But as for me and my house ...
TREASON! POTUS KNEW! CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE SEEKS ANSWERS - POTUS LIES TO REPORTER/AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHITE HOUSE SILENT. COVER-UP CONTINUES!
In light of revelations over the last two months concerning the attack in Benghazi, Libya, it is impossible that the President of the United States was not aware of events as they were happening. Through various communications from U.S. personnel in the region, the administration had previous knowledge that al Qaeda was present and that the safety of our personnel was tenuous.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but is this not a treasonous offense? Enemy forces were aided in their attack because not only did the administration refuse to provide the additional security repeatedly requested, nor did they leave the security at the same level. The administration removed security, leaving our personnel in the cross-hairs, knowing the enemy would take advantage of the obvious weakness. The administration was advised a week prior of 'chatter' that there would be Islamic action on the upcoming anniversary of September 11, 2001.
Not one person interviewed, or appearing before the House Armed Services Committee, has stated that the administration, and specifically POTUS, was not aware of the situation. Nor has anyone come forward with proof to the contrary.
It has become painfully obvious that what has occurred since September 11, 2012, is a cover-up; and, a very poor one, at that.
In response to Barack Hussein Obama's October 26th interview, and his statement to the reporter, "I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” [emphasis added], Congressional House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon, wrote a letter to POTUS requesting information, as follows:
1) The person(s) names who were given the 'first directive' and if it was
communicated to the military and other agencies verbally or in writing.
2) Did POTUS specifically direct the military to 'move available assets into
Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi' at any point on
9/11/12; and, if so, which assets?
3) Did POTUS provide authority (other than intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance - ISR - assets) for the military to take any and all actions
necessary to secure said personnel, including specific authority to enter
Libyan airspace on 9/11/12?
4) Did POTUS communicate with and/or receive any recommendations from
the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any
Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding available
military support and orders POTUS had given regarding U.S. personnel in
Benghazi on September 11th?
Essentially, the Committee is demanding a description of the events that took place and people involved after POTUS was advised of the attack.
First, it was a video that caused a demonstration that got out of control (proven false). Then, the administration didn't know it was happening at the time (proven false). Then, the President claims he took action (testimony to the contrary).
The administration has a huge problem, as all liars do: proving the lie to be true in light of all the evidence to the contrary.
Do you think answers will be forthcoming before the election? Have they ever been promptly given by this administration? Never!
Time to call your Representatives again, people!
Aaron Klein of WorldNet Daily reported that a test donation of $15 was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address, yet the campaign site did not refuse the donation.
"Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign," WND reported. The website did not request the card’s security code, either.
Foreign donations are illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.
The test contributions were made to see if media reports were correct in their assertions that foreigners could donate to the Obama campaign but not to the Romney site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.
After the donation, the e-mail address for the fake foreign donor received several solicitations from the Obama campaign requesting additional donations.
I previously posted articles concerning our Constitutional rights and the entities wanting to remove free speech and the Muslim influence over government.
Here's more: [Article excerpts are italicized and words emphasized are my doing.]
A New Jersey Imam has come out in support of disregarding the U.S. Constitution in favor of instituting Sharia law.
Mohammad Qatanani, an Imam of one of the largest New Jersey mosques, said that anyone that criticizes Islam was a direct threat on our national security.
Forget is regarded as a 'moderate' Muslim and proponent to get along with Jews and Christians. Forget, if you can, the fact that Qatanani lied on his 1993 immigration application and deportation proceedings were instituted; but, later the deportation was ruled against in U.S. court. Forget that the Israeli government stated that Qatanani had ties to Hamas. Read his own words and tell me that Qatanani's 'let's all get along attitude' has not changed from his pre-citizen stance:
“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”
We?!? If Qatanani wants to remove our Constitutional rights, then he is no American! So, it's my responsibility that Muslims get violently angry?!?
Qatanani said he thinks agitators who slander Islam, or, more specifically, the Prophet Muhammad, incite violence and hence, pose a national security risk that threatens the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Thus, America should disregard its First Amendment as it is typically applied and instead act in accordance with sharia law for the ultimate “good” of society.
Wait a minute! Muslims don't stop speaking against Jews and Christians, but no one is allowed to speak the truth about their false religion? You don't see anyone else behaving that way! And, they get away with it right here in the U.S.A.
Muslims moved around the world to live among the 'infidels' they despise for one sole purpose: to be ready when their al Madhi (copying the Judaic Messiah and Christian Christ) comes to claim the ten caliphates. The proof is that they are rude to Americans. Why would you be rude to the people you decided to live among in a country in which you want to live? Because you were told to live there.
I have been called many derogatory names more times than I care to remember. I won't respond. And, I certainly won't throw rocks at them or slit their throat! That's called recognizing their right to free speech.
It's my responsibility to live under the Constitution of this United States of America and tell the truth! Either abide by the laws of the country you move to or leave!
We should have sent Qatanani packing because the Constitution of Islam (Q'uran) and resulting Sharia law takes precedence over their oath to the Constitution of the United States - doesn't it, Mr. Ellison? Yes, it does. Ex-terrorist and ex-Muslim, Walid Shoebat, repeatedly warns us. Take heed, America!
The U.S. Department of Justice website has ditched the red white and blue banner – and what it’s been replaced with is quite disturbing to say the least. The staunch black background is reminiscent of a Muslim flag. [Or, Nazis] Then there’s the caption “The common law is the will of mankind issuing from the life of the people.” The quote is by C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930′s was a leading and voiced proponent of “The international law” movement. The goal of this movement was simple: impose global common law by selling the idea of global worker rights. The combination of color and slogan on the DOJ website gives one the impression that our government is slowly – one department at a time – moving towards Marxism and implantation of Sharia law.
It should alarm every U.S. citizen that the White House visitor logs reveal an unsettling fact: top U.S. policy-makers in this Administration are receiving visitors who have been proven in American courts to support, both idealistically and monetarily, the Islamic jihad directed at the West.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a non-profit investigative organization founded in 1995. IPT is the world's most comprehensive data gathering center on Islamic terrorist organizations, their activities, funding and associated front groups around the world. Many government offices, including the U.S. Congress, law enforcement agencies, and public policy forums, utilize IPT.
A year-long investigation by IPT has revealed there have been hundreds of visits to the White House by known radical Islamists who met with top administration officials since 2010.
Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.
One example is Mohamed Elibiary who was appointed by DHS Chief, Janet Napolitano, to the Homeland Security Advisory Council in October, 2010. Elibiary is an outspoken proponent of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood, and radical New York Imam Siraj Wahhaj. Elibiary has also accused the U.S. government of waging a war on Islam.
Elibiary's organization, the Freedom and Justice Foundation (FJF), founded in 2002, had its tax-exempt status revoked in May, 2010, for failing to file Form 990 for at least three years and reportedly since its inception. The 990 filing provides information on a the organization's mission, programs and finances, including the sources of income. Despite the revocation, FJF continued to solicit donations.
Further, FJF is an affiliate of the Texas Islamic Council, whose directors include H. Mustafaa Carroll, executive director of the Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a part of a Hamas-support network.
Texas Department of Public Safety (TPDS) Director, Steve McCraw, spoke with
DHS Deputy Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis Bart Johnson, on Monday, October 31, 2011, requesting DHS begin an investigation concerning allegations that Elibiary used his DHS security clearance to access the HS SLIC database and downloaded classified documents and reports, then 'shopped' the information to the media.
TPDS confirmed the allegations, and the House Judiciary Committee launched its own investigation, demanding Janet Napolitano's explanation, at which time she claimed no knowledge of Elibiary's actions. Remember that Mr. Johnson had already been contacted by Mr. McCraw.
Appearing again before the Committee in July, 2012, Elibiary's boss, Janet Napolitano, was quite evasive. Initially, the events did not occur; however, she then told the Committee that the report was misleading and the TDPS was wrong. Then she said Elibiary did access some information, but it only became an issue because he is Muslim.
Elibiary was the only member of a twenty-six member Homeland Security Advisory Council to be given security clearance which allowed access to the Homeland Security State and Local Intellligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, despite his associations and revocation of FJF's tax-exempt status.
It is quite disturbing that an outside adviser (as are all members of this Council) who is not a DHS employee with properly-screened security clearance, and who is not employed by any state or local law enforcement agency, would be given access to a database intended for intelligence sharing between U.S. agencies. Whoever authorized Elibiary's security clearance, allowing access to highly sensitive material, including FBI source reporting and terror watch lists, is at least guilty of great irresponsibility, and at most treason.
Elibiary also worked with the FBI, National Counterterrorism Center, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Who knows what other documents he accessed and to whom he 'peddled' those documents! Elibiary's security clearance was finally revoked in November, 2011.
During the Committee proceedings, Ms. Napolitano also stated she did not know of anyone with known terrorist organization ties visiting the White House, despite the proof contained in the visitor logs.
If that's horrifying enough, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) seems to enjoy the closest working relationship with the Administration. MPAC's stated doctrines include anti-semitism, promoting a reduced terrorist threat, refusal to cooperate with Congress, denouncing counterterrorism tools, and hostility toward law enforcement.
MPAC's agenda is to remove references to Islam and terrorists from U.S. security dialogue. Fifteen MPAC officials have been welcomed by the White House, including its executive director, who enjoyed at least six White House visits between September, 2009, and July, 2011; and, MPAC's government liaison who visited the White House 10 times between July, 2010, and May, 2012.
This administration's peculiarly large welcome mat to radical Islamists can only serve to compromise American security. As a result of these horrific revelations of what has been occurring in the White House, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security, I can't help but notice that - again - the Administration is anything but transparent, as was promised. Doesn't that bother anyone else?
And, I can't forget his statement: 'If I don't have this done in three years ...' (See video below) I guess he's getting it done! But, that depends on what 'it' really is.
If we're judged by the company we keep, what does that tell you about Barack Hussein Obama?
When the framers of the Constitution of the United States sent the document for ratification by the States, most were concerned that it did not sufficiently ensure the rights of the people and States, holding too much power in the Federal government. Therefore, the first ten amendments called The Bill of Rights was adopted.
The First Amendment reads as follows:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
The First Amendment ensures that the Federal government cannot do any of the following:
(1) establish one religion as the religion of the country, as monarchies had done.
(2) reduce and/or remove freedom of speech even by minute measures.
(3) remove the ability of the people to demonstrate or discuss government
actions in groups, which the monarchies and dictatorships have done.
(4) prevent people (or states) from asking the government from relief from
unfair treatment. This was applied by the Supreme Court after the Civil War.
Notice that part of the First Amendment commonly referred to as 'separation of church and state' does nothing to remove religion from the fabric of society, in total contradiction to what atheists and secularists want you to believe. This first lie caused some to willingly relinquish a Constitutional right.
I am going to address item (2), because the Constitution ensures the citizens of the United States that one of the responsibilities of the Federal government is 'to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.' That is why the oath of every elected official and military officer begins, 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....'
Freedom of speech is a great liberty we have taken for granted. For one person to have this Constitutional liberty, he or she must grant the same liberty to another, despite the fact neither may like what the other is espousing. If one is prevented from publicly speaking his beliefs for any reason, the other is in jeopardy of losing his liberty, as well.
The United States has always been a 'melting pot' - but let's understand that what is already in the pot has much greater volume and is only seasoned by any additions. What is in the pot remains essentially the same. Vegetable soup remains vegetable soup; chicken soup remains chicken soup. The additions add flavor, yet must meld into the mix. If not, the soup is inedible.
In the past, immigrants were taunted, ridiculed and treated downright hatefully. They lived among their own for support. However, their desire and that for their children and grandchildren was to become part of the soup. I respect and admire their fortitude! Immigrants past have always desired to become American - not so today. They have ruined the soup!
What has resulted is intolerance of intolerance; and, everything that is disagreeable to anyone who considers themselves tolerant is labeled 'hate speech'. There are efforts in our own government to create a law removing a portion of our freedom of speech. Remember the Bill of Rights? Are we going to allow them to abridge - or take away a little bit - of our freedom of speech? It may sound like a good idea, but keep whittling away one freedom after another and pretty soon, you have no freedoms left!
Today, we are not only fighting amongst the citizens of the 'melting pot', but there are foreigners who seek to invade and remove our greatest 'Blessing' provided, and the masses seem to be in agreement! The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, attacked our Constitution which the UN seeks to over-rule by saying, 'when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.' Mr. Ki-moon erroneously said 'freedom of expression' and not freedom of speech.
How is it that the United Nations sees itself as a ruler over rather than a servant of the nations? Has the UN become so arrogant that it views itself as ruler over the laws of the nations it was supposed to serve?
Here, the Constitution to which our elected officials and military have sworn an oath to defend, dictates our government has the responsibility to 'provide for the common defence'. [defense] The Constitution is being attacked by foreign 'invaders' and our officials don't stand up and say, 'Don't Tread on our Constitution.'
I find it ludicrous to defend the only 'religion' which has the most heinously intolerant 'doctrine' in the world, while those who consider themselves tolerant call those who speak the truth about Islam ugly names and say we are guilty of 'religious hatred,' as Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard did in her recent UN speech. Words cannot slice throats as Muslims have done. Nor can words crucify, which Muslims have resurrected from Roman history for those who leave Islam.
If you so willingly relinquish one Constitutional right, the others will fall away - one by one, until you have no Constitution upon which to stand. The enemies win. This is why I continue to fight to wake you all up! You have drunk the Kool-aid and your children are in danger!
If you don't like what I say - don't listen - don't read it. You have still have the freedom to choose. But, remember: if they take my rights away, your rights aren't far behind.
Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, threatened to subpoena the Department of Health and Human Services if it does not turn over documents by Thursday (yesterday) on a program he claims is being used to "buy" the election by hiding the Medicare cuts in ObamaCare.
"Your staff has run out of excuses and the long delay in providing these documents is inexcusable," Issa wrote Kathleen Sebelius, Health Secretary.
The request was made months ago for documents concerning an $8 Billion program that pays bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans to mask the first round of Medicare Advantage cuts that would have begun this week.
The effects of ObamaCare's $200 Billion (71%) in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade are being delayed by the bonus program which only stays in effect until 2014. Of course, if he's re-elected, you can't do anything about it!
"What they're really doing is trying on the eve of an election not to have seniors realize that the cuts to Medicare Advantage were real," Issa said.
HHS had months to comply with the Committee's request but has repeatedly delayed. Seems strangely familiar. Oh, yeah. Fast and Furious. I see a trend here! Guess we'll have to wait and see. Looks like AARP threw
Obama was given a binder for Muslims to be hired in his administration by Muslim Keith Ellison - Representative, Minnesota. Read the article from the 2009 Denver Post. Folder - Binder - Who Cares?!? Get Over It!
Despite Requests and Warnings: U.S. Hired British Company Which in Turn Hired Unarmed Libyans to Secure U.S. Embassy in Benghazi!
The State Department hired Blue Mountain Group (formerly Pilgrim Elite), a private security firm (but not one of the eight the U.S. usually uses), to guard the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. The 2011 revolt that ended Gaddafi's rule and life, began in Benghazi.
The claims by the State Department regarding its actions are contradicted by testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and various memoranda and supporting documents.
Before last week's hearing, of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Charlene Lamb, admitted that she denied requests for additional security for U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya.
Regional security officer for the U.S. Embassy in Libya until July, 2012, Eric Nordstrom, had prepared a memoranda before leaving his post, outlining the violence from June, 2011 through July, 2012. Eric Nordstrom, testified that Ms. Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low."
According to Nordstrom, Patrick Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, issued a "decision memo" in December 2011 requiring that the Benghazi post be manned with five diplomatic security agents, but that it usually had only three or four.
Nordstrom sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July, 2012, requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no response to either request.
A CBS report states as follows:
"The State Department has formed a special panel to investigate the consulate attack but have told CBS News' U.S. State Department correspondent Margaret Brennan that any withdrawal of security personnel prior to the Benghazi attack had "no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya overall or in Benghazi specifically." There was a Quick Reaction Force on standby in Tripoli to deploy if needed. That team did arrive in Benghazi on the night of the attack, but not until hours after the assault began."
But, the Quick Reaction Force obviously couldn't get there quickly enough and it was the State Department's job to know that. Likewise, the State Department was warned that the reduced number of U.S. Security Agents and the ragtag, unarmed band of local yokels was dangerous under the circumstances. The State Department should have understood that the hired guards could not provide the necessary security armed with only flashlights and batons. They were told by their 'commander,' a former English teacher who had never even held a gun, to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack.
There's more! Read the riveting CBS reports and memoranda. There is also a link to another article on the security personnel withdrawal. I highly recommend them.
Reuters claims that in emails it obtained, State Department security officials had concerns about the reliability of some of the guards at the mission months before the attack. But they did nothing!
I guess Ms. Lamb will fall on the sword for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton this time. But, I don't believe for a moment that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State didn't advise the Secretary of State and that she didn't advise the POTUS.
Please Post a Comment or Contact Us Below