(Info Wars) — Speaker of the House John Boehner is experiencing a backlash after he posted the image below on his Facebook page. The image is intended to be a sharp retort to Obama’s declaration that he will rule by imperial fiat. The posted image, however, is little more than empty rhetoric considering the behavior of establishment Republicans who refuse to seriously confront Obama’s constitutional violations.
Boehner and establishment Republicans cannot easily portray themselves as defenders of the Constitution. A large number of commenters on the popular social media network told them as much.
Thousands of comments took Boehner and Republicans to task for not moving to impeach Obama. Others defended Obama and accused Boehner and the Republicans of obstructionism.
“Quit acting like you are going to do anything remotely close to following your Oath of Office!” said one commenter. The remark is a reference to Article VI, clause 3 that requires Senators and Representatives take an oath of office to support the Constitution.
“Dear Mr. Speaker, If you believed in the Constitution or even read it, you would start impeachment proceedings against the president. But you won’t, you are much too weak a leader to do the right thing,” another commenter complained about Republican lack of resolve.
Fear of even mentioning the “I” word demonstrates just how trepidatious Republicans are when it comes to penalizing Obama for his crimes. During a Committee on the Judiciary meeting in December, Republicans were so adverse to the subject they didn’t even mention the word impeachment. “They didn’t use that word, of course. Republican leaders frown on such labeling because it makes the House majority look, well, crazy,” Dana Milbankwrote for the Washington Post.
“They’ve failed at cutting off funding, they’ve had difficulty suing Obama in court and they lost the 2012 election. That basically leaves them with the option of making loud but ineffectual noises about high crimes and misdemeanors,” Milbank, who was lambasted for daring to criticize Obama in 2008, continued.
“The Framers recognized that presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to wreck the republic,” notes Andrew C. McCarthy. “Adamant that the presidency they were creating must not become a monarchy, they carried on debates over the Constitution that were consumed with precluding this very real possibility. In the end, the Framers armed Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.”
Not since Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about a dalliance with an aide have Republicans shown the sort of resolve required when a president violates the Constitution and engages in high crimes and misdemeanors.
It is now up to a small number of House Republicans to keep the effort to impeach Obama alive. In December, Texas Rep. Steve Stockman was characterized by Salon as “exotic” for disturbing proposed Articles of Impeachment to his colleagues.
A number of Republicans have urged impeachment proceedings, including Rep. Duncan Hunter of California (for Obama’s move to bomb Syria without congressional approval), Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn (over Benghazi), Iowa Republican Steve King and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (over the debt), among others.
(Western Journalism) — Per a blockbuster study by the hugely influential Latin American newspaper El Universal, Fast and Furious wasn’t about tracking guns—as we were told—but supplying guns—exclusively to the Sinaloa drug cartel. In exchange, the Sinaloa cartel provided intel on rival Mexican drug cartels to the DEA—the Juárez, Los Zetas, and Tijuana drug cartels—and was allowed to import billions of dollars in drugs to the U.S.
All with the knowledge of Barack Hussein Obama.
Per the El Universal study:
U.S. Drug Enforcement are allies with Mexican cartels, such as [Sinaloa head] El Chapo Guzman, in a clandestine operation to hit rival criminal organizations.
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, shipped thousands of guns to Sinaloa crime boss “El Chapo” Guzman. Guns that were used to murder Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
That’s accessory to murder in my book.
Forget about impeachment. This man, Barack Hussein Obama, should resign immediately and be put away for a very long time.
The government watchdog group that revealed that President Barack Obama failed to attend over half of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) released a devastating Benghazi timeline Wednesday.
It reveals Obama’s schedule in the week leading up to the terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
As the GAI timeline reveals, Obama failed to attend his daily intelligence briefing for the five consecutive days leading up to the September 11, 2012 attack of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
The Benghazi timeline catalogues Obama’s continuous campaigning even as terrorist forces vowed Libyan attacks and State Department officials were warned of security threats.
The day following the deadly attacks, Obama departed for a Las Vegas campaign rally.
Is the real reason for the war on Christianity all about creating a global Religion?
In order for the Elite to install their One-World religious system, Christianity stands in their way as a powerful, organized obstacle. Christianity says that you must believe in Jesus or go to hell. Christianity also owns the exclusivity to a single Messiah and only one choice — believe in Jesus.
One-World religion is a more inclusive arrangement whereby all faiths can co-exist.
Christianity is too rigid and specific, and is also one of the basis for the founding of the U.S. Constitution.
A One-World Religion sounds like a great idea, but actually prevents freedom of belief.
For approximately the last 64 yrs, there has been an ongoing agenda to rid the public sector from the influence of the God of the Bible. we are constantly being told the reason for this stems from the so- called separation of church and state clause, that most people believe is part of the constitution. ( it’s not in the constitution, it’s actually in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) – Library of Congress Information Bulletin now lets take a look at what the real reason for this is.
It seems like it would take a special combination of Grinchy, Scroogy awfulness and world-historical stupidity to run afoul of a straightforward new law in Texas called the “Merry Christmas Law” that allows children and teachers in public schools to celebrate Christmas and other winter holidays plainly and explicitly.
Naturally, then, a group of parents and a state legislator have claimed that the organizer of the winter party at Nichols Elementary School in the affluent Dallas suburb of Frisco has outlawed all mentions of Christmas at the event.
But, wait! There’s so much more. The unidentified, fun-hating party organizer has also banned Christmas trees, the colors red and green, the mention of any other winter holidays and anything that will stain the carpet, reports local Fox affiliate KDFW.
A week after advocates for religious freedom said a teacher refused to let a allow a student to bring candy canes with a religious message to his school, a second Southern California school is under fire for refusing to allow a first grader to share her family’s Christmas tradition because “she’s not allowed to talk about the Bible in school,” a lawyer for the girl’s family said.
First grader Brynn Williams wanted to present her family’s Christmas tradition of a star of Bethlehem at her school in the Temecula Valley Unified School District in Riverside County on Dec. 19 but was told she could not present it, according to lawyers for the Advocates for Faith & Freedom, which works to preserve religious liberty in the legal system.
“The disapproval and hostility that Christian students have come to experience in our nation’s public schools has become epidemic,” Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom said. ”I hope that (the school district ) will take the lead role in adopting a model policy to prohibit this abuse that has become all too common place for religious-minded students.”
Reginald Heber (1783-1826) was the second Anglican bishop of Calcutta. He was a prolific hymn writer, including what has been described as the “greatest missionary hymn ever written,” which opens with the following two verses:
“From Greenland’s icy mountains, from India’s coral strand;
Where Afric’s sunny fountains roll down their golden sand:
From many an ancient river, from many a palmy plain,
They call us to deliver their land from error’s chain.
What though the spicy breezes blow soft o’er Ceylon’s isle;
Though every prospect pleases, and only man is vile?
In vain with lavish kindness the gifts of God are strown;
The heathen in his blindness bows down to wood and stone.”
For many years, these words were sung lustily all over the British Empire, and indeed when I was a child (born in 1940), although Britain was divesting itself of its overseas possessions as fast as it could, it was still standard fare in the primary school I attended.
It raises in a stark way what is known in the trade — the philosophical trade, that is — as the problem of “religious exclusiveness.” There are many different religions in the world, and they make contradictory claims. The Christian thinks Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God. The Jew denies this. The Buddhist thinks we will be reincarnated. The Christian denies this. And so on. They cannot all be true. Why therefore should we think any of them true? Is it not just a matter of chance what we believe, depending on the culture into which we are born?
The following declaration was prepared by about 200 scholars who represented many world religions after a two year consultation. It was presented at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions, held in Chicago, IL on 1993-SEP-4.
The declaration, with The Principles of a Global Ethic appended, was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world’s major faiths, including the Baha’i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. The Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions offers it to the world as an initial statement of a group of rules for living on which all of the world’s religions can agree.
Towards a Global Ethic (An Initial Declaration)
The world is in agony. The agony is so pervasive and urgent that we are compelled to name its manifestations so that the depth of this pain may be made clear.
Peace eludes us…the planet is being destroyed…neighbors live in fear…women and men are estranged from each other…children die!
This is abhorrent!
We condemn the abuses of Earth’s ecosystems.
We condemn the poverty that stifles life’s potential; the hunger that weakens the human body; the economic disparities that threaten so many families with ruin.
We condemn the social disarray of the nations; the disregard for justice which pushes citizens to the margin; the anarchy overtaking our communities; and the
insane death of children from violence. In particular we condemn aggression and hatred in the name of religion.
History of the Parliament of the World’s Religions:
(Info Wars) — China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries increased $12.2 billion to a record$1.317 trillion in November, data released on the Treasury Department’s website showed.
The figures, scheduled for release at 9 a.m. tomorrow in Washington, were inadvertently posted on the Treasury’s website. Japan’s holdings rose $12 billion to $1.186 trillion, the figures showed.
China’s swelling foreign-exchange reserves, reported today to have reached a world record $3.82 trillion at the end of December, may sustain the nation’s appetite for U.S. debt. Capital inflows and intervention to limit gains in the yuan have contributed to China building up currency holdings that are a third of the global total.
“Large interest-rate differential and steady appreciation of therenminbi contributed to large arbitrage inflows into China, a situation made all the more easy with China’s increasing financial integration and renminbi internationalization,” UBS AG Hong Kong-based economist Wang Taowrote in a report on China’s data.
China’s pace of foreign-exchange reserve accumulation will be slower this year due to the Federal Reserve’s monetary tapering, likely widening of the yuan’s trading band and tighter controls on arbitrage activities, Wang said.
Early Release
A Treasury spokeswoman said that because of an error, limited amounts of data were posted on the department’s website ahead of the official release, and were removed as soon as it was discovered. The full November 2013 data will be released as previously scheduled at 9 a.m. tomorrow, she said.
The yuan this week reached 6.0406 per dollar, the strongest since the government unified the official and market exchange rates at the end of 1993. The latest data on China’s foreign-currency holdings contrasted with Yi Gang, a deputy governor at the central bank, saying in November that it was “no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves.’
The U.S. data showed net long-term portfolio investment outflow was $29.3 billion in November after a revised inflow the month before of $28.7 billion, the Treasury’s figures showed. The total cross-border outflow in November, including short-term securities such as Treasury bills and stock swaps, was $16.6 billion, after a revised inflow of $188.1 billion in October, the data showed.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) gained 2.8 percent in November. Investors in Treasuries lost 0.4 percent that month, according to Bloomberg World Bond (BUSY) Indexes. The Bloomberg U.S. Dollar Index, a gauge of the greenback’s value against 10 major currencies weighted by liquidity and trade flows, gained 0.9 percent in November.
(Info Wars) — A few short months after two of the top nuke commanders in the United States were removed for minor offenses, an additional 34 nuclear missile launch officers have now been stripped of their certification following a ‘cheating scandal’ in which the Air Force says some officers were ‘texting answers’ to each other during a monthly test on missile operation.
This round of terminations in regards to nuclear launch commanders follows the original termination of the second highest nuclear commander (Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina) back on September 3rd of last year — the same date that Alex Jones and I released exclusive high level intel revealing a covert nuclear arms transfer from Texas’ Dyess Airforce base to South Carolina. And subsequently, the same day that Senator Lindsay Graham would hours later appear in a press statement to warn against a ‘nuclear attack’ on South Carolina in the event that we did not pursue war with Syria (the agenda being pushed at the time).
But the government, of course, had no intention of telling you that Giardina was suspended on that same day. It would later come out through leaked emails acquired by the Daily Mail that, despite the military announcement of Giardina’s suspension weeks later, he was indeed suspended on the exact same day as the transfer:
“Kunze said Strategic Command did not announce the Sept. 3 suspension because Giardina remains under investigation and action on Kehler’s recommendation that Giardina be reassigned is pending. The suspension was first reported by the Omaha World-Herald.”
It is also revealed in the mainstream media reports that the government did not want these suspensions and firings to go on record, and that it was an anonymous government insider who provided leaked emails to the Associated Press:
“An internal email obtained by the AP on Friday said the allegations against Carey stem from an inspector general probe of his behavior while on an unspecified ‘temporary duty assignment.’ The email said the allegations are not related to the operational readiness of the ICBM force or recent failed inspections of ICBM units.”
Whether or not the latest nuke commander purge is related to the missing nuke report and previous terminations is yet to be determined as research continues to be directed into this topic. What is certain, however, is the reality that numerous red flags point to the validity of the unsigned, black ops nuclear arms transfer from Texas’ Dyess Airforce base to South Carolina. And had we not received our high level military intelligence on the subject that spread like wildfire across various news organizations and communities, we may never know what could have happened.
(Freedom Outpost) — Wednesday the Senate finally made a statement about Benghazi. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has found that the State Departmentcould have likely prevented the death of four Americans in Benghazi if they would not have ignored the intelligence reports and pleas for assistance from our diplomatic mission. The findings are that increased security was needed. USA Today reports:
Congressional Democrats for the first time joined the GOP to condemn the State Department for refusing security measures they say could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.
The report, worked on for months and released Wednesday by a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, also says 15 people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigate the murders have been killed.
15 persons in Libya who were attempting to cooperate with the FBI investigation are now dead. Isn’t that convenient?
Does it matter now Mrs. Clinton?
I have to wonder how intelligent our Intelligence Committee really is, because alternative media seems to be far beyond what these Senators are finding. Here’s another thought. Maybe they aren’t that stupid but they think that we are.
They probably weren’t Americans so why should we care?
I don’t know, but how many convenient deaths does that make now for Mrs. Hillary Clinton?
If you want to see a list of 46 you can find them here. Who could forget the mysterious Vince Foster suicide or James McDougal’s convenient heart attack? There are 44 more names on that list. If you want to dig really deep inside the deaths of many of these people you can visit a site called Arkancide.
The answer to that is probably almost everyone because very few even know the admission happened:
“Whenever I got an F2 call, that meant go and kill. State police are not trained to kill in … the late ’70s, early ’80s. There were no SWAT teams…. I had an F2 call, that meant go in and kill a guy. I didn’t give a shit…. When it [the order to kill] came from the president [Reagan], it was for God and country. When it came from Clinton, hell, I didn’t give a damn. I just go kill somebody, cut his nuts off.”
Why is it that no one takes this interview seriously? Why has none of the mainstream media reported it? If it is untrue then expose Larry Nichols as a liar and let’s move on. But the media acts like the interview never happened. Larry Nichols and the Clintons should be investigated and likely stand trial. Nichols made these comments on a national radio show and no one seems to care.
So, as we head closer and closer to 2016, and an almost guaranteed Hillary Clinton victory, the American people still don’t seem to care. Someday Americans need to learn to think for themselves. There are bad democrats and bad republicans. 95% of them are worthless no matter what party they choose to affiliate with. But so many people would rather vote for a person surrounded by “convenient deaths” than to cross party lines or simply make a wise decision in the primaries. If the election were held today, which thankfully it was not, Hillary would have won in a landslide and people don’t seem to care.
So today we add 15 “collateral damage” deaths to the Benghazi list and there is still no evidence that can directly implicate Hillary Clinton, at least in the eyes of our lawmakers.
Did she have something to do with it? We have no proof so we will just chalk it up to 15 more convenient deaths. We will never likely have proof.
How many more people will have to conveniently die before Americans start seeing what is truly happening? If 2016 goes the way it looks, the answer to that could be a substantial number.
What does it matter if they are dead? You are still alive right?
Pray you never have anything that might implicate a Clinton, because if you do you might just kill yourself or be hit by a falling tree. I don’t know why it happens. It just does.
Could these 15 people have been killed by people not at all related to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Yes, obviously that is a possibility. But it sure does seem convenient once again.
As the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates’ book‘Duty’ reveals to us, as well as the leaders of all other nations, the Obama administration’s policies are driven purely by politics. It is now obvious, and despite their excuses and rationalizations, it is indeed true that politics trumps policy in the Obama White House, often to the detriment of our troops and our world reputation.
So too can it then be said that their policy towards Islam is politically entrenched and that certain groups within Islam carry great influence in our leadership’s policy decisions regarding Islam and terrorism. In the article posted below regarding what Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney talked about in a recent interview conducted by WMAL in Washington, D.C., Bob Unruh of WND talks of the assertion the General makes about the Islamic infiltration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood and how it has helped mold their political stance regarding Islam and terrorism in a most demonstrable manner.
Early in the first term of the Obama administration, it became apparent to those of us who follow things Islam and terrorism closely, that Obama made a decision regarding his policy stance on Islam by changing the very definition of the “War On Terror” calling it an “Overseas Contingency Operation” andexpunging all reference and training materials of anything that shed a negative light on Islam in any manner. Why?, we asked. Was it his Islamic upbringing? Was it his financial ties and support to and by many Muslims? Or was it ineptitude, naivete, and ignorance?
When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth cannot, or will not define the threat and will not define the enemies, or even name our enemies, how are we as a nation ever to succeed against terrorists and other enemies? Barry Rubin wrote an article this week entitled ‘You still don’t understand Islamism, do you you?‘ where he shows in stark clarity that a political decision was made and policy would follow it regarding terrorism and Islam.
In that article, Rubin shows the depth to which they have confused the subject so much that many supposed ‘experts’ and ‘mavens’ in the media consistently get things wrong. The mere fact that a known loyalist and trainee of Osama bin Laden, Sufyan Bin Qumu, was the leader of Ansar al Sharia, the terrorist group who perpetrated the attack in Benghazi, but that it was not an al Qaeda group is mere semantics and is ludicrous.
In fact, early on, Cheryl Mills in the State Department reported internally that it was an al Qaeda group called Ansar al Sharia, then later it was changed to a movie trailer that ignited the attack and not al Qaeda. Then the NY Times tried to make that point in its now infamous report on Benghazi and was roundly criticized as fluff and greatly refuted by testimony and the facts.
There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qa’ida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.
The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this, since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qa’ida was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary. (Read the rest here, it is a must read.)
Now this confusion, rooted in the political underpinnings of the Obama Administration’s “policies set by politics” standards that most in the West are confused about who is who in Syria. Is Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or is it al Qaeda, or is it the so-called “moderates,” or is it the secular nationalistic FSA? We know it is not that last group.
In another recent article, Hannah Allam writes for the McCLatchy Washington Bureau that there is “No winner for the West in Syria” because its a “good” al Qaeda versus a “bad” al Qaeda condition from which we must chose. It is hard to identify the players without a scorecard thanks to all the confusion of cultures and influences, along with external policies set by politics. Politics emanating from the USA, Russia, Iran, France, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and beyond.
However she leaves out a lot of historical facts along with the understanding of why the Syrian civilian population changes loyalties almost daily due to the humanitarian crises. She also leaves out the western influences prior to the dictatorial and tyrannical regime where Jews and Christians made up a large portion of the historical context. Also missing is any reference to the largest number among the rebels, those who are secular and nationalist, the many who wish to join the West rather than any Islamist state.
Also recently, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said this of the politics and semantics:
“Whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary or a holding company or a limited partnership, to quote Hillary Clinton, ‘What difference does it make?’ Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to a video. It was planned,” Gowdy said.
Now we have to ask, what is the message to those who defend us in uniform? What are foreign leaders and our allies supposed to think? The strategy is clouded in uncertainty and is rudderless. Please read the following article by Bob Unruh on Lt. Gen. McInerney’s interview:
GENERAL: Muslim Brotherhood Inside Obama Administration
‘There are a whole host of people in this government’
Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney, who served as both assistant vice chief of staff and commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces Europe, has surprised interviewers on a radio program by confirming the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the U.S. government.
The book documents that Obama aided the rise to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East as members served on important national security advisory boards.
Another key figure with Muslim Brotherhood ties is Mohamed Elibiary, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council.
McInerney was being interviewed Thursday by WMAL in Washington about a tell-all book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that strongly criticizes President Obama and Vice President Biden for making politically motivated decisions regarding national security.
McInerney said Gates was doing the nation a service by exposing decision-making in the Oval Office but said he should have done it sooner. He also noted that the Muslim Brotherhood influences have been causing major problems throughout the Middle East.
Then he added, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.”
Asked by the talk-show hosts for their names, he said, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 or 15 of them in the U.S. government.”
He cited the organization’s influence in Homeland Security and the secretary of state’s office under Clinton, where Abedin has worked.
“Her parents are Muslim Brotherhood. And her intuitions are in that direction,” he said.
“There are a whole host of people in this government.”
He said Islam experts Frank Gaffney or Claire Lopez would have the details.
Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, has created a publication called “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration,” which addresses the issue that was brought to the attention of Congress in July 2012 by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland.
The lawmakers asked the inspector generals at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State to investigate, prompting Democrats and Republicans to rush to Abedin’s defense.
However, as WND reported, Abedin worked for an organization founded by her family that is effectively at the forefront of a grand Saudi plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America into a strict Wahhabi-style Islamic state, according to an Arabic-language manifesto issued by the Saudi monarchy. Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation trial.
The internal memo said Muslim Brotherhood members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Lopez, a CSP senior fellow, wrote at The Gatestone Institute: “The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama.”
She said the “massive Muslim Brotherhood organization network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953 [with President Dwight D. Eisenhower], eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise.”
She said the Brotherhood achieved “information dominance” during the George W. Bush administration that only intensified in the following years.
“Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policy making, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded,” she said.
That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy toward the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the ‘Arab Spring,’ but which in fact are more accurately termed an ‘Islamic Awakening,’” she said.
Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements – from al-Qaida militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American anymore.”
See Gaffney discussing the issue with Glenn Beck:
In the WMAL interview, McInerney said Gates’ book should alert Americans about what should be done to protect national security.
“The Middle East is coming apart with this administration’s policies. Look at Libya. We should never have gone into Libya. … We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.”
WND columnist Diana West wrote it likely wasn’t by chance that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “reading from prepared notes, absurdly described the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a ‘largely secular’ organization.”
“Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, ‘the blind sheikh’ convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman’s successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.’ Isn’t it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden’s jihad front into the White House?”
“Impeachable Offenses” also reported that then-CIA director John Brennan announced the Obama administration was calibrating policies in the fight against terrorism to ensure Americans are never “profiled.”
His speech was arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group that has deep relations not only with other Brotherhood fronts but to the White House and national security agencies.
Brennan’s NYU session was organized by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA. ISNA, whose members asked Brennan scores of questions during the event, stated the meeting was intended to initiate a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”
ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, which itself was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The two groups are still partners.
ISNA is known for its promotion of strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.
Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”
According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation.”
Mark Levin opened his show today livid over Obama’s announcement that he will ignore the legislature and use his pen to write executive orders.
He says the separation of powers are the key to our Republic and yet today Obama just announced that he would assume lawmaking powers via executive orders.
Mark Levin says what’s going on here is that we are witnessing a gradual, quiet coup:
(Allen West) — Once upon a time those who gave a life of service, sacrifice, and commitment to our military were promised quality medical and dental care, free, for life, and for their spouse. I remember when that promise was broken, because according to government “bean counters,” it was no longer affordable.
So a new program was established called Tricare where retirees would pay a small price for their healthcare. Then came ruminations that military retirees were costing the government too much for their healthcare. You must understand we are talking about less than one percent of the American population. Let me say that again, less than one percent of the population even qualify for these benefits.
Now we hear Capitol Hill lawmakers say they can save money by taking away the annual one percent cost of living adjustment (COLA) for retirees until they reach 62.
Doggone, it must be hell to have served over 20 years in deplorable situations and conditions for pay that was less than civilian counterparts — risking your life along the way, now to find out you’re just too expensive for the US government.
It’s death by a thousand cuts — and here’s the next one.
All stateside Tricare in-person service centers will be closing April 1, Tricare officials recently confirmed. The closure of the 189 facilities is expected to save the Defense Department about $50 million a year, officials said. The Tricare Service Centers, which handle about 137,000 visitors a month, are staffed by contractors and handle issues ranging from processing provider changes to billing problems.
Supposedly the closures won’t affect Tricare benefits or health care service but will allow the department to save $250 million over the next five years. Bear in mind $250 million represents about .007 percent of the current budget – so you can see how tiny that savings is over five years.
The savings will allow Tricare to invest in “more important services.” Such as? Maybe Obamacare-related?
Clearly the goal isn’t personal service to our men and women serving, especially their families. Instead, what the heck, they can just call the toll-free number. Or can they?
I honestly do not know what we would have done this past year without in-person Tricare help,” wrote Danielle Kaczor, on Military.com’s SpouseBuzz blog. “My daughter was diagnosed with leukemia and gets all treatment and medications at a children’s hospital, and billing for all this was quite screwy in the beginning.” And Jim Lamberson wrote, “I’ve been on the phone and used the website and both are useless,” Jim Lamberson wrote on SpouseBuzz.com. “When I go to the Tricare Service center, they are always helpful. There is a level of care and concern when talking face to face vice over the phone or website. I vote to keep these centers. They are valuable to the aging retiree.
Unfortunately Jim, aging retirees, young retirees, veterans, the military — none of it is important to the Obama administration. Look, he won reelection so there’s no need for him to go make empty speeches to the VFW or American Legion anymore.
I find it unconscionable and despicable that we are witnessing the disrespect and disregard of the sacrifices done by so few, for so many. I am quite sure that if Danielle Kaczor and Jim Lamberson, or any of us for that matter, spent a week with the federal budget we could find savings to maintain these Tricare service centers, and military retiree annual Cost of Living Allowances. I believe a call to every member of the House and Senate is warranted, especially if you have a representative who serves on the veterans affairs committee.
Conservative Angle Archives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.