Conservative Political Views



President Obama on Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday. Republicans and Democrats have said his vacation is ill timed. Credit Steven Senne/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — He had just hung up the telephone with the devastated parents before heading in front of the cameras. Unusually emotional, President Obama declared himself “heartbroken” by the brutal murder of an American journalist, James Foley, and vowed to “be relentless” against Islamic radicals threatening to kill another American.

But as soon as the cameras went off, Mr. Obama headed to his favorite golf course on Martha’s Vineyard, where he is on vacation, seemingly able to put the savagery out of his mind. He spent the rest of the afternoon on the links even as a firestorm of criticism erupted over what many saw as a callous indifference to the slaughter he had just condemned.

Presidents learn to wall off their feelings and compartmentalize their lives. They deal in death one moment and seek mental and physical relief the next. To make coldhearted decisions in the best interest of the country and manage the burdens of perhaps the most stressful job on the planet, current and former White House officials said, a president must guard against becoming consumed by the emotions of the situations they confront. And few presidents have been known more for cool, emotional detachment than Mr. Obama.


Yet the juxtaposition of his indignant denunciation of terrorists and his outing on the greens this week underscored the unintended consequences of such a remove. If Mr. Obama hoped to show America’s enemies that they cannot hijack his schedule, he also showed many of his friends in America that he disdains the politics of appearance. He long ago stopped worrying about what critics say, according to aides, and after the outcry over Wednesday’s game, he defied the critics by golfing again on Thursday, his eighth outing in 11 days on the island.

It was all the more striking given that Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain canceled his vacation after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria released the video showing Mr. Foley’s death because the accent of the masked killer suggested he came from Britain. Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News that Mr. Obama would “rather be on the golf course than he would be dealing with the crisis.”

But the criticism went beyond the usual political opponents. Privately, many Democrats shook their heads at what they considered a judgment error. Ezra Klein, editor in chief of the online news site Vox, who is normally sympathetic to Mr. Obama, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday that “golfing today is in bad taste.” The Daily News published a front-page photograph of a grinning president in a golf cart next to a picture of Mr. Foley’s distraught mother and father under the headline, “Prez tees off as Foley’s parents grieve.”

“As a general rule, I think that he’s right that you can’t be held hostage to the news cycle — the man deserves a bit of downtime,” said Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic strategist. “But in this particular instance, I think a lot of Democrats flinched a little bit.”

The video, Mr. Manley added, “was just so shocking that the idea that he was going to immediately run to the golf course was just a little too much for folks; it was tone-deaf.”

Mr. Obama has traditionally resisted what he sees as the empty political gesture of abruptly upending his schedule in reaction to the latest crisis. Aides said the golf game did not reflect the depth of his grief over Mr. Foley, noting that the president had just spoken with his parents that morning. “His concern for the Foleys and Jim was evident to all who saw and heard his statement,” said Jennifer Palmieri, the White House communications director.

Mr. Obama is not the first president to get in trouble with a golf club in hand. On the course one day in 2002, President George W. Bush delivered a tough-worded statement denouncing a suicide bombing in Israel and then, barely missing a beat, told reporters, “Now, watch this drive.” Mr. Bush later concluded that such scenes sent a bad message, and in the fall of 2003, with the Iraq war raging, he gave up golf for the remainder of his presidency.

What really matters, according to Mr. Obama’s defenders, is not what the president does to blow off steam, but what he does to blow up ISIS. Aides to Republican and Democratic presidents have long argued that the commander in chief is on duty no matter where he is, and that even on vacation, he is receiving briefings, making phone calls and issuing orders. Other presidents have taken vacations during major crises and times of war. This year Mr. Obama has repeatedly interrupted his summer break to deal with Iraq and the racial unrest in Ferguson, Mo.

For Mr. Obama, the video of Mr. Foley’s death is acutely personal because it showed one of three other American civilians held hostage, Steven J. Sotloff, suggesting he would be killed next if the president did not stop bombing ISIS targets in Iraq. “The life of this American citizen, Obama, depends on your next decision,” the masked killer says while holding the back of Mr. Sotloff’s orange, prison-style shirt.

There could hardly be many more wrenching situations for a president. Sending American troops into harm’s way is difficult enough, but they at least volunteered for duty and are trained for the dangers they confront. The rise of social media has made such life-or-death blackmail all the more horrific. As far as aides knew, Mr. Obama did not watch the ISIS video, and advisers did not think he should.

“That’s got to be exquisitely disturbing,” said Peter D. Feaver, a former national security aide to Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton, who now teaches at Duke University. “And it’s different than for average Americans who are watching this on television but know there’s nothing they can do. With President Obama, there are things he can do, but he’s concluded that he can’t do them.”

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said ISIS appeared to design its video to instill maximum fear in Mr. Obama and a country it perceives as exhausted by war. Mr. Obama’s forceful response on Wednesday, he said, was “a necessary and important one — that we’re not being intimidated, we’re not backing down.”

Including Mr. Sotloff in the video, Mr. Hoffman added, intensified the direct threat the group was sending the president. “They put the knife in, and they’re trying to twist it by making it personal,” he said.

Former presidents have been the subject of personal appeals from terrorists threatening American lives, from the Iran Embassy seizure under Jimmy Carter to the hijackings of T.W.A. Flight 847 and the Achille Lauro cruise ship under Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Obama, too, has faced this situation before. Warren Weinstein, an American development consultant abducted by Al Qaeda in Pakistan, appealed directly to the president in a video late last year. In May, Mr. Obama authorized a prisoner swap with the Taliban to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl after concluding that his life was at risk.

Frances Fragos Townsend, a former counterterrorism adviser to Mr. Bush, said it is important to avoid letting the president become too emotionally involved in such situations, adding that she would not have shown the ISIS video to Mr. Obama. “You fight very hard to not have it be personal,” she said. “You just don’t let them do that. They can use your name, and they can make it personal. But it’s not.”

August 22, 2014 Posted by | Here And Now, Must See | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“We Don’t Understand Real Evil, Organized Evil, Very Well. This is Evil Incarnate.” TOWNHALL.COM by HUGH HEWITT, 8-9-14

“We Don’t Understand Real Evil, Organized Evil, Very Well. This is Evil Incarnate.”

That title is a quote from former Ambassador Ryan Crocker, quoted in Peter Baker’s fine piece in Friday’s New York Times’ on the president’s decision to sort-of, kind-of, maybe strike against ISIS.

Baker’s quote of Crocker, who served as President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to Iraq and President Obama’s Ambassador to Afghanistan, is worth reading in its entirety:

“This is about America’s national security,” said Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador to Iraq under Mr. Bush and to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama. “We don’t understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the ISIS leader, “have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.”

This is the chilling reality of the war in which we continue to find ourselves, a reality that the American left –of which the president is the condensed, 100 percent concentrated version– refuses to believe: that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or Hamas, or any Islamist not named bin Laden is a threat to the United States. The president and his ideological allies especially refuse to consider any facts that are inconsistent with their conclusions, even facts that line up as direct threats to America, because they’d rather live in ignorance and danger than validate in any way W’s view of the world and of the crucial necessity of staying involved in the Islamic world, helping our genuine allies and fighting our genuine enemies there.

That was the terribly difficult “middle ground” that Bush and Vice President Cheney knew the U.S. had to occupy, possessing as they did (and still do) a perspective that understood that we and the rest of the West are not at war with Islam but with a virulent, radicalized and very violent strain of Sunni Islamist extremism, every bit the match of the Khomeinism that gripped Iran in the late 1970s and holds on to it still. This latter terror was not opposed by Jimmy Carter and nearly 40 years later still threatens the West in new and more menacing ways. The Sunni equivalent nested first in Afghanistan, was beaten back there, in western Iraq in the person of Zarqawi, and across the globe until, after the election of President Obama, it was granted a reprieve and regrouped and reorganized, and is growing fast and very strong now in western Iraq and other places around the globe.

The left will want to argue that Bush created ISIS, an absurd but predictable last ditch effort to build a weak wall against the reality that people like Lawrence Wright and Bernard Lewis have been arguing against for more than a decade. Indeed, Baker found the pitch perfect representative of the school of pretend-it-doesn’t-exist to quote for his piece:

“This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one,” said Phyllis Bennis, a scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a research organization for peace activists. “Whatever else we may have learned from the president’s ‘dumb war,’ it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters.”

This point of view is sadly the dominant one within the White House, and the president’s very minimalist response last night should not confuse people about the crucial fact that he is one with Bennis in worldview. I quoted on my show yesterday but requite here to emphasize its importance, President Obama’s very revealing, very candid assessment of ISIS, made to the New Yorker’s David Remnick in a much overlooked but crucial piece from January:

At the core of Obama’s thinking is that American military involvement cannot be the primary instrument to achieve the new equilibrium that the region so desperately needs. And yet thoughts of a pacific equilibrium are far from anyone’s mind in the real, existing Middle East. In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been “decimated.” I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

“Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

He went on, “You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there. You have failed states that are just dysfunctional, and various warlords and thugs and criminals are trying to gain leverage or a foothold so that they can control resources, populations, territory. . . . And failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our long-term security. But how we approach those problems and the resources that we direct toward those problems is not going to be exactly the same as how we think about a transnational network of operatives who want to blow up the World Trade Center. We have to be able to distinguish between these problems analytically, so that we’re not using a pliers where we need a hammer, or we’re not using a battalion when what we should be doing is partnering with the local government to train their police force more effectively, improve their intelligence capacities.”

This point of view cannot be reconciled with the facts on the ground in western Iraq, or Nigeria, or Mali, or Somalia or indeed in Gaza. It must oblige the president o almost double over with the pains of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the rampage and slaughters of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Remnick pointed out, this worldview is “the core” of the president’s understanding of the world, the equivalent of Reagan’s view of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” It is the Rosetta Stone to understanding everything President Obama has done –and mostly not done– since becoming president in 2009. He departs from it only when the televised pictures he and his advisors see –whether from Libya as Qaddafi marched towards Benghazi with the intention of slaughtering his opponents or of ISIS trapping children on mountains– persuade him that, if only because the poor, emotional American people won’t put up with such picture, he has to pretend to do something.

It isn’t really “appeasement” which at least recognized evil and tried to buy it off, though it issues in policies that look like those that were produced by appeasement. It is rather a child-like anti-intellectualism, an academic’s withdrawal from reality into endless faculty meetings where debates about parking spaces and tenure displace the reality of the world outside of the 90-minute meeting committee process.

Because this worldview is fully in control of the American military, national security and diplomatic powers, we will do nothing about al-Baghdadi for at least two more years when, hopefully, an heir to Reagan arrives to reintroduce American power and influence in the world. American power does not always and everywhere mean military power, but it does include it and it ought to be used, especially when a long standing ally like the Kurds are threatened by barbarians at their gates, and not in a haphazard, half-gesture of concern from the skies. A reflexive horror of “boots on the ground” gripped Carter as it grips Obama, and the president who follows Obama will have to reintroduce the world to the prospect of dealing with American military might.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi understands he is up against a paper mache president right now, and is acting accordingly, as are his arch enemies –the mullahs in Iran– and their half-brothers in Hamas and their generous uncle in Moscow. As do the Chinese. The good news is that there are Abbotts and Harpers about, and especially Netanyahu. They have their counterparts within the GOP and those men and women are finding their voices. Even this pretend-to-be-president president may be obliged to act if the ISIS fanatics go too far and too fast. They lack brakes because they believe God is on their side. What they might do that might wake even this president is pretty horrible to consider but if you have seen what they are doing in Iraq, you must understand they’d gladly do whatever they could to deeply injure America again.

It is an ongoing, never-ending-in-our-lifetimes global conflict and it isn’t going away, no matter how many iPads we produce or where LeBron plays or how Johnny Football does. I like most Americans treasure my diversions from the reality of this awful situation, but presidents don’t get to live a life disconnected from them and deeply connected to fairways and greens.

It is hard to imagine how far ISIS will have spread its evil by the time January 2017 brings a new resolve to the White House. Hopefully the seriousness of this situation adds to the repudiation of the president and his party of go-along yes men and women at the polls in November, and a rebuilding of the Department of Defense can begin in earnest in January 2015.

It didn’t have to be this way. W’s generals and their troops won the war in Iraq. President Obama booted away the peace and the intricate coalition that held it in place when he abruptly pulled a residual American force from Iraq in 2011. This is a sequel to what happened in Vietnam in 1975. This time there are no boat people because there is no ocean and there are no boats. Just slaughter. And this time the enemy isn’t going to stop with conquering their country and incursions into a few local countries.

“This is evil incarnate,” as Ambassador Crocker put it so succinctly and well. Evil incarnate doesn’t fill out brackets, or rest or grow weary. It marches on and sneers at the delusions of its enemies who don’t even know they are the target.


Normally I would insert the direct link to this post of Hugh Hewitt’s, however, due to malfunctioning that was impossible.  This article is easily found on the “” website.


August 10, 2014 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Apartment managment company has issued new rules for apartment dwellers; “Get rid of your gun(s) or get out!”  Since when does any business have a legal right to take away the Constitutional rights of an American citizen with the stroke of a pen?  Without cause?  Without explanation?  Without discussion?  We are indeed living under Communist rule, and anyone who does not see that, is blind.

Articles below tell of more chilling tales of the Obama regime.  If you think you are free, you need to think again!

August 9, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


WND Exclusive

Syrian forces training to storm Israel’s border

Comes amid stepped up U.S. support for ‘rebels’

Published: 2 days ago

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.
rss feed Subscribe to feed

TEL AVIV – Thousands of Syrians are currently training in Iran to serve as a force ready to storm Israel’s northern Golan Heights, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

The officials said between 3,000 and 5,000 Syrian men were being trained in the event Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to open a front against the Golan Heights, which borders Syria.

The training is being overseen by the Al Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for the country’s extraterritorial operations, the sources said.

The Syrian forces are slated to return to their country next month, the sources added.

This is not the first report of Iran aiding Syria in preparations for ground attacks against Israel.

In May, WND reported the Iranian-backed Hezbollah was establishing training camps near the Syrian capital of Damascus to prepare for possible guerrilla warfare targeting the Golan Heights, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

The officials said the camps are training Palestinian groups as well as special units connected to Assad’s Baath party for operations against Israel if such actions are green-lighted by Syria in the near future.

The officials said that for the time being, Russia has urged Assad against taking any action targeting Israel.

The reports come as the U.K. Independent reported on a purported military strategy taken by Iran to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria in support of Assad’s drive to defeat the so-called rebels.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that as a way to keep the pressure on Assad, American warplanes and antimissile batteries will remain in Jordan following a military drill currently underway.

The Times further reported on CIA training for the rebels in Jordan under a covert program as well as a U.S. campaign to send weapons to the rebels via Jordan.

The Washington Post further reported on a U.S. decision to send weapons to the rebels through Turkey.

June 18, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Fox News Panel Clashes After Alan Colmes Says IRS Went After ‘Only a Handful’ of Tea Party Groups

Alan Colmes, Jim Pinkerton Clash During Fox News Discussion Over IRS Scandal, Medias Relationship With Obama Admin

Photo Credit: Fox News

In an appearance on Fox News today, conservative writer Jim Pinkerton and liberal radio host Alan Colmes clashed over the media’s perceived ideological attachment to the Obama administration and coverage of the ongoing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal.

The center of their discussion? Whether the media are being complicit in covering up potential political motivation for the government’s targeting of the Tea Party and conservative groups.

Pinkerton argued that the media are more in bed with the Obama administration than any other preceding Democratic presidency. Colmes, naturally, disagreed.

“To say that never before has the media been so in line with the party in power is to me just patently absurd,” Colmes said, highlighting his view that the media seemingly pressed for and supported the War in Iraq under President George W. Bush.

“I don’t see the marriage between the media and what the administration is doing on the left as much as Jim does,” he added.

While the liberal commentator attempted to downplay the number of conservative organizations being targeted by the IRS (he said it was “only a handful”), Pinkerton shot back, noting that nearly one quarter of the groups were ideologically right-of-center. The conservative writer and pundit also charged that groups funded by billionaire George Soros seemed to be defending the IRS’s actions.

Here’s how Mediaite frames the rest of the discussion:

Colmes noted that editorial writers and columnists with the New York Times and The Washington Post have criticized the IRS unequivocally. “This isn’t a liberal consortium supporting what’s going on,” Colmes said.

Pinkerton noted that it is not all left-leaning media outlets, but there has been a nearly uniform defense of the IRS by organizations funded by Soros. Colmes and Pinkerton battled over the connection that was being drawn between Soros and liberal outlets defending the IRS. […]

Pinkerton and Colmes then exploded over the assertion that the IRS evenly targeted liberal and conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

“Every show on MSNBC, except for Morning Joe, is saying that the IRS did the right thing,” Pinkerton asserted. “That’s where the bias comes in.”

Watch the clip, below:

<iframe src=”; width=”420″ height=”421″ frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ scrolling=”no” allowtransparency=”true”>

(H/T: Mediaite)

May 27, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist for Religious Tolerance Policy

The Obama-Hagel Pentagon is trying to minimize Breitbart News’ blockbuster story last week of top brass meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein, whom we reported calls Christians “monsters” imposing a “rapacious reign of theocratic terror” and says sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military an act of “sedition and treason” that must be punished.

28 Apr 2013

The Pentagon sent out an email suggesting the Apr. 23 meeting with Weinstein in the Pentagon was a one-time event, saying only, “Weinstein requested, and was granted, a meeting at the Pentagon [on] April 23, with the Air Force Judge Advocate General and others, to include the Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to express his concerns of religious issues in the military.”

However, this was not a single meeting. Instead it was part of a relationship that began one month after Barack Obama was sworn in as president. And it goes much higher up the military food chain than was reported last week: Weinstein met with a four-star general who was the highest-ranking officer in the United States Air Force.

The New York Times reported on Mar. 1, 2009, in a story entitled, “Questions Raised Anew About Religion in Military,” that Weinstein met with the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwarz, on Feb. 24, 2009. The story noted this was the first time Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) had “gotten an audience with a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

Weinstein had sued the Defense Department during the Bush administration as part of his anti-Christian crusade, so Pentagon top brass knew exactly who he was and what he was about when the new Obama administration met with him in 2009. This means he had been fully-vetted when the Obama-Hagel Defense Department decided to meet with him again on Apr. 23, 2013, to discuss how to stop evangelizing (that is, Christian proselytizing) within the military.

The Bush administration had fought Weinstein, saying that any instances of senior officers pressuring subordinates on religious matters were “not systematic problems, but isolated instances.” And biblical Christians fully object to any coercion, since evangelism is about people embracing the Christian faith wholeheartedly and sincerely, which no person could ever force upon another. It’s a matter of the heart, between every human being and their creator.

By contrast, while the Bush administration fought Weinstein, the Obama administration has embraced this anti-Christian activist.

The NYT story gives a laundry list of Weinstein and MRFF’s grievances against the Defense Department during the Bush administration, including a, “ceremony that began and ended with a Christian prayer…the appearance of uniformed officers at religious events, [and] displays of crucifixes at military chapels…”.

The story indicates that “Christian prayers” are prayers offered “in Jesus’ name.” It goes without saying that whenever anyone prays, they pray according to their own religious faith. (For example, you’re not likely to find a Muslim imam offering a Jewish prayer.) It’s just as common to hear a Christian mention Jesus in a prayer as it is to find a Muslim invoking the name of Mohammed.

It’s also no surprise that troops might be wearing their uniforms when they attend church services. Again, the Constitution does not forbid such things, since those troops have the right to peacefully practice and express their personal faith just like any other American.

But the fact that Weinstein has become an unpaid advisor to the Obama-Hagel Pentagon is evidence of how hostile an environment parts of the Defense Department are becoming to Christian service members under this administration, and possibly devout adherents of other peaceful faiths as well.

Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to set the rules of conduct and discipline within the military, and Congress must do so now to protect the rights of our troops to live and share their faith.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council.

May 9, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY).

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Rand Paul: Hillary’s Benghazi story unraveling

‘Surprised’ by claim she had no knowledge of arms deals

Published: 13 hours ago



Rand Paul, R-Ky., was “surprised” by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s sworn testimony in a Senate hearing in which she claimed that
she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or
transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.


It was Paul who asked Clinton the question during the hearings. His
inquiry focused on alleged weapons shipments out of Benghazi to arm the
rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.



Speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, Paul was reacting to Clinton’s testimony in light of a New York Times report last month that claimed that since early 2012, the CIA has been helping Arab governments and Turkey obtain and ship weapons to the Syrian rebels.


The plan mirrors one the Times reported
in February as being proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described
Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian
rebels via Turkish and Arab cut outs.


The New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David
Petraeus had concocted the plan, which called for vetting rebels and
arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.


If Clinton knew about the arms transfers, she may have committed perjury during her Benghazi testimony.


Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered
highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists,
including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other
Syrian opposition groups.


Paul further charged during the radio interview that the alleged
weapons shipments “may have something to do with” why the U.S. mission
in Benghazi was attacked last September.


Regarding Clinton’s testimony, Paul stated: “I was surprised that she
acted as if she never even heard of the whole concept of arms coming
out of Libya through Turkey … since it had been reported in several
mainstream media sources that this has been going on. So I was quite
surprised that she acted as if she had never heard of any of this,
because some of the reports said that she has been arguing for this.”


Paul said many public and government officials “keep this sort of
veil of deniability, and the reason they can deny it is, well, maybe the
U.S. wasn’t actually buying and transferring the arms.


“Maybe we were facilitating it. Simply coordinating with Turkish
people who were doing it and they can simply try to stand by and say,
‘Well, no, we didn’t do it, the Turks did it.’ But in reality a lot of
this may have involved our involvement.”


In the hearings over the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton claimed to Paul that she did not know whether the U.S. was helping Turkey and other Arab countries in procure weapons.


Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of
weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring
weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”


“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”


Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been
leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know
is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring,
buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being
transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”


Clinton replied: “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question
to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is


“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.


“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”


See Hillary Clinton’s exchange with Sen. Rand Paul:


Clinton’s claims seem now to be unraveling. Her possible role in
concocting the weapons transfer plan also now prompts a second look at
the perplexing security decisions made by Clinton and other top Obama
administration officials the night of the Benghazi attacks.


One of those key decisions reportedly delayed an investigative FBI
team from arriving at the Benghazi site for 24 days. The site was widely
reported to have contained classified documents.


Now, a closer reading of two separate reports from the New York Times
paints a picture of Clinton as the leader of the plan to arm Syrian


Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times last week reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding the Arab governments and Turkey in shopping for and transporting weapons to the Syrian rebels.


Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year
describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last
September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the
rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad’s regime.


The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.


(Listen to full interview of Rand Paul on WABC’s  Aaron Klein investigative Radio.)


Speaking on Klein’s show, Paul charged the alleged weapons transfers
may have been a reason for the attacks on the U.S. Benghazi facilities.


He said of the alleged shipments, “First of all, with regard to
Benghazi I think it’s important because it may have something to do with
why the compound was attacked if we were involved with shipping guns to


Paul said “there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it.


“In the weeks preceding this there were reports that our ambassador
was meeting with the Turkish attaché. So I think with regards to
figuring out what happened at Benghazi it is very important to know
whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns
being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria.”


Clinton snagged in Benghazi cover-up?


A comparison of the Clinton plan to arms the rebels, as first
reported by the Times in February, and last month’s Times report of
American-aided shipments to the rebels since last year makes clear the
Clinton plan was apparently put into action.


The Times reported in February that the idea of the Clinton plan was
to “vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with


Last month, the Times reported that since at least November 2012, the
U.S. has been helping “the Arab governments shop for weapons, including
a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and
groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.”


The earlier Times article described Clinton as having instincts that
were “often more activist than those of a White House that has kept a
tight grip on foreign policy.”


In an administration often faulted for its timidity abroad, “Clinton
wanted to lead from the front, not from behind,” Vali R. Nasr, a former
State Department adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the Times.


Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said
U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before
the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.


Last month, WND reported
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. stated in interview with Fox News that
murdered U.S Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi to keep
weapons caches from falling into the hands of terrorists. Until that
point, no official explanation for Stevens deployment to Libya has
acknowledged any such activity.


Clinton’s perplexing security decisions


Meanwhile, the New York Times reporting on how the plan for arming
the rebels was put into action has prompted major questions about the
role Clinton played in the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks,
assaults against the very facilities where the arms-to-rebels scheme was
allegedly being coordinated.


National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed to Fox
News in November that Clinton herself worked on the immediate U.S.
response to Benghazi.


“The most senior people in government worked on this issue from the minute it happened,” he said.


“That includes the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, secretary of state, national security adviser, et cetera.
Additionally, the Deputies Committee – the second in command at the
relevant national security agencies – met at least once and more often
twice a day to manage the issue.”


One of the key decisions by Clinton’s State Department that has
perplexed many security experts was the determination not to deploy an
interagency rapid response unit designed to respond to terrorist attacks
known as a Foreign Emergency Support Team, or FEST.


FEST teams previously deployed immediately after al-Qaida bombings of
U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. But
they were not used for Benghazi, confounding insiders speaking to the
news media


Counterterrorism officials told Fox News
in November that the FEST teams could have helped the FBI gain access
to the site in Benghazi faster. It ultimately took the FBI 24 days.


The site reportedly contained a large volume of classified documents related to the activities of the Benghazi facilities.


Further, during the night of the attack, top counter terror officials felt out of the loop, according to emails shared with both Fox News and CBS News in November.


Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News
expressed frustration that key responders were ready to deploy but were
not called upon to help in the attack.


Besides strangely not deploying FEST, the Counterterrorism Security
Group, or CSG, was never asked to meet the night of the attack or in
subsequent days, according to two separate counterterrorism officials,
as first reported by CBS News.


The CSG is composed of experts on terrorism from across government
agencies and makes recommendations to the deputies who assist the
president’s Cabinet in formulating a response to crises involving


It is likely that the CSG task force, if contacted, would have recommended FEST aid, according to CBS.


CBS reported the lack of coordination with the Counterterrorism
Security Group made the response to the Benghazi crisis still more


One official told CBS News the FBI received a call during the attack
representing Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his
colleagues explained the call was just a gesture and could not be


He said his colleagues at the FBI agreed the agents “would not make
any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the
country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to
maximize their success.”


Recruiting jihadists


Days after the Benghazi attack, WND broke the story
that Ambassador Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting
jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and
other Middle Eastern security officials.


Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the
recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and
Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s
forces, said the security officials.


The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names
of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review.
Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the
U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited
by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.


The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND’s reporting,
citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries
and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been
working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms
shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.


The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale
in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding
into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.


The Times further revealed that from offices at “secret locations,”
American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for
weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted
rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons
as they arrive.


The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.


The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H.
Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in
helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said
Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.


Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.


Both WND’s reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms
shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from
top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the


Rebel training


It’s not the first time WND’s original investigative reporting on
U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in
major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the
Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture
of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.


A story by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting
the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 14 months ago.


Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der
Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for
private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some
organizers wore uniforms.


The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.


The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over
the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200
members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east
of Jordan.


Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding
Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.


Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined
immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign
ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not
comment to Reuters.


While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.


At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security
officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training
base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the
country’s northern desert region.



April 23, 2013 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Internet Hit by ‘Biggest Attack Ever’

Posted on March 27, 2013


You can be sure that upcoming wars will be fought in cyberspace. And of course Obama will want to take it over to help protect everyone….
Check it out:  A squabble between a group fighting spam and a Dutch company that hosts Web sites said to be sending spam has escalated into one of the largest computer attacks on the Internet, causing widespread congestion and jamming crucial infrastructure around the world.

Millions of ordinary Internet users have experienced delays in services like Netflix or could not reach a particular Web site for a short time.

However, for the Internet engineers who run the global network the problem is more worrisome. The attacks are becoming increasingly powerful, and computer security experts worry that if they continue to escalate people may not be able to reach basic Internet services, like e-mail and online banking.

Continue Reading on

McCain: I Won’t Stop Saying ‘Illegal’ Immigrant

Posted on March 27, 2013


Wow. McCain got one right. I guess he’s about 50-50. Does this mean that Obama will start calling illegal drug dealers by the name of “Undocumented Pharmacists”
Check it out:  Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., said Monday he won’t stop using the term “illegal immigrant,” when asked at a Phoenix town hall to stop using “the ‘I’ word.”

A 25-year old “dreamer” asked McCain to instead use a phrase like “undocumented immigrant,” the Arizona Republic reported today.

“Someone who crosses our borders illegally is here illegally,” McCain said. “You can call it whatever you want to, but it’s illegal. I think there’s a big difference between someone who does something that’s illegal and someone who’s undocumented. I’ll continue to call it illegal.”

The White House, on the other hand, has adopted the term “undocumented” in its push for immigration reform.

Continue Reading on

Shatner ‘appalled’ by IRS ‘Trek’ spoof

Posted on March 27, 2013


The real question should be who thought this was a good idea.
Check it out:  William Shatner said he is “appalled” by the Internal Revenue Services’s spoof of “Star Trek” — the television show that made him famous for his portrayal of Captain James Kirk.

Last week, the IRS apologized for spending $60,000 on the parody, which was intended to be used as a training video. Lawmakers — and now the show’s star actor — have blasted it as a senseless use of taxpayer money.

“So I watched that IRS video. I am appalled at the utter waste of U.S. tax dollars,” Shatner tweeted Tuesday Morning.

The six-minute “Star Trek” video made in Maryland was shown to agency employees at a conference in 2010. In the video, IRS workers are meticulously dressed as characters from the popular TV show and are flying a staged space craft towards the planet “Notax.”

Continue Reading on


Bob Beckel Goes Off on CBS For Communist Propaganda During Show

Posted on March 21, 2013


Did ‘Amazing Race’ disrespect Vietnam vets?

Contestants chant communist propaganda in Hanoi

Continue Reading on


March 27, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WND ELECTION 2012 (To Ed, this is for you regarding “sealed Obama records.” JM)




Trump: Bombshell predictions ‘incorrect’

Billionaire’s announcement: ‘Just wait and see’


Published: 20 hours agos




A report Tuesday in Britain’s Daily Mail said the “surprise” Donald Trump is scheduled to announce Wednesday is that Michelle and Barack Obama once seriously considered getting a divorce.


But Trump Wednesday morning said none of the speculation about the subject of the announcement was correct.


“All predictions re: my 12 o’clock release are totally incorrect. Stay tuned!” he tweeted.


The Daily Mail had said Douglas Kass, a Florida-based investor who also appears on CNBC’s talk show called “Squawkbox,” tweeted “High above the Alps my Gnome has heard that Donald Trump will announce that he has unearthed divorce papers between the Prez and his wife.”


Kass and Trump both appear on the talk show at times.


Kass is an author, found and president of Seabreeze Partners Management.


Author Ed Klein in his book earlier this year made claims about divorce papers, and the White House “rubbished the allegations” the report said.


At the Trump organization, a top aide to Trump says the billionaire will reveal a secret about Barack Obama on Wednesday on Twitter that could be of interest to “millions of Americans.”


The confirmation came today to WND from Mike Cohen, Trump’s assistant, who said that only three people know what Trump will reveal: Trump, his wife, and himself.


But he also said that the revelation “has nothing to do with drug usage,” in contradiction to several published reports today that said Trump will expose claims Obama dealt drugs during college.


Trump said in a tweet:”Everybody is asking about my announcement this Wednesday concerning Barack Obama – just wait and see!”


Trump, who previously and very publicly challenged Obama’s eligibility to be president, told “Fox & Friends” Monday he has “something very, very big concerning the president.”


Fox host Gretchen Carlson asked if it would change the election, and he said: “Possibly. It’s very big – bigger than anybody would know.”


Among those reporting that the revelation is about drugs was the Radaronline blog.


The blog alleged a man claiming to be a “pal” to Obama had contacted GOP operatives to go public with his claim that Obama used and sold cocaine in college. The report said the GOP didn’t want anything to do with the claim.


WND reported months ago a prediction from Trump that Obama would start a war with Iran solely to help his chances of getting re-elected.


At the time, he told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News: “Yes, I believe that we will end up in a war with Iran because I think Obama views that as politically good for him. … I have said for a year and a half that in the end, somewhere before the election we will end up in a form of war with Iran, and I think he’s doing it for political reasons.”


Appearing somewhat incredulous, Van Susteren said: “You’re saying that the president is really thinking about doing the unthinkable for political advantage for himself, taking us to war. I think most people would say that’s beyond, that’s beyond fair.”


Trump responded: “I don’t think it’s beyond. That’s my opinion, and let’s see what happens. I hope that doesn’t happen.”


WND reported that Iranian sources have confirmed a deal between the Obama administration and a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over Tehran’s nuclear program.


The WND report revealed that the deal is for Iran to halt part of its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of many U.S. sanctions against the Islamic regime.


A day after WND’s report, by Reza Kahlili, the New York Times followed up with a story reporting Obama administration officials had confirmed the U.S. and Iran had agreed to one-on-one talks in what could be “a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”


Obama dismissed the Times report, but according to an analysis of his statement’s in Monday night’s presidential debate by the London Guardian, he seemed to open the door for those exact discussions.


“I’m pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to end their nuclear program,” Obama told Romney.


The report also quoted Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department expert working at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who said, “I have been hearing for some time that they had been having private discussions, and now it is starting to become public.”


As recently as a few weeks ago, Trump renewed his effort to obtain Obama’s sealed records.”


He suggested Obama released his documents in exchange for Romney’s tax returns, which Democrats have been demanding.


“I’ve said it a lot, that if Obama opened up his records, maybe Mitt should give his returns,” Trump told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” “That would be a great trade. I guarantee it would be a really wonderful trade.”


Trump offered a list of sealed documents he believes Obama should present for the deal.


“I’d like to see his college records,” he said. “I’d like to see his college applications. I’d like to see something about his past, which many people know nothing about. I’d like to see his passport records, which are sealed.”



October 24, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption, The United States of America Constitution | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WND EXCLUSIVE by JEROME CORSI (Can This Be True? I’ve read books by Corsi, and they are always very well documented. “Not that there’s anything wrong with it.” JM)


Trinity Church members reveal Obama shocker!

‘Matchmaker’ Rev. Jeremiah Wright ‘provided cover for gays’

Published: 10/02/2012 at 8:12 PM author-image by Jerome R. CorsiEmail | Archive Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

After nearly four years in office, many Americans still express frustration that much about Barack Obama remains a mystery as establishment media remain incurious about the Democratic president, while seemingly ready to dispatch crack investigative teams at a moment’s notice to probe into the personal lives of Republican figures such as Sarah Palin. Largely ignored in 2008 was research by the Hillary Clinton campaign based on contacts developed with members of the church Obama attended for two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the first of a series of articles WND has developed from months of in-person interviews with church members who have known Barack and Michelle Obama over many years. The sources requested that their identities not be published because they believe their disclosures would put their security at risk.

NEW YORK – Ten years ago, the New York Times reported on a growing underground subculture in the black community known as Down Low, comprised largely of men who secretly engage in homosexual activity while living “straight” lives in public.

It’s within that subtext that opposition researchers for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign began investigating rumors that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was running a “matchmaking service” for members of his Trinity United Church of Christ known as the Down Low Club, which included Barack Obama.

Over the past several months, WND investigators have interviewed a number of members of the church who claim the president benefited from Wright’s efforts to help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife.

The 2003 New York Times story, “Double Lives on the Down Low,” said that though many black men reject “a gay culture they perceive as white and effeminate,” they “have settled on a new identity, with its own vocabulary and customs and its own name: Down Low.”

The Times said that while “there are black men who are openly gay, it seems that the majority of those having sex with men still lead secret lives, products of a black culture that deems masculinity and fatherhood as a black man’s primary responsibility – and homosexuality as a white man’s perversion.”

The Down Low Club at Trinity “doesn’t have meetings, and it isn’t like the Rotary Club,” a source identified for this article as “Carolyn” explained to a WND investigator in Chicago.

“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.

“He kept his eye on the young guys coming up in Trinity,” she said, “and if he spotted someone that acted or looked gay, then Wright would give them kind of a guidance counselor-type direction on how to keep down low – how to do the things they wanted to do, but then also getting married and looking ‘respectable’ – being part of black society.”

To Trinity insiders, the Down Low Club was simply known as “the program.”

“That’s the terminology. At Trinity, you’re urged to ‘get with the program,’” explained a male beneficiary of the Down Low Club. “What that means is it’s OK to go ahead and have sex with men, just as long as you ‘get with the program’ and marry a woman, somebody no straight guy would want to marry.”

The wife, the Down Low Club member explained, is “your ‘beard,’ your cover – so you can look like you’re living a straight life, even though you’re not.”

The male source was a “computer consultant” who claims not to know “scratch” about computers. But “getting with the program” at Trinity meant he could keep living a “gay” life and receive lots of computer consulting work thrown his way by Trinity, as long as he was willing to marry an unattractive woman who otherwise might have ended up a lonely spinster with no means to provide for living.

Carolyn explained that for many black families, attending Trinity was a way out of poverty.

“Trinity was a chance to network,” she said. “The stuff preached was hateful, but about 70 percent of those who go there ignore the radical rhetoric and just trying to get ahead.”

Carolyn said Trinity “helped a lot of blacks get successful and connected.”

“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”

Openly homosexual author and commentator Keith Boykin, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, mentions Obama’s former pastor, Wright, on pages 264-265 of his 2005 book “Beyond the Down Low: Sex, Lies, and Denial in Black America.” While Boykin doesn’t refer to the Down Low Club by name, he regards Wright as among a small group of ministers who are “coming to grips with sexuality and opening up a dialogue with heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals in the pews.”

Chicago-based author, businessman, speaker and HIV/AIDS activist J.L. King wrote a controversial book in 2005 called “On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of ‘Straight’ Black Men who Sleep with Men.”

He was a guest on Oprah Winfrey’s Chicago-based TV show in 2004, which described him this way: “J.L. King had a life most would envy. He married his high school sweetheart, had two healthy children and was on the fast track to success. But, unbeknownst to his family and friends, he had a dark secret—he was living on the down low.”

Remember the choir director

Carolyn and the other members of Trinity who provided statements corroborating her testimony were insistent that WND conceal their identities as a condition of being interviewed.

“I’m still scared to discuss any of this,” Carolyn said.

“At Trinity, if you even hint at talking about Obama being gay, you are reminded of our dear departed choir director,” she said. “He was killed, and it wasn’t a robbery. The Christmas presents weren’t touched. The TV was not taken, nothing in the apartment was missing.”

Carolyn’s reference was to Donald Young, the 47-year-old homosexual choirmaster at Trinity who died of multiple gunshot wounds in his Chicago apartment Dec. 24, 2007.

Young’s murder was preceded Nov. 17, 2007, with the execution-style murder of 25-year-old Larry Bland, another black gay member of Trinity United. He also was murdered in his home, dying of multiple gunshot wounds, according to his death certificate.

Just two days after the murder of Young, a third openly “gay” member of Wright’s church, Nate Spencer, reportedly died of septicemia, pneumonia and AIDS.

Sensational charges

As WND reported last month, a prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.

WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.

Shocking phone call

Sinclair gave an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department regarding contacts he says he had with Young just prior to Young’s murder.

According to Sinclair’s affidavit, published in its entirety beginning on page 56 of his book, he contacted Obama’s presidential campaign in September 2007. Sinclair says he requested that Obama correct claims he made about when he stopped abusing drugs to reflect use of crack cocaine during their sex encounters in November 1999.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama had stated famously he stopped using marijuana and cocaine in college, implying his drug abuse ended when he had completed his first two years of college at Occidental in Los Angeles.

Sinclair explained that when he made contact with the Obama campaign in September 2007, he provided callback numbers, in case the campaign wanted to get in touch with him.

Then, in late September or early October 2007, as Sinclair stated in his affidavit, he received a call from a male identifying himself as “Mr. Young,” who stated he was responding to calls Sinclair had made to the Obama campaign.

“This first call shocked me in that this ‘Mr. Young’ asked me why I had not asked Senator Obama to disclose sexual encounters I had with Mr. Obama in 1999,” Sinclair’s affidavit reads. “I was shocked as I had never mentioned to the campaign or anyone working for the campaign any sexual encounters. The call ended with Mr. Young stating I would hear from someone in a few days.”

Sinclair claims it was in a second call from “Mr. Young” that he began to suspect the man had been sexually intimate with Obama. Sinclair said he drew that conclusion “by the tone of the conversation” and by its “sexual nature.”

In late October 2007, Sinclair received a text message from “Mr. Young” stating Young “was intimately involved with Senator Obama and that Obama was discussing with him and his pastor how to publicly acknowledge Senator Obama’s drug use in 1999.”

The text message also indicated Obama wanted to make sure Sinclair had not discussed the sexual encounters or drug use with any media at that time.

In November 2007, Sinclair received a second text message from “Mr. Young,” advising him that Obama would publicly correct his statement as to the last time he used drugs and that Sinclair did not need to concern himself with publicly disclosing it.

Then, in early December 2007, Sinclair received his last contact with “Mr. Young,” with Young making it clear Obama had no intention of acknowledging publicly his use of crack cocaine in 1999.

After Young was murdered, Sinclair had several contacts with Young’s family.

“In several telephone conversations with his sisters, brothers, nieces and others, I was reassured that the family of Donald Young believed he was murdered to protect Barack Obama,” Sinclair wrote. “It also became clear, right from the start that members of the Young family were truly fearful of speaking out publicly, to this day, they fear for their own personal, physical safety.”

On July 17, 2010, the supermarket tabloid The Globe published an interview with Norma Jean Young, the 76-year-old mother of the slain choirmaster, in which she expressed fear that her son was murdered to protect Obama.

“What was the cause of my son’s death?” Norma Jean Young asked in the Globe interview. “I’m very suspicious that it may have been related to Obama. Donald and Obama were very close friends. Whatever went on with this is very private. I am suspicious of a cover-up!”

She insisted there is “more to the story,” calling on Chicago police to ramp up their investigation.

“I do believe they are shielding somebody or protecting somebody,” she told The Globe.

Asked who would benefit from a cover-up, Norma Jean Young said, “It could be anyone, including Obama.”

Shortly after the Globe interview was published, Norma Jean Young left Chicago and lived for a while in Peoria, Ill. Her current residence is unknown.

The murders of Donald Young and Larry Bland remain today open cases of unsolved homicide.

October 18, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See | , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments




Obama 2nd-term expose hits No. 8 on New York Times list

Book exposes exactly what Obama means by ‘economic fairness’

Published: 22 hours ago


“Fool Me Twice,” the bombshell book exposing President Obama’s specific second-term agenda, is climbing the New York Times bestseller list, coming in this week at No. 8.

The book, by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, has been on the Times list since its release earlier this month, first debuting at No. 18.

“The growing sales reflect the major interest by American voters in discovering Obama’s real second-term plans,” said Klein. “Just as he did in 2008, Obama is trying to again run on general campaign slogans, this time primarily so-called economic fairness. This book doesn’t let him get away with that. In fact, we expose exactly what Obama means by ‘economic fairness,’ and those plans are devastating.”

The full title is “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.”

“Fool Me Twice” documents all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught – jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,” electoral “reform,” national energy policy, Pentagon plans and more.

Most conservative books about Obama focus on his radical background and what he has done until now. A small number of ambitious projects attempt to show what America may look like after four more years of Obama based on generalities and what the president has already done. “Fool Me Twice” lays bare the devastating details and consequences of a second Obama term as president.

The book is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies, as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.

Here are a few highlights of dozens of second-term plans uncovered in “Fool Me Twice”:

  • Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and health care centers. A “federal solution” to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated “equitably” across the United States.
  • The re-creation of a 21st century version of FDR’s Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs.
  • Specific plans for a National Infrastructure Bank. This entity would “evaluate and finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance” and would finance “transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, wastewater, and other infrastructures.”
  • Wresting control of the military budget from Congress by attempting to place an “independent panel” in charge of military spending while slashing the defense budget in shocking ways.
  • The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and step up use of “peacekeeping” deployments.
  • A new “green” stimulus program and the founding of a federal “green”bank or “Energy Independence Trust,” which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in “clean energy.”
  • Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the federal government.

Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief for WND and hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. Klein’s program is one of only two weekend shows in the U.S. to make the Talkers Heavy Hundred official list of top American radio shows.

His previous books include “Red Army,” “The Manchurian President,” “The Late Great State of Israel” and “Schmoozing with Terrorists.”

Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. She is the blogger who created RezkoWatch, The Real Barack Obama, RBO and RBO2. She has appeared on hundreds of radio shows, contributed to numerous investigative articles and publications and is the co-author of “Red Army” and “The Manchurian President.”

Media interested in interviewing Klein or Elliott should contact Tim Bueler at or (530) 401-3285.

See the “Fool Me Twice” trailer:



September 1, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



I wouldn’t normally use a Rush Limbaugh transcript to support my argument, but in this case it suits much better than others.  We grew up in the same town, around the same time, but I don’t think he would know me from Eve!  Anyhowhoohahey, the point is that the differences in the Democratic superPAC, Romney-killer, campaign ad and Mitt Romney’s ad exposing Obama’s views and support of lazy-day welfare collecting, creates a huge divide in intent and content.  The ad showing Democrats support for Clinton’s bill designed to have entitlement recipients work for the money was well documented at that time.  The one individual who did not support that work program was Barack Obama.  Why?  Could it be that when a large segment of society becomes irrevocably dependent on government for life support, the odds are that that segment of dependent voters re-elect the one man willing to keep it coming?  He doesn’t care that sitting around, doing nothing to deserve a handout creates dependents that grow more incapable each day, and it ingrains the twisted thinking that welfare is deserved by virtue of being born into a welfare family–a generational welfare family.  This practice has turned a genuine helping hand into a pump, filling helpless hands with freebies–and after generations of this kind of daily expectations, people go from genuinely needy to greatly entitled.  Like children who never seem to get enough and are always angry when the ‘gifts’ stop coming, a dependent segment of society knows nothing else but how to be enraged at even the thought of an end to the gravy train.  There is no work ethic, no pride in ownership, and no self respect that comes with accomplishment and honest work.  Aren’t these people tired of being part of a sad, sad story?

Just Me

State-Run Media Equates Romney Welfare Ad with the Despicable Obama Murder Ad

August 09, 2012


RUSH: The State-Run Media is now equating the Romney welfare ad to the Obama murder ad.  And there is a school of thought, because the Romney welfare reform ad accusing Obama of taking the work requirements out of it….That’s a marshmallow ad.  And yet the Regime is over the moon, fit-to-be-tied angry about this ad.  Now, one of the schools of thought is that getting mad at Romney’s welfare ad gives cover to the “Romney is a murderer” ad.  Anyway, you’ll hear members of the mainstream media agreeing that the Romney welfare ad is just as bad as that murder ad.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: This is yesterdayand last night, a montage of various media figures from the Drive-By Media, equating the Romney welfare ad with the Obama murder ad. Now, one thing: This Romney ad on gutting welfare reform, accusing Obama of taking the work requirements out of it, they really are excited by this. They are just livid over this ad.  And it can only be for one reason, and that is: It’s the truth.  That’s what sends liberals and Democrats into orbit, is when you tell the truth about them.  That’s why they didn’t like the Swift Boat ads.  That’s why they didn’t like the Willie Horton ad.  And the reason they don’t like the welfare reform ad that Romney is running is it’s true.Because it’s a marshmallow ad.I mean, yeah, the text in the ad is accurate.  But it’s not delivered in a hard-hitting, table-pounding way.  It has a very measured tone.  It’s not boisterous by any stretch of the imagination.  And yet they are fit to be tied over this.  In fact, the New York Times has an editorial today.  The New York Times doesn’t even have a real news story on the “Romney Killed My Wife” ad.  The Politico is covering for Obama and the campaign on that ad.  The New York Times doesn’t even have a real story on it, but they have an editorial calling Romney’s welfare reform ad “a new low in the history of politics.” So here we have an audio sound bite of media people trying to equate these two ads.JIM ACOSTA: This is what both sides are doing these days.

DAVID “RODHAM” GERGEN: Both sides are boiling mad tonight at the other because each one thinks the other has been dishonest in a very unfair way — and, frankly, they’re both right.

JOHN AVLON: It’s prevalent on both sides —


JOHN AVLON: — directly these ugly ads.

KATE BOLDUAN: Independent fact-checkers, though, have said that the claims in the ad are false, both sides.

CAROL COSTELLO: They’re just flat-out wrong (cackling) and they’re untrue and that’s coming from both sides.

FRANK RICH: This sort of desperate, uh, fictionalization. And then, of course, you have on the Romney side their ridiculous ad. It doesn’t have murder in it but it does have —

PIERS MORGAN: The welfare ad!

FRANK RICH: The welfare ad.

PIERS MORGAN: Which is also riddled with downright lies!

FRANK RICH: It’s — it’s — it’s complete lies.

RUSH:  There aren’t any lies in the welfare reform ad! (laughs) The Republican governors the regime is talking about asking for waivers didn’t ask for waivers.  It’s Obama and the campaign lying through their teeth.  Folks, I have no reason to lie to you about this.  That’s what we were talking about at the top of the program: We don’t want to get up where we end up by lying.  That’s not sustainable.  It’s not a real, substantive win.  We happen to care about it.  Maybe we’re too honorable. I don’t know.

But I have no reason to lie to you about any of this, and there’s nothing in it for me to be wrong.  It does not help me to be wrong about any of this.  There aren’t any lies in the Romney welfare reform ad.  There’s no comparison in the two ads.  Obama’s got an ad saying, “Romney killed my wife!”  Here is that ad.  Let’s do it again.  And Romney has doubled down with a new welfare reform ad that’s really going to tick them off.  But here is this disgusting Obama ad blaming Romney for the death of this steelworker’s wife.

SOPTIC: (dramatic music) When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant I lost my health care (dramatic chime), and my family lost their health care (dramatic chime), and, uh, uh, a short time after that my wife became ill. (dramatic chime) I don’t know how long she was sick. Uhhh, and I think maybe she didn’t say anything because she knew that we — we couldn’t afford the insurance. And — and then one day she — she, uh, became ill (dramatic chime) and I took her up to the Jackson County hospital and — and — and admitted her for pneumonia. And that’s when they found the cancer. And by then we were stage 4. There was — there was nothing they could do for her. (dramatic chime) And she passed away in 22 days. (dramatic chime) I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he’s done to anyone. (dramatic chime) And I… Furthermore, I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.

RUSH:  “No, no. Mitt Romney killed my wife.  He’s not concerned.”  So the regime, when called on this, said, “We don’t know the guy’s story.  What we do know is that Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital took everybody’s health insurance.”  None of it happened.  The Obama campaign has been caught lying about this. They’ve been caught red-handed lying about the ad.  It was just a month ago that the Obama campaign hosted a conference call and ran ads featuring the same story that they claim to know nothing about, with the same guy.

Joe Soptic!

The same guy.

They all know this, but they don’t care.  They don’t care about that, and they don’t care what you think of them.  Their focus is the people reading about this on Facebook and Twitter.  Now, the way that works is people see the ad and they have whatever reaction to it they have. Let’s say they’re pro-Obama. They say, “Do you believe this?  Why Romney, Bain Capital, killed that poor woman!” So these people start tweeting this ad and putting it on their Facebook pages.  And it goes viral.

And then the pop culture set, who is not watching television for news anymore — they’re just getting their news from Twitter and Facebook — they see it. That’s what the Obama campaign wants. That’s how they want the ad to spread.  They want people to see the ad, devoid of any context.  They just want them to see the ad.  They want them to see this guy all sad. His wife died; Mitt Romney caused it.  That’s what they’re trying to achieve.  Not true? That doesn’t matter.  They don’t have any respect for the people of this country.

They’re not burdened with any of that.

They don’t care what people think of them.

What they care about is what people think of Romney.  And that’s what they’re attempting to do is create a caricature of Mitt Romney as a rich, insensitive guy who doesn’t care about what happens to anybody but himself.  People die.  He doesn’t care.  People get sick and get poisoned.  He doesn’t care.  People are poor.  He doesn’t care because he’s a rich guy.  And he won’t release his tax returns!

That’s all they’re doing.

They’re not trying to win the election with a triumph of their ideas.  They can’t.  They’re not trying to win the election with a recitation of Obama’s record.  They can’t.  All they can do — all they can do — is turn Mitt Romney into Satan.  That’s what they’re trying to do.  So naturally those of us opposed to Obama, when we see this happening — and we don’t see the campaign reacting to it in a way that makes it look like they understand what they’re up against — then, yeah, we get a little bit ticked off.  Now, here’s the new Romney campaign ad which is doubling down.  They do okay in their ads.  Sometimes they get rapid response out of the ads, which is good, as far as it goes.  And here’s the latest.

This is from Romney’s website, It’s a new ad entitled, “The Rise and Fall of Welfare Reform.”

BILL CLINTON:  (music) This bill will help people to go to work so they can stop drawing a welfare check and start drawing a paycheck.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Why should an able-bodied person receiving welfare benefits not be required to work?

SEN. JOHN KERRY:  It’s an important change.  Yes, people ought to work.  Hardworking American citizens should not be required to carry people.

JOE BIDEN:  I introduced a — a concept of workfare in 1986.  I remember being pilloried by my colleagues on the Democratic side at the time, uh, for suggesting that there be mandatory work requirement for anyone receiving welfare.

OBAMA:  I was not a huge supporter of — of the — the, UH, federal plan that was signed in 1996.

RUSH:  So you have all these Democrats talking about welfare reform and work requirements from Clinton to Carl Levin (the second voice) to John Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam). And you heard Biden in there.  And it ends with Obama (impression), “I didn’t agree with any of that.  I’m not a huge supporter of making people work for welfare.”  They’re going to be really ticked off because he’s not.

What was the number?  What is the number?  One hundred million Americans now receive a welfare check.  One hundred million Americans! In terms of the total population, one-third of this country gets a welfare check.  If you reduce that to the adult population, you’re getting close to 50% of the adult population that receives a welfare check. And that’s just fine with Obama, as you know.


RUSH:  And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the first Romney welfare reform ad that the New York Times says is a new low in American politics.  The New York Times says Romney hit the bottom on welfare with this ad.  “Mitt Romney’s campaign has hit new depths of truth-twisting with its accusation that President Obama plans to ‘gut welfare reform’ by ending federal work requirements. The claim is blatantly false, but it says a great deal about Mr. Romney’s increasingly desperate desire to define the president as something he is not.”

It’s a parallel universe, the Twilight Zone. They don’t have a single story of any substance of any weight about “Romney killed my wife.”  That ad is fine with them.

Here’s the ad that the New York Times is so exorcized over…

ANNOUNCER:  But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.  Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job.  They’d just send you your welfare check.  And welfare-to-work goes back to being plain old welfare.  Mitt Romney will restore the work requirement because it works.

RUSH:  That’s exactly what Obama did — and he did it very quietly, by the way.  There was no big fanfare, no celebratory announcement.  There was no calling the press, no gathering in the Rose Garden and saying, “Hey look at the vast and wonderful great improvements that I am making in welfare!” They did this under cover of darkness, late in the day. Quietly.  No ceremony whatsoever.  If it’s such a great damn thing, why no pomp and circumstance?  And this ad you just heard, that’s the ad the New York Times says is the most despicable thing yet.

Now, the New York Times, they did do a fact-check on the “Romney Killed My Wife” ad.  And the only thing they said about it was the super PAC “Romney Killed My Wife” ad “compresses time in a way that links the closure of the steel plant with Mrs. Soptic’s fatal illness.”  That’s all they said about it.  That’s all they said.


August 24, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

Aug 24, 2012

Obama has millions of fake Twitter followers

By David Jackson, USA TODAY
Updated 1h 22m ago
AP photos

President Obama’s Twitter account has 18.8 million followers — but more than half of them really don’t exist, according to reports.

A new Web tool has determined that 70% of Obama’s crowd includes “fake followers,” The New York Times reports in a story about how Twitter followers can be purchased.

“The practice has become so widespread that StatusPeople, a social media management company in London, released a Web tool last month called the Fake Follower Check that it says can ascertain how many fake followers you and your friends have,” the Times reports.

“Fake accounts tend to follow a lot of people but have few followers,” said Rob Waller, a founder of StatusPeople. “We then combine that with a few other metrics to confirm the account is fake.”

Notes the Times:

If accurate, the number of fake followers out there is surprising. According to the StatusPeople tool, 71 percent of Lady Gaga’s nearly 29 million followers are “fake” or “inactive.” So are 70 percent of President Obama’s nearly 19 million followers.

Republican opponent Mitt Romney has far fewer Twitter followers — not quite 900,000 — but it’s a good bet that some of them are fake as well.

Both campaigns have denied buying Twitter followers.

See photos of: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Lady Gaga

August 24, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: