, reports Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren:
Below is from my FNC colleague Justin Fishel:
Subject: Fox First: General Carter Ham to testify on Benghazi for first time next week
Fox News has learned that the House Armed Services Committee will hold a classified briefing next Weds June 26 at 9:00 on Benghazi.
Briefers will include:
Gen. Carter Ham (ret.) He was head of AFRICOM during Benghazi attack.
LTC Gibson
RADM Brian Losey – Special Operations Command Africa
The briefing is organized by the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the HASC. Ham, who was the head of AFRICOM during Benghazi attack, will brief members behind closed doors about why military assets that were available were not sent to Benghazi to help the Americans who were under attack.
State Department whistleblower Greg Hicks appeared before Congress and told members on the House Oversight Committee that LTC Gibson is the Army Lieutenant Colonel who was told to stand down along with other special forces who were ready to deploy to Benghazi to aid those who were under fire by the attackers.
Although the briefing is behind closed doors, the Committee’s request for information from DoD gives clues as to what they are likely to be talking to the briefers about next week. On April 17 HASC Chairman Buck McKeon (R – CA) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel requesting the Department of Defense’s classified version of the Benghazi attack timeline after being notified by the Joint Staff there would be delay in delivery, “due to a requirement to coordinate it within the interagency.”
McKeon received no response which prompted a two follow up letters. The first letter on May 8 was to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs regarding the Department’s uncooperative behavior with the Committee the other letter, sent on May 15 discussed in detail the some questions HASC want to be answered by DoD:
In addition to requesting additional information on how the military was postured to respond to a crisis on September 11 2012, Chairman McKeon asked that the commanding officer of the Site Security Team for Tripoli during the Benghazi attack be made available to Members next week.
“In accordance with the House Armed Services Committee’s responsibility to conduct oversight of the Department of Defense, today I have directed the subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations to convene two or more transcribed member meetings on Benghazi. Though we have received some cooperation from the Pentagon on the timeline of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, several important questions are still unanswered.
“Questions still remain regarding orders issued to a site security team that was in-country. This Committee is also continuing our inquiries into the size, scope, scale, and readiness of U.S. military assets in the region. I have also repeated my request to SecretaryHagel to provide the classified timeline of the attacks, which was denied to this Committee on May 8, 2013.
“There is no reasonable justification to keep this information from the Congress. As such, I have directed Congressman Roby and the O&I Subcommittee to continue in their pursuit of information vital to this committee’s oversight function.”
[loveclaw_buttons]
GO TED! Ted Cruz is about to uphold citizenship, save our country from further ruin, and infuriate the liberals, all in a days work, by amending immigration bill. This absolutely must be done, please support Ted Cruz!
The Blaze reports: ‘Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday announced his intention to file another amendment to the so-called “gang of eight” immigration bill that is facing tough opposition from some GOP lawmakers.
“I’ll file amendment to immigration bill that permits states to require ID before registering voters & close this hole in [federal] statutory law,” Cruz wrote via his official Twitter account.
Cruz has consistently opposed the immigration bill, voting against its advancement in the Senate three times and has shown no signs of flipping on the legislation.
Cruz previously attempted to amend the bill to remove the path to citizenship provisions for illegal immigrants. As previously mentioned, the Texas Republican’s latest amendment would require states to require ID before registering voters.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make voting easier. The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
This news makes total sense, with the exception of one, well two things.
First, I can’t believe it’s not lower and secondly, what will it take for the 46% of the people that don’t disapprove? His disapproval numbers now exceed George W. Bush’s on the government surveillance program.
Breitbart reports: Over the course of just one month, President Obama’s approval rating in the CNN/ORC poll has dropped a full eight points to 45%–his lowest rating in eighteen months. His disapproval rating climbed to 54%. On the all-important issue of trust, the president took a nine point hit. Only 49% of those surveyed believe Obama is honest. This is the first time he has been rated under 50% on this question and the lowest level of his presidency.
In worse news, back in 2006, only 52% of Americans disapproved of how President George W. Bush handled government surveillance of Americans. Today, a full 60% disapprove of Obama on the same issue.
This is likely due to the fact that Bush always made clear that the War on Terror was his foremost concern and that he was doing everything possible to make us safe. On the other hand, Obama ran against Bush’s surveillance state and now tells us that the War on Terror is pretty much over. But then we learn that, rather than wind down the surveillance along with the war, he has put it on steroids.
It is apparent that all the scandals have finally taken a toll, especially among those under thirty, where the president saw a 17% decline in approval. Approval among Independent voters collapsed ten percent, to a measly 37%. Disapproval rocketed 12 points to 61%.
CNN’s polling director Keating Holland says, “It is clear that revelations about NSA surveillance programs have damaged Obama’s standing with the public, although older controversies like the IRS matter may have begun to take their toll as well[.]”
Are you ready for this? Mosques have not been under surveillance by our Federal Government since October 2011 because of ‘pressure’ from Muslims.
That’s right, because complaints of sting operations from Muslims, we have discounted our intelligence that most likely would have thwarted the Boston Marathon bombing. Once again, Barack Obama is showing what’s important to him: protect Islamic extremists, fund, support and arm the Islamic terrorists.
Investors Business Daily reports: ‘Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.
That’s right, the government’s sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.
If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshipped.
The bureau didn’t even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.
One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn’t monitored, red flags didn’t go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.
This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.
What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?’
Conservative Angle Archives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.