List of Obama’s Military Purge, the count nears 200

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

List of Obama’s Military Purge, the count nears 200: Don pointed out that the messiah seems to be following the footsteps of Comrade Stalin. 
 photo 204c9aa0-6bd3-4eac-bb22-397a5309653f_zps4511b38f.png
Hat/Tip to The Free Patriot.

As quietly as he can, in his traditional “leading from behind” M.O., President Obama seems to be purging the military. The Free Patriot has published the actual list of military brass Obama has fired.

When we brought you the 9 Military Commanders it was apparent that President Obama was purging the military top brass. When two days later two more were fired, many reporters started trying to get to the bottom of what President Obama was doing with what he called “my military”. Now what was a noticeable purge of commanders is now topped 197 since 2009!

While the top listed reason is sex, there seems to be several questionable reasons why these guys are being fired. From dereliction of duty to not saluting properly. The list continues to grow.

Don’t forget that Obama has referenced the United States Military as “my military” on more than one occasion; nor should we forget that he wanted a “civilian defense force.”

.

.

From Breitbart.com Facebook Page comes a long and detailed list with links!

There have been rather a lot, to say the least, of firings, demotions, relievings and disciplinings of hundreds of officers in our military under this present regime. The grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded” to you-name-it-you-got-it…and, now you’re gonna’ get it!

Listed below are some of the various commanders, vice-commanders, etc. who have been relieved, fired, forced into early retirement and otherwise let go of…or, gotten rid of…depending on how one chooses to interpret all this. Grand Total thus far: 197 (Mostly Colonel and above. 127 AF majors included…they all occurred at one time, apparently). Also, provided are 11 links to various articles about said officers and the various ends of their military careers.

This does not include any of the stories about the pressure or attacks, if you will, made on those of all ranks, high and low, done by this regime or their “agents” and based on religious grounds or their stances on traditional marriage or statements or actions that have been deemed offensive to Islam…beliefs held by many who have been persecuted, if not out-right prosecuted, for said religious and/or traditional belief stances.

This if offered not as proof of any attempt to purge our military of those deemed un-fit by this present regime. It is simply offered as a PARTIAL listing of what has happened so far under the present “C-i-C.” Please note “PARTIAL.” This writer does not claim this list is complete.

It remains to be seen if more “disciplinary actions” are taken or are warranted. I simply find myself asking, as the picture below asks:

What Is Happening to Our Military?! ~cj

Grand Total: 197 Officers

Year: 2013 (9, so far).

1. Marine Col. Daren Margolin – Quantico – Oct. 18, 2013. Was in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion.
2. Marine Major General C.M.M. Gurganus – Oct. 12, 2013. Commander Regional Command Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) in Afghanistan.
3. AF Major Gen. Michael Carey – Oct. 8, 2013. 2-star commander of 20th Air Force. 3 wings of ICBMs. 450 nukes. Covered 3 AF bases across nation.
4. Navy Vice-Admiral Tim Guardina – Oct. 9, 2013. 3-star vice-commander all US nuclear forces (land/air/sea). Relieved of command. Demoted in rank to 2-stars.
5. Marine Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant – September 2013. Director of strategic planning and policy for U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the Aviation Wing At Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.
6. Marine Col. James Christmas – July 18, 2013. Commanded 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit. Also, commanded the new Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit.
7. Army Brigadier General Bryan Roberts – May 2013. Commander, Ft. Jackson, SC.
8. Marine Gen. James Mattis – May 2013. Chief of CentCom.
9. Army Major General Ralph Baker – April 2013. Commander of Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, Africa

Year: 2012 (Overall total – 4 +24 = 28 Final total).

1. Marine General John R. Allen – Nov. 13, 2012. Commander, ISAF – International Security Assistance Force.
2. Army General David Petraeus – Nov. 9, 2012. Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A). Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012.
3. Navy Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette – Oct. 27, 2102. Commander, USS John C. Stennis strike group. Relieved within a day or so of Benghazi.
4. Army General Carter F. Ham – Oct. 18, 2012. Commander, AFRICOM. Relieved during Benghazi from direct command of AFRICOM.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Naval Officers (all in 2012): Total – 24

1. Cmdr. Derick Armstrong, Commander, guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans.
2. Cmdr. Martin Arriola, Commander, USS Porter.
3. Capt. Antonio Cardoso, Commander, of Training Support Center San Diego.
4. Capt. James CoBell, Commander, Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic.
5. Cmdr. Joseph E. Darlak, Commander, USS Vandegrift.
6. Cmdr. Franklin Fernandez, Commander, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24.
7. Cmdr. Ray Hartman, Commander, amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry.
8. Cmdr. Jon Haydel, Commander, USS San Diego.
9. Cmdr. Diego Hernandez, Commander, ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming.
10. Cmdr. Lee Hoey, Commander, Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego.
11. Cmdr. Dennis Klein, Commander, submarine USS Columbia.
12. Capt. Marcia “Kim” Lyons, Commander, Naval Health Clinic New England.
13. Capt. Chuck Litchfield, Commander, USS Essex.
14. Capt. Robert Marin, Commander, USS Cowpens.
15. Capt. Sean McDonell, Commander, Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14.
16. Cmdr. Corrine Parker, Commander, Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1.
17. Capt. Lisa Raimondo, Commander, Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, Md.
18. Capt. Jeffrey Riedel, Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program.
19. Cmdr. Sara Santoski, Commander, Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15.
20. Cmdr. Sheryl Tannahill, Commander, Navy Operational Support Center Nashville.
21. Cmdr. Michael Ward, Commander, USS Pittsburgh.
22. Capt. Michael Wiegand, Commander, Southwest Regional Maintenance Center.
23. Capt. Ted Williams, Commander, Mount Whitney.
24. Cmdr. Jeffrey Wissel, Commander, of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1.

Year: 2011 Total – 1 + 157 = 158 overall

Army Major Gen. Peter Fuller – May 2011. A top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

157 Air Force majors. Military advocates decry ‘illegal’ early terminations of 157 Air Force majors

Year: 2010 Total – 1 ( total)

1. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal – June 2010. Overall commander Afghanistan. Replaced by Gen. Petraeus.

1. Year: 2009 Total – 1 (total)
Army Gen. David D. McKiernan – 2009. First 4-star relieved since Truman relieved MacArthur. Commanded in Afghanistan.~Breitbart Facebook Picture

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/25/military-advocates-decry-illegal-early-terminations-of-157-air-force-majors/#ixzz2iU6Zix8T

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37866754/ns/us_news-military/t/obama-relieves-mcchrystal-command/#.UmaXPlMwK5V

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67653.html

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130718/CAREERS03/307180027/Commander-22nd-Marine-Expeditionary-Unit-relieved-command

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131018/CAREERS03/310280001/Colonel-charge-Quantico-s-Security-Battalion-relieved

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/09/3-star-navy-admiral-fired-as-deputy-chief-nuclear-command-demoted-to-2-star

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/11/air-force-general-in-charge-nuclear-missiles-to-be-fired-officials-say/?intcmp=latestnews

(http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/navy-commanders-relieved-of-duty-in-2012-1.168999

http://www.stripes.com/news/uss-the-sullivans-armstrong-is-10th-commanding-officer-fired-this-year-1.176692

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131018/CAREERS03/310280001/Colonel-charge-Quantico-s-Security-Battalion-relieved

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/22/missteps-handling-nation-nuclear-arsenal/?

All the links and sources are verifiable. This is scary folks, what is going on?

Share

Greatest Hits: US Senator Exposes ZIP Codes Where Criminal Illegals Were Released By Obama Administration

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

US Senator Exposes ZIP Codes Where Criminal Illegals Were Released By Obama Administration:  Here is a great post from Don, which happens to be the most visited post in the site’s history. 

 photo catchamprelease_zps188fd847.jpg

Hat/Tip to The Conservative Tribune.

Check The List For YOUR Zip Code

Even though he’s waiting until after the mid-term elections to issue his amnesty-granting executive order, President Obama is hardly allowing his administration to sit idly by on this issue.

Since the federal government announced its plan to place illegal immigrants in communities all across the United States weeks ago, Americans have been furious. It’s all part of President Obama’s plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

It’s frustrating enough to hear that these immigrants are being placed all over the U.S. and supported by our government, but it’s even more upsetting when they’re being dumped in your town.

Public opposition to his plans have made Obama work in the shadows on this.

Residents have been fighting back against this plan, doing whatever they can to stand up for their own rights and the rights of their children.

And Obama knows we don’t want our towns overrun. He knows people are angry, and that’s why he has been hiding the locations of where he’s putting these people. And it’s not just the thousands of illegal children that have crossed our southern border – there are a large amount of illegal immigrants with criminal histories that have been detained by our government, known as criminal aliens.

People on the right complain about establishment Republicans and I’ve seen Senator Chuck Grassley’s name on the “RINO” lists, but I think in this case, we owe him a debt of gratitude.

President Obama has decided to place them in our communities too. That’s why when Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, got a hold of a list of the locations where the illegal immigrants are being placed, he released it to the public.

The Department of Homeland Security released a list of 134 zip codes across the United States where illegal immigrants with criminal records have been placed. Here are a list of the zip codes:

Grassley Letter

The letter is a response to Senator Grassley’s inquiry regarding the immigrants, and claims that the Department does have the right to release these immigrants as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. The letter also includes a list of detention facilities – organized by state – where criminal aliens have been placed. Check the list to see if there are any in your community.

We are extremely grateful to Senator Grassley for releasing this list to the public. It’s a matter of public safety and security, and we have the right to know when criminal aliens are being placed in our own communities. We encourage you to closely read this letter and determine if you will personally be affected by the placement of these criminal aliens.

Read the full story here.

Bad Blue Uncensored News

Doug Ross

Young Conservatives

WeaselZippers

ALIPAC

Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal

True News USA

Angry Mike’s Hood

100% Fed Up

‘Nox & Friends

Independent Sentinel

iotwreport.com

Socialism Is Not The Answer

What’s Right For The USA

Bert Powers

Steve Quayle

Share

Obama Administration Admits To Lawlessness

Share

illegal women with DACA and DAPA signs

 

Hat/Tip to Caroline May at Breitbart.

Old and busted: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it….

New and wow: If a government lawyer admits the President broke the law and no MSM is around to hear it…


 

The Obama administration violated U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s injunction halting President Obama’s executive amnesty programs, Justice Department lawyers have admitted to the court, according to the Washington Times.

The Times reports that in a late night filing Thursday, Justice Department lawyers revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had issued some 2,000 three-year work permits (as opposed to the currently permissible two-year permits) to illegal immigrants granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The issuance of the three-year work permits — an aspect of Obama’s November 20 executive actions which expanded DACA — was violation of Hanen’s February 16 injunction preventing the executive amnesty programs from going forward.

This occurred despite repeated statements from administration officials that they were abiding by the injunction.

“The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the Times quoted the lawyers, who added they would get more information to Hanen about what went awry by May 15.

According to the Times, DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson has requested the DHS inspector general look into the snafu and officials are looking into replacing the three-year permits DHS improperly issued with the proper two-year ones.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Unbelievable: Feds Complicit In Illegal Border Smuggling Tunnel

Share

View of a trans-border tunnel and wagons

 

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com.

Gee, I wonder if Obama’s DHS is turning a blind eye to the drug smugglers so that they can earn a spot on the “Shroom Gang”?


 

tunnel_230769kLast week, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) joined Sean to inform him of a sophisticated illegal smuggling tunnel built at the Arizona-Mexico border. According to Border Patrol agent, Chris Cabrera, the agency was aware of the tunnel (and wanted to patrol it), but were told not to by their superiors.

Below is Rep. Salmon’s letter to DHS secretary Jeh Johnson which details his concerns about the tunnel:

Secretary Johnson,

Recently, Arizona’s largest cross-border smuggling tunnel was discovered in Naco, AZ. According to news reports, this tunnel is one of the more highly sophisticated smuggling tunnels, replete with hydraulics, ventilation, and lighting systems.

Unfortunately, the existence of this tunnel does not seem to have been brought to light by federal law enforcement agencies. Rather, it appears that the discovery of this sophisticated tunnel was merely a byproduct of a traffic-stop-turned-drug-bust by a local law enforcement officer.

With this in mind, I was quite alarmed to hear the testimony given by Border Patrol Agent, Chris Cabrera, on March 17, 2015 in a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing. In this testimony, he said: “our intel knew for some time that that tunnel was being used and that we should patrol that area more aggressively.” To my amazement, he went on to say that Border Patrol agents were not allowed by management to work in or patrol that area.

I am very concerned that such extensive and sophisticated infrastructure was—and presumably continues to be—built and operated right beneath our feet without action being taken by federal law enforcement. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned by the allegations that management within Customs and Border Patrol had intelligence indicating the existence of this tunnel and did not allow our agents to work or patrol the area.

With these concerns, it is imperative that we learn more about the investigation that ostensibly would have taken place on such an expansive and sophisticated tunnel. Unfortunately, my office has yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to what kind of investigations have been done to determine to the extent possible what dangerous items, materials and/or individuals were transported through that tunnel and into our communities.

During the course of my own investigation, I learned that at least one local landowner is being pressured to sign forms that would allow access to a portion of his/her land that the tunnel runs under in order to fill it with concrete. Without information as to the extent of your agency’s investigation, this is very alarming as destroying the tunnel would make it seemingly impossible to conduct additional tests and complete a thorough investigation.  With this in mind, I ask:

Has this tunnel been thoroughly tested for evidence of the transport of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons?

Has DHS conducted a forensic study to learn where the materials for the tunnel were procured and, if possible, by whom?

Have investigations been conducted to determine whether or not foreign agents of terrorism have used the tunnel to enter the United States of America?

Have investigations been conducted to determine what intelligence federal law enforcement had and when they had it?

Have investigations been conducted to determine whether Border Patrol management did in fact restrict the access of Border Patrol agents around the area of this tunnel?

Will you act immediately to ensure that this tunnel is not destroyed or otherwise altered until we can ensure that proper investigations of this tunnel have been completed?

I firmly believe that the American people deserve answers, especially those families and communities whose safety is directly impacted.  I sincerely hope that you will join me in calling for the delay of any measure that would destroy the tunnel or cause evidence to be altered until the Department of Homeland Security and the American people receive answers. I thank you for your assistance in this matter and look forward to your timely response.

Signed,

Matt Salmon

Member of Congress

.

.

.

Share

TED CRUZ: The Blood Of Millions Will Be On Obama’s Head If This Insane Iran Deal Goes Forward

Share

nuclear-explosion-600x250

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

While the feckless GOP leadership in the Senate has kissed Obama’s ass yet again, this time seemingly allowing HIM to perform THEIR Constitutionally mandated duty, that of approving treaties with foreign governments; Ted Cruz is not going down quietly.

Sen. Ted Cruz is an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s bizarre deal to loosen sanctions on Iran and allow it to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

A complicit GOP establishment — including “craven moron” Bob Corker and the mendacious malignancy known as Mitch McConnell are Obama’s co-conspirators — and have essentially ceded the Senate’s Constitutionally authorized power to ratify any treaty signed by the Executive.

Ted Cruz — reviled by the hacks in both parties — is one of the few statesmen left in Congress willing to fight this insane abdication of sanity on the part of Obama and the GOP fogies. Tonight Cruz took to the Senate floor to rip Obama’s deal and the GOP Establishment’s support for it.

[Cruz told] his colleagues that the nuclear deal with Iran will lead to the deaths of “millions of Americans.”

If President Barack Obama moves forward to provide sanctions relief to Iran as part of the deal, “the blood of the men and women and children who will be murdered by those terrorists will be directly on the hands of this administration,” Cruz warned.

After being blocked from calling a vote on an amendment to the Iran bill to raise the threshold for congressional approval of the nuclear deal, Cruz accused senators of “abrogating our authority and responsibility.”

…”This deal makes war a certainty,” promised Cruz, a Republican contender for president in the 2016 election.

Cruz has repeatedly insisted that Congress require any nuclear deal with Iran to include recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The Obama administration has held firm to the position that the negotiations should be narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

…Democrats are afraid to vote, Cruz told reporters in the Capitol. “They are terrified of casting a vote on whether the legislation would require Iran to recognize Israel’s rights to exist as a Jewish state, and rather than have to go on record and make clear the Democratic senators’ opposition to supporting Israel, they’re blocking every amendment on the Iran deal instead,” he said. “This should be a matter that brings us together in unity, because a nuclear Iran represents the single greatest national security threat to America. Unfortunately, far too many Senate Dems are playing politics with this rather than focusing on the grave national security threats we face.”

…While Democrats and their Republican allies could likely defeat the amendment, Democratic lawmakers have expressed frustration with being put in the position of publicly voting against pro-Israel legislation in order to preserve the Iran oversight bill.

On Tuesday, The Huffington Post asked Cruz to elaborate on what recognition of Israel had to do with eliminating Iran’s nuclear program:

Senator Ted Cruz R-TX
Senator Ted Cruz R-TX

“In the midst of these negotiations, a senior Iranian general said the annihilation of Israel was, quote, non-negotiable. One cannot negotiate with theocratic zealots who are explicit in their desire to murder you,” Cruz said. “There is no common ground or middle ground on whether or not you are murdered. In the midst of these negotiations, Ayatollah Khamenei is leading the masses in chanting death to America.”

…”This deal makes war a certainty … Because [of] what President Obama is doing, if this goes forward, is unraveling the international consensus in favor of sanctions. That means the next president who enters the White House in January of 2017 is likely to encounter a world with Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons where sanctions will have been taken off the table by Barack Obama, because they cannot be placed back with our allies in any reasonable period of time to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which means in all likelihood the next president will face a binary choice: Either allow Iran to have nuclear weapons or use military force to prevent it.

“That’s the consequence of this Obama-Iran deal, is it makes military conflict a certainty,” Cruz said.

.

.

.

Share

CONFIRMED: Obama “Siding with Iran” In Yemen Conflict

Share

obama flying the birdHat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and the Tower.

What was it Obama said in his book?

Oh yeah!

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” – Barack Obama, p. 261 The Audacity Of Hope.

The Obama administration is “siding with Iran” while operating “over the heads of the Saudis” in its deliberations over the future of Yemen, Tony Badran, a research fellow for the Foundation of Defense of Democracies, wrote Friday in an analysis published on the Lebanese website NOW News.

Badran noted that a number of administration officials, while publicly claiming to support the Saudis, have actually “tilted much more toward Iran.” Last week, for example, one administration official said that Saudi Arabia should stick to defending its border.

“At some point, an air campaign has diminishing and marginal returns,” another official told columnist David Ignatius the following day. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Yemen conflict will have to be solved politically.” At the same time, other administration officials played up Iran’s supposedly positive intentions, claiming that Tehran had in fact discouraged the Houthis from taking over Sanaa.

Once the Saudis did announce an end to Operation Decisive Storm, the administration quickly took credit, leaking that it was US pressure that made Riyadh back down. “The Saudis,” a State Department spokesperson said on Wednesday, “understand that the path forward here needs to be dialogue.”

Obama was signaling a kind of indirect partnership with Tehran, which the Iranians were quick to exploit. On Tuesday, hours before the Saudis even made their announcement, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian preemptively declared “that in the coming hours, after many efforts, we will see a halt to military attacks in Yemen.” With this seemingly innocuous statement, the Iranians showed the world that they are negotiating with the Americans over the heads of the Saudis.

Badran noted that Abdollahian had previously made similar boasts about the administration telling Israel to limit its operations against the terrorist organization Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group.

Badran concluded the analysis by noting that the White House’s desire for “equilibrium” in the region “is a fantasy. Or maybe it is something much worse. Perhaps it is just the least objectionable way of saying that Obama is now siding with Iran.”

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly rejected the Obama administration’s view that Iran could be part of a political solution in Yemen. The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, reiterated that point last week, saying, “Iran is part of the problem in Yemen, not part of the solution.”

According to a report last month by Eli Lake of Bloomberg News, ambassadors for the Gulf states predicted that the money freed up for Iran in the course of the negotiations over its nuclear program “would be used to destabilize the region.”

.

.

.

Share

Obama’s Iranian Negotiating Partners Attack And Seize Cargo Ship Headed For US Marshal Islands

Share
MV Maeresk Tigris, a ship traveling in international waters, owned by a company with significant ties to the U.S. government and flagged to the U.S.-protected Marshall Islands, was diverted under fire by Iranian naval forces to the port of Bandar Abbas.
MV Maeresk Tigris, a ship traveling in international waters, owned by a company with significant ties to the U.S. government and flagged to the U.S.-protected Marshall Islands, was diverted under fire by Iranian naval forces to the port of Bandar Abbas.

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and the Tower.

See? Obama kept telling us how peaceful the Iranian’s intentions were?

The Hill reported more:

The Pentagon says the ship at the center of the dispute is the MV Maersk Tigris, and is flagged from the Marshall Islands, according to Reuters.

Separately, Iran’s official news agency said the ship was “stopped and seized” by Iranian warships.

The Times of Israel reported:

Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the cargo ship’s master had initially refused an Iranian order to move further into Iranian waters, but after the warning shots were fired the MV Maersk Tigris complied.

Warren said the cargo ship has been boarded by Iranians, but no one has been injured and no Americans are involved.

Warren said the cargo ship issued a distress call and the US Naval Forces Central Command, based in the area, sent a US destroyer and an aircraft to the area of the incident to monitor the situation.

While the Marshall Islands is a sovereign country, the U.S. “has full authority and responsibility for security and defense of the Marshall Islands,” according to the U.S. State Department. Maersk, the shipping line whose vessel was commandeered, is one of the largest employers of U.S. merchant mariners, and “operate[s], manage[s] and maintain[s] ships for the U.S. government ships in preposition and surge sealift capacities,” according to its website.

Patrick Megahan, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that Maersk Tigris was in international waters when it was seized.

 

 

Last week at a State Department briefing, Acting Spokesperson Marie Harf emphasized that the move of U.S. naval vessels to Yemen was not to intercept Iranian ships but “only to ensure the shipping lanes remain open and safe.”

 

[Photo: Glen / Flickr ]

Read the full story here. Doug Ross’ closing thought:


.

.

.

Share

Forget About Oil For Food Or Even Cash For Clunkers, The Clintons Got Cash For Nukes: A Timeline Of Crime

Share

 photo Obama20Hillz20and20Bill_zpssyponuon.jpg

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and The Great One, Mark Levin.

The Clintons orchestrate so many deals that they make Donald Trump look like an amateur.

Of course his deals are legal, they don’t feel the need to be bothered by that tiny aspect when they plot their schemes.

Colin Campbell and Pamela Engel offer an insightful summary of the Clinton Crime Family’s latest scandal. Yeah, I know, it’s hard to keep ’em all straight. I mean the latest one, where Hillary’s State Department approved the sale of nuclear weapons material to Russia (and therefore likely Iran) after the Clintons received millions from Russian government entities.

Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.

• Uranium One’s mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it’s considered a strategic asset to the US.

• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.

• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.

• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia’s government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.

• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.

• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation’s contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.

“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” The Times reports. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well”…

  • According to The Times, Uranium One’s involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.
  • Soon after, Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton’s foundation.
Kazahstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Former US President Bill Clinton
REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov SZH/DHKazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev with former US President Bill Clinton in Almaty in 2005. Clinton traveled to the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement with the government, admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium.
  • After the legality of the Kazakhstan deal was called into question, Uranium One asked the American embassy in Kazakhstan for help. Uranium One’s executive vice president copied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a cable saying he wanted an official written confirmation that the company’s licenses in Kazakhstan were still valid, according to The Times. Soon after, the embassy’s energy officer met with Kazakh officials.
  • In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government. Rosatom also said that after that, the agency “did not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private,” The Times noted in a timeline of the events.
Putin with Sergei Kiriyenko, the chief of the Russian state nuclear corporation in 2010
REUTERS/Ria Novosti/Pool/Alexei DruzhininVladimir Putin, then Russia’s prime minister, with Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, in 2010.
  • Investors with ties to Uranium One and UrAsia donated millions to the foundation in 2010 and 2011. These donations were disclosed. In addition to this, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month that the Russians closed the deal for the majority stake in Uranium One. The speaking fee was one of Clinton’s highest, according to The Times.
  • The US Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state, were charged with reviewing the deal that would give Rosatom a majority stake because uranium is “considered a strategic asset with implications for national security,” according to The Times.
  • The concern was American dependence on foreign uranium. The Times notes that while the US “gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20% of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves.”
  • Four members of Congress signed a letter expressing concern over the deal, and two others drafted legislation to kill it. One senator contended that the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity” as well as “a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission made assurances that the US uranium would be preserved for domestic use regardless of the deal.
Putin and Nazarbayev in 2007
REUTERS/Yuri Kochetkov/Pool Putin with Nazarbayev after a joint statement following their talks in Moscow’s Kremlin in 2007. Nazarbayev invited Putin to pay an official visit to Kazakhstan to discuss joint uranium mining and enrichment.
  • Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, “including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One,” The Times notes.
  • After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves.”
Putin and Obama in 2012
REUTERS/Andres StapffUS President Barack Obama with Putin before the first session of the G20 Summit in Los Cabos in June 2012.
  • A source with knowledge of the Clintons’ fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”
  • Despite claims by Russia that the country didn’t intend to increase its stake in Uranium One or take the company private, ARMZ — the subsidiary of Russia’s atomic energy agency — took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange in January 2013.

Read the full story at Business Insider, which — by the way — is a leftwing rag.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

Share

Ted Cruz Sets His Own ‘Red Line In The Sand’: Congress Must Approve Any Iran Deal

Share
Senator Ted Cruz R-TX
Cruz Lays Down The Gauntlet To President Obama: Congress MUST Okay Any Iran Nuke Deal

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Once again, Ted Cruz displays the type of leadership that is sorely lacking in the Oval Office right now.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, have filed an amendment (#1152) to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would require affirmative Congressional approval of any Iranian nuclear deal before sanctions relief can occur.

“The Constitution makes clear that Congress must approve international agreements like the one President Obama is negotiating with Iran,” said Sen. Cruz. “A nuclear Iran is the single greatest threat to our national security and also poses an unacceptably high risk to Israel. Reviewing this deal and deciding whether or not to consent to it may well be the most important function of this Congress. It is not something that should be rushed, and it is imperative that, at the very least, the President obtain majority support for his deal from both Houses of Congress before moving forward.”

As currently written, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 would first require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval and then require Congress to muster votes from two-thirds of each chamber to override a Presidential veto. What’s more, if Congress failed to act within a set timeframe, the deal would go into effect by default. This process gets the Constitution’s allocation of authority precisely backwards.

The Cruz-Toomey amendment would remove these options and restore a more proper process for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power. It would require President Obama to persuade a majority of Senators and Representatives to approve his deal before it goes into effect.

Share

Obama Regime Admits To Releasing Known Gang Member Who Went On To Murder 4 Americans

Share

Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez

 

Hat/Tip to Weasel Zippers.

What was it Obama said about his Illegal Executive Amnesty?

Oh yeah!

He said that his administration was going to deport “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

I’m guessing that this guy must resemble someone’s mom, so they let him go.

The Obama administration is admitting it granted executive amnesty protections to a known gang member — one charged with four counts of murder — and is now reviewing prior approvals to double check that other gang members have not also been approved for deferred status.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) dated Friday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Leon Rodriguez explains that Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez’s request for deferred status under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program “should not have been approved” based on standard procedure.

Rangel-Hernandez is currently charged with the murder of four people, including former “America’s Next Top Model” contestant Mirjana Puhar.

On Tuesday Grassley released the letter and said it confirmed his fears, that USCIS is not being careful enough in adjudicating applications for Obama’s DACA program.

“It’s no secret that USCIS staff is under intense pressure to approve every DACA application that comes across their desk, and based on this information, it’s clear that adequate protocols are not in place to protect public safety,” Grassley said.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Declassified Material PROVES Obama Lied About Iran’s Nuclear Programs

Share

the deal

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Sean Hannity.

Obama lied????!!!!

NO!

Say it ain’t so!!!

(okay, now that I got that out of my system, let’s look at how we know he lied)

President Obama lied to the American people about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program, according to declassified material. Add this to a litany of lies told by our president.

Declassified material reported on by Bloomberg confirms the following:

“The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb … Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: ‘Oh quite some time.’”

However, as Bloomberg also reports, and as you probably remember, Obama has consistently told the American people that Iran is at least a year away from developing a nuclear weapon. This is otherwise known as the “breakout time.”

Obama even contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue. Netanyahu’s breakout time has always been more urgent than Obama’s. Now we know that Bibi was closer to the truth and Obama knew the truth but lied about it.

It seems as though we are willing to do just about anything to secure a deal with Iran, even if it’s a bad deal.

This includes giving Iran $50 billion as a bonus for signing a nuclear agreement. You read that correctly! This cash release would be in addition to the lifting of sanctions, which is also worth billions. According to experts, that “could be the largest cash infusion to a terror-backing regime in recent memory.”

These negotiations with Iran should not have gone any further without Iran agreeing to a few preliminary things, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and stop sponsoring terrorism.

Those seem like pretty reasonable requests for a country that claims it wants to be a part of the community of nations. Yet instead, we bow to their demands without any reason to trust them. Even as they are shouting “death to America,” we continue down a path towards a nuclear Iran.

And then on top of it all, we have this proxy situation with Iran playing out off the coast of Yemen.

If you will remember, Iran launched a convoy of ships off the coast of Yemen, where it is supporting the Houthi rebels whom have toppled the government and continue to take over cities and government institutions.

As of yesterday, the United States has stepped up its response and is moving a Navy vessel off the coast of Yemen for the purposes of blocking Iranian ships carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels.

According to the White House, it has concerns about Iran’s support of the Houthis. No kidding! Why can’t the nuclear negotiations start there? Stop fomenting terrorism in the region by supporting the Houthi rebels before we will agree on a nuclear deal.

It’s hard to believe that the United States has come to this position in its international standing. We won’t stand up for our red lines, we will berate our allies and coddle our enemies. Unbelievable.

.

.

.

Share

Rubio’s Univision Remarks Lost In Translation: Says He WILL End Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

Share

marco rubio 003

 

Hat/Tip to Sarah Rumpf at Breitbart.

There are tons of Facebook posts claiming that Marco Rubio told Univision that he supported Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty.

Such as this one…

Rubio Facebook Post Wrongly Saying He Flip Flopped On Obamas Exec Anmesty

 

What really happened?

In a Spanish language interview with Jorge Ramos on Univision’s Al Punto show, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) discussed immigration policy, affirming his longstanding objection to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs.

An article on Breitbart News earlier Saturday said that Rubio called DACA “important” and one that he would not reverse, but a closer look at the official transcript shows some misinterpretations in the translation, and Rubio’s campaign pushed back strongly against any suggestion that the Senator would allow President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty to continue.

But Rubio’s Spokesperson set the matter straight.

As Rubio spokesman Alex Conant told Breitbart News, “Marco went on Spanish media this week and rejected a comprehensive immigration reform approach, said that the immigration executive orders won’t be permanent policy under his administration, and that he would oppose legalization today because we first need to prevent a future illegal immigration crisis by enforcing our laws.”

“Marco also said it’s important not to end DACA immediately since it would be disruptive given all the people that have it,” continued Conant, “but that at a certain point it would have to end since it cannot be the permanent policy of the land.”

“In case anything was lost in translation, he believes we have to fix our broken immigration system in a series of smaller bills, starting with border security and enforcement, then modernizing our legal immigration system, and then eventually dealing with the illegal immigrants living here,” said Conant.

Now let’s revisit the whole DACA and DAPA mess, shall we?

DACA allows illegal immigrants who came to the United States before their sixteen birthday, commonly referred to as “DREAMers,” to obtain a renewable work permit and be protected from deportation. The original requirements for eligibility were that the DREAMers must be enrolled in school or have received a high school diploma or GED or been honorably discharged from the military, and pass a background check that they have not committed any felonies or serious misdemeanors, among other requirements.

Last November, Obama expanded the DACA program to waive the requirement that the DREAMers be under 31 years of age, to expand the renewal term from two years to three years, and other measures that would increase the number of eligible immigrants.

DAPA was a further expansion of protection from deportation for illegal immigrants, this time for parents who were here illegally but had lived in the U.S. since 2010 and had children who were American citizens or lawful permanent residents.

DAPA and the expansion of DACA have been harshly criticized, for enacting amnesty and for the way Obama enacted them through executive orders, without authorization from Congress. Shortly after Obama signed the executive orders, Texas, joined by twenty-six other states, filed suit against the federal government seeking to stop what they called an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch, as Breitbart Texas reported. The litigation is still pending, but a federal court has issued an order stopping DAPA from being implemented while the case proceeds.

Via Breitbart, here is the full, unredacted transcript of the portion of the Univision interview in which Rubio and Jorge Ramos discussed immigration.

Ramos: As you know, it has always been hard for Republicans to get the Hispanic vote. I wanted to talk with you about very concrete issues that affect Hispanics directly. I would like to start with the issue of deferred action and DACA. If you made it to the White House, would you keep the DACA program; that is, Deferred Action for the Dreamers, and would you keep President Barack Obama’s executive action, which would benefit more than four million undocumented people?

Rubio: Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can’t be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefitting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don’t think that’s what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform.

Ramos: But then, to clarify, you would end DACA once immigration reform is approved. But what happens, Senator, if there is no immigration reform? Would you cancel DACA anyway?

Rubio: At some point it’s going to have to end. That is, it cannot continue to be the permanent policy of the United States. I do think that if I wind up being president, it will be possible to achieve new immigration reform. It won’t be possible for it to be comprehensive; that is, they are not going to be able to do everything in one massive bill. We already tried that a couple of years ago. We have seen that the political support isn’t there, and I think we’ve spent a lot of time on this process when we could have started moving forward through the three steps that I advocated. Unfortunately, a lot of time has been wasted on that. It has become an even more controversial issue; harder to move forward on that issue. But I still say that it’s important to modernize our system, and that means improving the way we enforce it in the future, to modernize the immigration system so that it’s not so costly and bureaucratic. And we have to deal with 12 million human beings who are already here. And nobody, nobody is advocating a plan to deport 12 million human beings. So that issue has to be dealt with, as well.

Ramos: When you announced your candidacy, outside of the building where you announced it, there were a lot of Dreamers, protesting. And then there are some immigrant organizations that have criticized your candidacy. America’s Voice says that you have anti-immigrant positions. I would like to ask you, you were in favor of an immigration reform bill in the Senate, and you voted for it. But today, would you vote in favor of a path to legalization for 11 million undocumented people?

Rubio: Well, that can’t be done today for the following reason. I don’t think we can. I have been very clear. I, through that two-year experience, it’s very clear to me. We’re not going to have the votes or the necessary political support in Congress. Today, in some sectors of the American public, in order to move forward on this issue, unless we first prove to the American people that in the future there’s not going to be another immigration crisis. If we do that, I think that undoubtedly the political support is going to exist to do legalization as you have said. It has to be a process similar to what we advocated in the legislation that I sponsored, and it’s the law that says that, first, the things we’re all familiar with must be present: a background check, pay a fine, begin to pay taxes, get a work permit, and after 10 years, they can apply for their residency. That would be the process, but we can’t get to that point. Politically, the support and the votes in Congress aren’t there until we prove to those members of Congress and the American people that immigration laws are going to be enforced.

Here is the section in English, this is the portion that got changed in translation:

But DACA, I think it is important; it can’t be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefitting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States.

And here is the same two sentences in Spanish:

Pero DACA, yo creo que es importante, no se puede cancelar de un momento al otro porque ya hay personas que están beneficiando. Pero sí va a tener que terminar. No puede ser la política permanente de Estados Unidos.

But Univision, and then another media service got things mixed around, saying that Rubio said, “…DACA was important. It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next.” That doesn’t even make any sense, on the face of it. Here is how Breitbart explained the whole debacle:

A source close to Rubio who is a native speaker of Spanish told Breitbart News that the word “important” is being taken out of context, and that Rubio was not saying that DACA was important, but that his approach not to cancel the program immediately was an important concept. In other words, the word “important” belongs to the phrase that follows it, not the word “DACA” immediately preceding. This interpretation makes sense, since in the very next sentence and then repeatedly throughout the interview, Rubio says that the program must end.

In contrast, the translation relied upon by the original Breitbart News article from the media service Grabien flips this around, saying, ““I believe DACA is important. It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next, because there are already people benefiting from it.”

According to our source, even the Univision translation was a little imprecise, and said that a more word-for-word translation of Rubio’s words would be “But DACA, I think it’s important not to cancel it from one moment to the next because you already have people benefiting from it.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Latest Obama Scandal?: ISIS On Our Southern Border

Share

 photo isis-muslim-terrorism-coming-into-united-states-already-here-through-open-southern-borders_zpsllumnae2.jpg

Hat/Tip to Tom Fitton at Doug Ross @ Journal.

Excellent article by Tom Fitton, so here it is, in its entirety.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judicial Watch is proving itself the most resourceful and impactful educational organizations in the nation. No other media outlet, no congressional committee, and no other non-governmental organization can match JW’s successes in ferreting out what the government doesn’t want you know. On the issue of terrorism and the border, JW’s journalism this week had an international impact. On April 14, our Corruption Chronicles published the following extraordinary report on ISIS operations in Mexico and in the United States:

ISIS is operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, according to Judicial Watch sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector.

The exact location where the terrorist group has established its base is around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Another ISIS cell to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas, targets the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming for easy access to the United States, the same knowledgeable sources confirm.

During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.

Law enforcement and intelligence sources report the area around Anapra is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez Cartel”), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso). Cartel control of the Anapra area make it an extremely dangerous and hostile operating environment for Mexican Army and Federal Police operations.

According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling – and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.

The international reaction to this report was almost instantaneous. The Mexican government, unsurprisingly, “categorically denied” our report. The left-wing “Politifact” smeared JW by calling our report false? On what basis? No government agency would back us up. I’m happy to put our credibility up against the Benghazi-cover-up crowd in the Obama administration any day.

And I can tell you that our military, congressional and other government security contacts have been quite positive and grateful for our reporting. We seem to be hearing every week about ISIS supporters arrested or an ISIS terror plot thwarted here in the United States. Twenty-five ISIS supporters are being prosecuted by Obama’s Justice Department. Two female ISIS supporters were just arrested in New York for wanting to build a bomb. And there were ISIS-related arrests both in Ohio and in Kansas just in the past seven days!

So, we have ISIS supporters being arrested all over America but we are supposed to believe that ISIS won’t take advantage of the anarchy in the areas just south of our border controlled by the Mexican drug cartels?

And, as with Benghazi, the Obama administration’s response was to go into cover-up mode. The FBI, which has a terrible record of not only ignoring terrorist threats but actually using terrorists as informants, held a key meeting in Mexico in response to our report. But the meeting wasn’t to follow our leads, but to suppress the truth. Again, from ourCorruption Chronicles blog:

Responding to Judicial Watch’s report earlier this week of ISIS activity along the Mexican border, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) supervisors called a “special” meeting at the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juárez.

A high-level intelligence source, who must remain anonymous for safety reasons, confirmed that the meeting was convened specifically to address a press strategy to deny Judicial Watch’s accurate reporting and identify who is providing information to JW. FBI supervisory personnel met with Mexican Army officers and Mexican Federal Police officials, according to JW’s intelligence source. The FBI liaison officers regularly assigned to Mexico were not present at the meeting and conspicuously absent were representatives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It’s not clear why DHS did not participate.

Publicly, U.S. and Mexico have denied that Islamic terrorists are operating in the southern border region, but the rapid deployment of FBI brass in the aftermath of JW’s report seems to indicate otherwise.

Deroy Murdock, a well-known columnist at National Review, gets it right. He highlights the Obama administration’s duplicity in putting politics above national security, even if doing so puts human lives at risk. The full piece is worth reading, but he includes the JW revelations this week in his analysis here:

When the Islamic State first emerged, it traversed Iraqi and Syrian deserts in pick-up trucks. A few days of relentless bombing would have reduced these maggots to cinders. Instead, Obama’s daintiness let them seize territory the size of Great Britain. The group now has infiltrated Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen, sealed an alliance with Boko Haram in Nigeria, and much more.

Judicial Watch reports that the Islamic State operates a training camp just eight miles below America’s southern “border.” The conservative watchdogs cite Mexican military and police sources who say that they have discovered — near Ciudad Juarez — Muslim prayer rugs, documents in Arabic and Urdu, and “plans” of Fort Bliss Army Base in El Paso, Texas.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told CBS’s 60 Minutes that at least 40 Americans who fought with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have come home. Half-comfortingly, Johnson said that “we have systems in place to track these individuals. But you can’t know everything.”

That’s life, as America’s lethally unserious “leader” pretends to fight radical Islamic terrorism.

Trust Judicial Watch to stay on the important issue of the terrorist threat from our open and unsecured border with Mexico. You should check in regularly at www.JudicialWatch.org for any updates on the fast-moving investigation.

.

.

 

Share

ISIS U.S. City ‘Kill List’: Is Your Hometown Targeted?

Share

ISIS fighters in iraq

 

Hat/Tip to CBS News.

No, they don’t have an air force, beyond a few captured planes or choppers. And no, they don’t have ICBMs, but that doesn’t mean ISIS poses no threat to the America on her own soil.

But they are asking radicals already in the United States to kill military personnel in the cities on their list specifically,  and to attack the cities on their list, in general.

The Pentagon has responded to a globally-released ‘Kill List’, asking law enforcement to give extra protection for military personnel whose personal information was released.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports the Pentagon spent the weekend notifying the soldiers who appeared on the list, and urged city police departments and military police to increase patrol in the neighborhoods where the targeted live.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) published the list days ago, (Editor’s Note: around the end of March/beginning of April) a report that contained names, photos, and home addresses of U.S. Armed Forces personnel, causing alarm in cities potentially at high-risk.

According to the publication, ISIS urges followers and sympathizers in the U.S. to kill the servicemen. Specific personnel on the list are largely from the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy – branches of the country’s military that have conducted massive air strikes against ISIS.

The air strikes have left ISIS mostly defenseless, killing over 8,000 fighters with attacks carried out on more than 5,000 targets. But ISIS appears to be fighting back through forms of social media.

The Pentagon says the the targeted appeared to be compiled from public sources — anything from news articles to Facebook posts that could have linked them to attacks on the terrorist group. Officials with the Pentagon say some members were incorrectly identified, but right or wrong, it’s still a threat.

Here is the list of US cities targeted by ISIS:

  1. Arizona: Phoenix
  2. California: Manford, Solvang, San Ardo, Monterey, Newberry Park, Carlsbad
  3. Colorado: Colorado Springs
  4. Connecticut: Barkhamsted, Manchester
  5. Florida: Merritt Island, Palm Coast, Saint John, Middleburg, Saint Augustine
  6. Georgia: Griffin
  7. Idaho: Bonners Ferry
  8. Illinois: Orland Park
  9. Indiana: Michigan City, Bolivar
  10. Louisiana: Shreveport, Bossier City
  11. Maryland: Upper Marlboro, Warrensburg, Lexington Park
  12. Michigan: Dearborn Heights, Lake Orion
  13. Nebraska: Bellevue
  14. Nevada: Reno
  15. New Mexico: Farmington
  16. North Carolina: Fayetteville, New Bern
  17. North Dakota: Minot
  18. Rhode Island: Newport
  19. South Carolina: Daniel Island, Charleston
  20. South Dakota: Rapid City
  21. Texas: Abilene, New Braunfels, San Antonio, Wyle, Fort Hood, Bedford, Killeen
  22. Virginia: Burke, Virginia Beach, Suffolk, Springfield, Norfolk, Chesapeake
  23. Washington: Colton, Cheney, Seattle, Spokane, Anacortes

.

.

.

Share

From ‘Dreamers’ To Killers: 250 Murders Committed By Criminal Illegals Knowingly Released In 2014

Share

ms13-gang 001

 

Hat/Tip to Kurt Revere at The Minute Man Project.

Evidently either President Obama lied to us in 2014 when he said they would deport criminals, or he has absolutely no control over a rogue ICE agency.

I’m not sure which one is worse.

But for a reminder, here is what he said about his illegal actions on immigration:

“Over the past six years deportations of criminals are up 80 percent, and that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security,” Obama said in his speech.Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

Crime figures released at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee show a massive number of criminal illegals released by ICE in 2014 have come back to haunt American society.

Despite his big talk about focusing resources of dangerous criminal illegal aliens, President Obama’s record on preventing illegal immigration and now enforcement of current law is seriously lacking.

…both arrests and deportations of criminal aliens are down about 30 percent through the first six months of fiscal year 2015, signaling that agents, who have been told to stop focusing on rank-and-file illegal immigrants, have not been able to refocus on criminal illegal immigrants instead.

The data, released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte at the beginning of a hearing with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana, also showed that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE knowingly released back into the community in 2014 had amassed nearly 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings and 373 sexual assaults.

These are just the worst of the crimes committed by Obama’s released jailbirds. And his technical excuse doesn’t hold up under careful analysis.

According to the statistics, the aliens released by ICE had amassed 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 994 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.

The Obama administration has claimed that many of those releases are required by court order stemming from a years-old Supreme Court ruling, Zadvydas v. Davis, that says immigrants can’t be held indefinitely and if their home countries won’t take them back, they must eventually be released.

But the new numbers suggest those released are a small fraction. Of the nearly more than 30,000 criminal aliens released, only 2,457 were cut loose because of considerations stemming from the Zadvydas ruling, the House committee said. And for the serious crimes, only about half the homicide convictions and a third of the kidnapping convictions were Zadvydas-related releases.

The sum total of Obama’s current illegal immigration enforcement policy: fewer arrests, fewer deportations and fewer criminals behind bars.

250 people are dead because of these policies.  Their blood is on Barack Obama’s hands.

.

.

.

Share

Obama Admits His Iran Deal Is A Fraud: Reveals They’ll Have The Bomb In 13 Years

Share

obomba3

 

Old and busted: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.

“This framework is the result of tough, principled diplomacy,” Obama said in his weekly address to the nation. “It’s a good deal — a deal that meets our core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”

New hotness: Iran will absolutely get the bomb, in 13 years.

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement — leaving the problem for future presidents.

Obama made the comments about Tehran’s so-called “breakout time” in an interview with NPR News that aired Tuesday morning. The president was attempting to answer the charge that the deal framework agreed upon by the U.S., Iran, and five other nations last week fails to eliminate the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon because it allows Tehran to keep enriching uranium.

Obama said that Iran would be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms of uranium — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.

“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.

Now to be fair, Obama made that first promise a whole three days ago.

And 13 years is more time than Neville Chamberlain gave the Jews of Europe in 1938.

But make no mistake. This “historic” deal gives Iran the green light to wipe Israel off the map. They’ve been waiting for that day for 1,300 years. What’s another 13 to them?

The path is clear. The plan is established. And Caliph Barack I is pleased.

.

.

Share

Marie Harf Thinks You Are Really Stupid…Sorry, We Got As Far As “Marie Harf Thinks” And Started Laughing Uncontrollably

Share

marie-harf-300x169

 

Hat/Tip to I Hate The Media and Keith Koffler at The White House Dossier.

I would wager paternity tests will confirm that she is Joe Biden’s long lost daughter…

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf thinks you’re an idiot, because she thinks you will buy her line that President Obama was not saying something he clearly was saying.

The president, in an interview with NPR’s Steve Instep this week, blundered into the truth, saying that Iran could under the deal essentially become a nuclear state at around year 13 of the agreement, when “the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Over at the State Department, spokeswoman Marie Harf said Obama wasn’t talking about the Iran deal when he said that “in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Well here’s the transcript, fully in context. Judge for yourself.

Obama first addresses a concern with the deal about uranium concentrations but says that “what is a more relevant fear” is what happens in the latter years. It’s crystal clear he is comparing two aspects of the deal, not discussing, as Harf insists, a hypothetical situation in 13 years under which there is no deal. He even notes that “we’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year,” clearly contrasting that with the possible zero breakout time that occurs afterward.

And if there is no deal and no military action, Iran, which has been allowed by Obama to creep to within a two to three month breakout time NOW, will get to zero far sooner than in 13 years. So why would he use 13 years as a hypothetical?

Even the White House didn’t try to make this argument. They just dodged the question.

Next time it rains I’m calling Marie Harf so she can tell me it’s sunny. I’ll just believe her and we both can just make pretend and feel better about stuff.

Inskeep: Most of (Iran’s) enriched uranium is supposed to be set off to the side and diluted; it may, however, remain inside Iran. Eventually, the deal expires. Perhaps the uranium is still there, which is why…

… where the regime changes is a significant question.

Obama: Actually, that’s not how it works, Steve, because once you’ve diluted a process or . . . stockpiles have — have maintained at 300 kilograms or below, they’re not going to have been able to horde a bunch of uranium that somehow they then convert to weapons-grade uranium.

What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.

Keep in mind, though, currently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year … that — that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.

And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished.

Here’s a look at Obama’s statement and Harf’s explanation.


.
.
.

Share

Iran Gives U.S. The Middle Finger: Will Use Military-Grade Centrifuges To Enrich Uranium Despite P5+1 Nuclear Deal

Share

Iran_Meanwhile

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

So despite all the assurances from Kerry and Obama, Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons.

Anyone surprised?

Iran’s foreign minister and lead nuclear negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif, told legislators that Iran would start feeding uranium into advanced centrifuges as soon as the nuclear deal with the P5+1 nations goes into effect, The Times of Israel reported today. Enriching uranium in advanced centrifuges would violate the parameters agreed to last week, according to American and French fact sheets showing their understandings of the deal.

Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament on Tuesday, according to Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency. …

Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses.

According to the FARS report, “Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers.”

But it seems NOBODY has their stories straight on this issue…

The American version of last week’s understanding states, “Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years.” According to The Times of Israel, the French version differs slightlyin allowing “continue[d] R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges,” but not enrichment, which was the activity mentioned by Zarif.

Zarif reportedly told Iranian legislators on Tuesday that Iran would not allow cameras into any of its nuclear facilities. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action calls for the “continuous surveillance” of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share