But no, Mitt Romney is the REAL bad guy ‘coz he said he had binders full of women applicants…
Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Islam Is The REAL War on Women: 92% of Women in Egypt Forced to Undergo Genital Mutilation
As putrid Democrats continue to promulgate their lie-filled “Republican war on women” campaign theme, they sit by ignoring that the real war on women is perpetrated by Islam. Another reminder of where the real hate for women emanates is in a survey showing that fully 92 percent of married women in Egypt are forced to undergo genital mutilation.
If you are unaware of what Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is, be prepared to be horrified. Euphemistically called “female circumcision” by liberals who want to obviate what it really is, it is in fact the utter destruction of the female pleasure centers in the vagina so that a woman can never gain pleasure or have an orgasm from sexual intercourse.
Many Muslims from Africa to the Middle East think that women are disgusting beasts who should not be allowed to enjoy sex. So, to keep girls pure in the eyes of The “Prophet” Muhammad, in their pre-teen stage, these inhuman Muslims rip out a girls’ clitoris and sew her vagina shut leaving but a small hole for urination.
Then, when the girl is married off, often times at the age of nine or ten, their “husband” gets the joy of jamming a knife into her vagina and slicing open the sewn shut vagina so that he can consummate the “marriage” with sex.
These scumbag Muslims excuse all this as a “cultural” necessity and a paean to Islam.
Now we find that the backwards, savage country of Egypt forces most of its women to undergo this barbaric attack on their most private parts.
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.
A new survey finds that a shocking 92 percent of married womenin Egypt has been forced to withstand this horrible, anti-woman procedure.
Where is Hillary Clinton to decry this true war on women? Where is Sandra Fluke to raise the alarm? Where is MSNBC’s manly Rachel Maddow to scream about this outrage?
Well, they are all worried about “Hobby Lobby” and telling their fans lies abut how company owners who don’t want to pay for abortion-inducing drugs are being “just like” Islamic terrorists.
The fact that so-called “feminists” are utterly silent on this issue is proof that they don’t care about “women,” they care only abut liberal politics.
If you are a liberal and prattle on about the “Republican war on women,” you are promulgating a lie. You can be excused for this if yo were misled, but only if you learn the truth and accept it. Otherwise, like every other extreme leftist, you are a dangerous, anti-American liar. There really is just no other way to say it.
Regardless, FGM is how Islam views women. They are dirty, disgusting, unclean, cattle that have no humanity and don’t even deserve to enjoy sexual intercourse. If this isn’t a real war on woman, what is?
Wal Mart closures, expanded and highly visible military presence in cities all across the country, train after train full of military equipment, all manner of military choppers and planes seen conducting simulations over our cities; what does all this add up to?
Some say nothing more than ordinary military preparedness.
Some say it is our government preparing for total martial law.
Who knows? But this excellent article sheds some light and asks some very basic, logical questions that, so far, the military or our government is not answering.
DALLAS — The questions being raised by right-wing bloggers and conservative commentators about a Pentagon training exercise called Jade Helm 15 traverse the outer edges of political paranoia.
The eight-week exercise starting in July and planned for locations in Texas, New Mexico, California and other Southwestern states, they say, is part of a secret plan to impose martial law, take away people’s guns, arrest political undesirables, launch an Obama-led hostile takeover of red-state Texas, or do some combination thereof.
Is it? Or is it training for that highly unlikely but possible scenario?
Nobody doubts that the military needs to train in the sort of environment they may need to operate and for any reasonably-foreseeable eventuality. That’s expected and the usual practice, and there is a growing use of our military in urban, suburban and rural areas of the world (not in the United States) that would benefit from such an exercise.
So it seems that this is a rather ordinary thing, and thus the Texas (and some other people’s) reaction is one of conspiracy nuts.
Let’s say I take that at purely face value, which I am inclined to, particularly reading the NY Times article given the slant they put on it and the accusations made about Texans.
Now please explain, if this is a training exercise for overseas readiness, as the NY Times has claimed, why is it that the DEA and FBI are involved in any way with this exercise, including in providing interrogation services —because they allegedly are.
Jade Helm is a challenging eight week exercise. Truly, in the Martin and Howard County area we’re only going to be here for about five-to-five and half weeks. The eight weeks comes in where there is the preparation and planning that happens back in Florida and in the Mississippi area. The exercise is a joint military and inter-agency activity. What this means is that we have units from every military service participating in the exercise with us. And we also have some of our inter-agency partners, such as the FBI and the DEA, and some of the other agencies assisting us and working with us in the exercise.
Neither of those agencies have an overseas operational role and in fact they’re both prohibited by law from operating outside the borders of the United States. Therefore I would like the NY Times to explain to this ordinary guy why the DEA and FBI would be involved in any fashion with such an exercise if the intended operational use of such training is overseas and why the overseas-operable agencies such as the CIA or our FBI and DEA counterparts in other nations where such actions might take place are not invited to participate instead in place of our national LEOs, since integration with them in any such actual deployment would be of value both to our military and those foreign counterparts.
So, what can one take from all this? Well, the obvious: The military probably is war-gaming the possibility of civil insurrection, and if that was to occur Posse Comitatus (which is current law and prevents the Military from being used for such a purpose inside the US) would likely be repealed by Congress and The President in about 15 minutes.
In other words you’re not a “conspiracy nut” if what you believe someone is doing is in fact what they’re doing!
So over to you, NY Times, for slandering people that drew a completely-reasonable conclusion from available public information, never mind their perfectly-rational decision that they’re going to use the opportunity to gather information through observation as well. After all that’s what an exercise is for, right? It’s all about running through scenarios that are unlikely, but possible, something the military does all the time and is a perfectly-valid part of their remit.
The same holds true for ordinary citizens and State governments.
The entire article is worth reading, but the short version is as follows: Root was targeted for audit in 2011, disputed the findings in Tax Court, and won in 2012. Only five days later, Root was again targeted for a separate audit, an unprecedented step.
Judicial Watch took Root’s case and after the traditional, illegal withholding of evidence for over a year, finally secured documentation of the audit. Stunningly, a “random audit of small businessman” was marked “SENSITIVE CASE” with no other explanation.
Written in the margin of Root’s case files were IRS documentation of the taxpayer’s political views; the agent “wrote on my file that he spent many hours on the Internet researching the political views of Wayne Root.”
In a free and fair society IRS agents don’t spend hours researching a taxpayer’s political views. Not unless they are looking to destroy the taxpayer based on orders from above.
…Wait. It gets better.
My IRS files state that a United States senator from Oregon was involved in my tax audit. At the time both senators from Oregon were Democrats. So now we can prove it was a political witch-hunt directed or coordinated by high-level Democrat politicians.
Why would any U.S. senator be involved in a random taxpayer’s IRS audit? Why would an Oregon U.S. senator be involved in the audit of a Nevada small businessman? Could it have been Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden? After all he was at the time Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with oversight over…the IRS…
…This email indicates that a senator from Oregon was somehow connected to Wayne Root’s audit. Screenshot courtesy of Judicial Watch…
…This email indicates that a congressional office was requesting information about Wayne Root’s tax audit. Screenshot courtesy of Judicial Watch…
…Why would any senator from either party be involved in a “random IRS audit” of an individual taxpayer? Isn’t that illegal? Doesn’t it violate my civil rights? It’s certainly beyond the scope of the duties of a U.S. senator.
Unless the Obama White House asked him to get involved.
But wait. We’re not done yet.
The date my case was closed is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence. The IRS auditor told my attorney that a top IRS official called to demand my tax audit be closed immediately. That was May 2013. Does that date sound familiar?
…Who asked the IRS to target Wayne Root? Who gave the IRS agent permission to call Wayne Root when the top IRS investigator claims that never happens? Who asked the Oregon senator to get involved in my audit? Why was a top IRS official interceding in my case? Why was it marked “SENSITIVE”?
This conspiracy goes directly to the Obama White House. I’m not just any conservative media personality. I’m President Obama’s Columbia College classmate (Class of ’83) [and] one of Obama’s loudest critics. It appears my criticisms hit close to home. I got under Obama’s skin. And someone in Obama’s White House either called that U.S. senator to try to destroy me; or perhaps directly ordered my attacks at the hands of the IRS and then called the Oregon senator to coordinate and oversee the attack.
One thing is now clear: I was the victim of a widespread politically-motivated criminal attack by the IRS.
My files have been turned over to U.S. Senate investigators. I stand ready to testify in front of the US Senate.
On a scale of one to 10, mathematicians have yet to define a number high enough to represent the criminality of the Democrat Party.
Hillary raises “Quid Pro Quo” to an entirely new level…
Perhaps we can check Hillary’s emails to determine whether there were criminal wrongdoings. Oh, wait.
The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures…This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.
Bear in mind that this analysis only includes the disclosed donors. The recently-revealed Russia/uranium deal involved undisclosed donations (part of a pattern, it turns out), in violation of a transparency agreement Hillary signed upon joining the State Department. Team Clinton’s excuse for failing to disclose the information has unraveled under cursory scrutiny. Clinton’s defenders insist that nobody has offered concrete proof that this multi-million-dollar “slush fund” favor bank ever resulted in direct action by the State Department; at some point, though, enough smoke convinces people there’s a fire. And the smoke is billowing:
Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches … engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution. The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations…
…Part of the reason so many people feel compelled to defend the indefensible is that Hillary is essentially the only game in town for Democrats, a choice that the party has made for itself. And America’s “gliding queen” isn’t in any rush to address any of these serious allegations — or anything else for that matter: Since announcing her presidential campaign 17 days ago, she has answered a total of seven questions from the media. And most of her “answers” were either facile deflections or substance-free cliches. Why subject yourself to real questions when you can stage phony “listening sessions” with hand-selected supporters stripped of their cellphones, and pander on Twitter…
Even when I worked there, Renaissance Capital had close ties to the Kremlin – the relationship made Renaissance executives into oligarchs. By 2010, the firm had become a practical arm of Vladimir Putin. Nobody of sound mind would think otherwise.
Bill Clinton took that half million dollar payment as his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, served as a key member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This inter-agency panel must approve foreign purchase of private American companies the government deems vital to our national interest.
Shortly after Bill Clinton delivered the highest paid speech of his life, CFIUS was to consider and approve the key Russian purchase…
… [But in] 2010-2011, I ran acquisition communications for Safran Group, the French government-controlled defense contractor which bought the US biometrics company L-1. It took us almost two years to gain CFIUS approval for France, an historic ally, to purchase a biometrics firm, not even remotely a strategic asset. We were stymied at every turn by an endless stream of questions.
In contrast, the Rusatom acquisition of UraniumOne got CFIUS approval in four months – for control of 20 percent of America’s strategic uranium.
These two CFIUS approvals were happening at precisely the same time. Safran couldn’t buy a break and was questioned at ever turn. Somehow, Kremlin-controlled Rusatom’s purchase sailed through on a cool breeze.
Any insider will tell you that, considering the vital nature of the CFIUS-UraniumOne proceedings, it is certain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was directly involved. And Bill took $500,000 indirectly from the Kremlin at the same time.
In other words, we have an actual experiment that proves the Clintons are dirty. A control acquisition, with no national security implications whatsoever, was blocked at every turn. A deal for America’s precious uranium resources — a key to nuclear weapons construction — was approved faster than fecal matter through a goose.
Donors, observing that donations to Team Clinton are now under scrutiny as possible bribes, are thinking twice about investing in a candidacy that used to be seen as inevitable. Usually, such doubts are left unspoken in public. But now, a top fundraiser [New York businessman Jon Cooper] is obliquely expressing his fears and his plans to suspend fundraising…
…Mr. Cooper is not stating any worries about being tarred with the brush of corruption for merely raising money for Hillary. But that is the clear background of his worries. Now that donations are linked to corruption, anyone with any worries about being fairly or unfairly construed as corrupt (which includes anyone with sufficient money as a donor to be notable) must think carefully about donating to Team Hillary…
…[The once extant] logic [now] reverses itself. She may not be so inevitable, and a donation may lead to negative attention, perhaps leading to negative outcomes, the very reverse of what a donation might have been seen as buying. The more these doubts rise (and the revelations are continuing), the less inevitable she seems. The more doubt there is about her success, the less the payoff, and the greater the risk of critical scrutiny cast on her donors, especially if a Republican attorney general takes office in 2017 with a vow to clean up the mess in Washington.
Lifson asserts that subpoena time is coming.
Knowing the feckless, complicit boobs who comprise the current Republican leadership, I’m not holding my breath.
A black judge in Kentucky gave a home invader and armed robber a light sentence because he said he feels that the three-year-old white victim was a “racist” because in her victim statement the little girl said she is now afraid of black people after two black men broke into her home and threatened her with a gun.
In an outrageous statement from the bench, Louisville Judge Olu Stevens attacked the tiny white toddler and her parents for their “racism” calling the little girl’s statement “disturbing” while at the same time excusing the actions of the criminals who traumatized her. That’s right, this judge was more upset at a little girl for being scared by armed robbers than he was at the armed robbers.
At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. The statement read in part, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”
Then the judge outrageously attacked the little girl saying her statement disgusted him…
Judge Olu Stevens’ unleashed his wrath on the little girl and her parents who were the victims of the robbery.
“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” Stevens said.
“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”
Judge Stevens then gave the criminal probation because he “deserved” the opportunity to redeem himself.
So, the armed robber who traumatized a tiny girl gets probation because this judge claimed that the little girl was a racist….? And you can get he assumes that the little girl deserved to be robbed at gunpoint because she is white.
Now, think of this. If this “judge” was so willing to excoriate a 3-year-old girl for being a “racist” one has to wonder how many other black criminals he’s let go because he thinks that all whites–even tiny tots–are racists?
…the NHS is so short of resources that patients in some areas had to be treated in a hospital car park. But if that is true, was not Nigel Farage right to condemn the health service for putting the treatment of foreigners above the needs of those who have paid for that health service and now find themselves being treated in a car park?
Mr Miliband’s solution to hospital car park treatment in the NHS is to promise £2?5 billion in extra funding. But such a promise shows the Labour Party to be in total denial about the nature of the economic problems facing the NHS.
Consider this fact. Public Health England estimates that of the almost 108,000 people who are HIV positive, almost 60,000 are from Africa. The cost to the NHS of anti-retroviral drug treatment for these African health tourists is well over £1 billion annually and rising, as more and more Africans and others hear about what’s on offer from the tax payer.
And it’s not only HIV tourists. There is the same costly problem with Hepatitis B, another big crowd-puller from all over the world to the NHS, and a disease which can be even more costly than HIV to treat.
But the costs of health tourism to the tax payer are not confined to medical treatment alone. Many of those HIV tourists would be in receipt of housing and other welfare allowances, quite possibly for the rest of their lives.
…The British Labour Party, once a genuine British workers’ party, has now morphed into a fanatically pro-immigration welfarist party that uses the NHS for its own political ends. It turns all debate on the NHS into a party political competition about who will pour the most money into a voracious NHS bottomless pit.
Unless we eradicate the scourge of Obamacare, that’s the future of health care here in the U.S.
Let’s see, President Obama has ripped the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He’s shredded the Advise and Consent clause by declaring the Senate in session, despite not having the power to do so. He did away with the Legislative clause by writing laws on his own when he changed the Affordable Care Act a whopping 24 times.
And now, he’s at it again. This time he wishes to cede our ability to enter into treaties with other countries to the United Nations. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know about the UN, then nothing does.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads:
The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (Google link) that Secretary of State John Kerry is still upset about the open letter Sen. Tom Cotton (R – Ark.) wrote last week that was signed by 46 other Republican senators arguing that it was Congress’ role to review treaties.
Mr. Kerry said on Saturday in Egypt that these American lawmakers were “wrong.”
“It is almost inevitable it will raise questions in the minds of the folks with whom we’re negotiating as to whether or not they are negotiating with the executive department and the president, which is what the constitution says, or whether there are 535 members of Congress,” Mr. Kerry told reporters in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
“Let me make clear to Iran…that from our point of view, this letter is incorrect in its statements,” he added. “As far as we are concerned, the Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement.”
It strikes me as odd that Kerry is doubling down on his non-binding argument. An executive agreement is not binding, unlike a treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional review. It’s also odd that he claims, “as far as we are concerned.”
Shouldn’t the Constitution be the standard by which the Republican claims are judged? Finally, there’s Kerry’s famous declaration at the time the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013 that the agreement was not based on trust. So if the agreement is not based on trust and it’s non-binding what “mechanism” will there to be verify that Iran isn’t overtly or covertly pursuing an illicit nuclear program?
More and more I’m convinced that Cotton’s reason for writing the letter was to smoke out the administration on this point.
It wasn’t unknown that the administration was portraying the emerging agreement with Iran as “non-binding.” Armin Rosen of Business Insider, for example, suggested this a week before Kerry and other administration officials admitted it. The problem of course with the administration’s position is, as Rosen wrote last week:
The US wouldn’t have a firm legal obligation to uphold the agreement, so Iran would have a built-in reason to assume American bad faith and push the limits of a future deal. In other words, without a legal guarantee on the US side, compliance with an agreement is potentially diluted Tehran’s side as well — and remember, this is a regime that hid the existence of two secret nuclear facilities and operated 20,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges in defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions.
One problem with Kerry’s harping on the Cotton letter is that it reinforces the weakness of the agreement that the United States is negotiating with Iran. The other problem is that despite the administration’s claim that the deal it is negotiating is non-binding, there is an effort to make this deal binding – on the United States.
The Cotton letter not only elicited a response from the administration, it elicited a response from Iran. After the letter was publicized, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote a response on Iran’s foreign ministry website, leaking an important detail about the negotiations. (For some reason this leak did not elicit an outraged response from the administration about not negotiating in public.)
He [Zarif] emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
The Security Council gambit leaked by Zarif and apparently other sources prompted Sen. Bob Corker’s letter released Thursday, which called out the administration for bypassing Congress.
There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote. Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it, while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would enable Congress to do the same, is a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress’s appropriate role.
Corker pointed out that various senior administration officials had promised to take any deal to Congress, so in addition to the “affront to the American people,” the administration is going back on its word.
(About the same time Corker released his letter, Reuters reported that the P5+1 powers were negotiating with Iran to lift the U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran for breaching its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and failing to come clean about its past nuclear research to the International Atomic Energy Agency.)
Corker wasn’t the only Republican to object to administration’s plan of bringing the agreement to the U.N. Security Council, and, at first the National Security Council (NSC) pushed back against these reports, as Jennifer Rubin observed. Rubin cited BuzzFeed, which carried the NSC denial.
The U.S. has “no intention” of using the United Nations to lock into place any potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.
The United States will not be “converting U.S. political commitments under a deal with Iran into legally binding obligations through a UN Security Council resolution,” Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, said in a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News.
But then over the weekend Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, in a letter to Corker, no longer pretended that Security Council would not be involved.
(I am no lawyer, but I think that Jack Goldsmith gives McDonough and the administration way too much credit here. The implication of the letter is that you dance to our tune or risk undermining the careful diplomacy we’ve carried out. I find the David Rivkin-Lee Casey analysis here, even without reference to the McDonough letter, a lot more convincing.)
The administration’s incoherent response to the Cotton letter suggests that it wasn’t ready for the Security Council gambit to be revealed. It looks like Kerry and other administration sources, hoping to evade the issue, used the “non-binding” defense to say that the administration is not negotiating a treaty.
Then apparently the NSC tried to say that the Security Council would not play a role but no one believed the argument, so McDonough played it straight. Why Kerry is still fixated on the Cotton letter, I have no idea. My best guess is that he’s hoping to distract people from thinking too much about the implication of McDonough’s admission.
The game Iran is playing is that it wants the P5+1 nations (the P5 nations being the five permanent members of the Security Council) to revoke all six Security Council resolutions finding Iran in breach of its NPT obligations and imposing sanctions in response to its bad behavior. With this “get of jail free” card, Iran will turn to the United States and demand that Congress lift the sanctions it passed. I have little doubt that whatever lip service McDonough now pays to “Congress making its own determinations” about a deal will be gone if and when the Security Council lifts the sanctions. If Congress remains unconvinced of Iran’s reformed behavior, the administration will tell Congress that “if congressional action is perceived as preventing us from reaching a deal, it will create divisions within the international community,” just as it is doing now.
Intentionally or not I think that McDonough gave away the game when he wrote, “We agree that Congress will have a role to play – and will have to take a vote – as part of any comprehensive deal. As we have repeatedly said, even if a deal is reached, only Congress can terminate the existing Iran statutory sanctions.”
The administration doesn’t see Congress as a partner in these negotiations. Tom Cotton’s letter forced that out. That is why they still haven’t forgiven him. Meanwhile, those who aren’t distracted by the administration’s feigned outrage, are starting to figure out the scope of the administration’s capitulation to Iran.
This is the kind of top quality public servants brought to you via our President, Barack Obama.
Obama’s Chicago terrorist has been sentenced to 18 months in prison, authorities in the Windy City announced late last week. No, not his old terrorist, Bill Ayers, his newer terrorist, Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, the woman he hired to work as an ObamaCare “navigator” in Illinois.
Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, a terrorist from Jordan, was convicted in Israel for her part in several bombings including one from way back in 1969 that killed two students in a grocery store. Despite her murderous past, the Illinois Department of Insurance hired this killer Muslim as an ObamaCare “navigator” to push the President’s odious healthcare take over onto citizens in that state.
So, Obama had a terrorist pushing his ObamaCare law on citizens in his own home state.
Great work if you can get it.
Yup, that’s our President for ya. He cares so much about us that he has convicted terrorists helping choose the authoritarian, top-down, central government, socialistic health care that he shoved down our throats.
When Odeh came to the USA and became a citizen she did not note her past convictions on her paper work. This lie could see her citizenship revoked.
President Obama made dead sure that Hillary Clinton would never get caught using illegal private email systems while Secretary of State by refusing to appoint an official internal inspector general for the Dept. of State during Hillary’s tenure, a new report shows.
It is the duty of the president to make sure that every government department has its own appointed Inspector General to serve as an internal watchdog over an agency. But during Hillary’s entire tenure, Obama never bothered to fill the vacant IG office for the State Department.
I mean if there’s not Inspector General then, there’s going to be no inspections!
A new report by the Washington Examiner reveals Obama’s complicity in giving Clinton all the cover she needed to do whatever she wanted as Secretary of State by making sure there was no watchdog to keep her honest during her stint at State.
“The White House is saying that the State Department has responsibility for making sure their officials and staff follow the law, but the White House is responsible for making sure they have the tools to do that and they fell down on that job in making sure they have the No. 1 tool, and that’s an inspector general,” John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan open-government group, told the Washington Examiner.
Is there no limit to his power? Can no one stop him?
President Obama really does think he is a king or an emperor of some type. Now he claims that he is going to use executive orders to raise taxes on us all.
This arrogant prince thinks he can do anything he wants just by his say-so. No act of Congress needed.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
The unlawfulness and arrogance of this man is incredible.
Looks like Hillary’s chickens just may be coming home to roost…
I’ve always believed that the Benghazi cover-up was about two presidential campaigns: Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign.
Why else would Hillary Clinton personally send out lies about Benghazi within hours, and then keep on pushing these lies until the truth could no longer be ignored. The truth about an attack by an al Qaeda group that killed our ambassador and three other brave Americans in the days before Obama’s reelection would not only have put Obama at risk of losing, but also would have potentially dashed the hopes of his successor-in-waiting, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The desperation by Obama, Clinton, and their political teams must have been potent. It was so potent that they – rather than admitting to the Islamist conflagration they caused in Libya by ousting and killing Gadhafi – preferred to ignore pleas for increased security from Ambassador Stevens; to abandon him and his colleagues to rampaging terrorists; refuse to follow up with force against those who attacked us; and to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack.
Rather than admit that it was a planned attack by a terrorist group in league with al Qaeda, the Obama/Clinton machine knowingly put out the lie that the killings were the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure Internet video supposedly offensive to radical Islamists. The message: don’t blame us – blame those who offend Islamists (conservatives, Republicans, etc.). Indeed, rather than sending our military to eliminate the enemy in Libya, the Obama administration arrested the poor sap who made the offending video.
As they say on late night infomercials, “But wait! It gets better!”
Strong stuff you might think. But the most recent documents forced out of the State Department will make you think I’m being too kind to the Benghazi betrayers controlling the Executive Branch.
On February 11, 2015, JW struck smoking-gun gold in another cache of documents we forced out of the State Department. The documents show that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents we’ve extracted from the Obama administration only through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511).
Unsurprisingly, the documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton.
The JW lawsuit that uncovered this material focused on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi scandal:
Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S, Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes but is not limited to, notes, taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
Mrs. Clinton had said she took notes on Benghazi for her recent book but suggested no one could see them. She isn’t above the law. Congress is asleep, the media is a cheerleader, so hence, our lawsuit.
We haven’t yet gotten Hillary’s notes, but the chain of internal emails we did get are extraordinary and track the events surrounding the terrorist attack in real time.
In chronological order:
On September 11, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Maria Sand (who was then a Special Assistant to Mrs. Clinton) forwarded an email from the State Department’s Operations Center entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack (SBU) [Sensitive But Unclassified]” to Cheryl Mills (then-Chief of Staff), Jacob Sullivan (then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s Executive Assistant), and a list of other Special Assistants in the Secretary’s office:
The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.
This email was sent about 30 minutes after the terrorist attack began!
DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.
Nearly seven hours later, at 12:04 am, on September 12, Randolph sends an email with the subject line “FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack” to Mills, Sullivan, and McManus that has several updates about the Benghazi attack:
I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center.
This email also contains a chain of other, earlier email updates:
September 11, 2012 11:57 PM email: “(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff.”
September 11, 2012 6:06 PM (Subject: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”
September 11, 2012, 4:54 PM: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel.”
Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi.
Two hours later, Joseph McManus forwards the news about Ambassador Stevens’ death to officials in the State Department Legislative Affairs office with instructions not to “forward to anyone at this point.”
Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
Cheryl Mills asks that the State Department stop answering press inquiries at 12:11 am on September 12, despite the ongoing questions about “Chris’ whereabouts.” In an email to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, Jacob Kennedy, and Phillipe Reines (then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Senior Communications Advisor), Mills writes:
Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one [Hillary Clinton’s “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” statement] is hanging out there.
Earlier in the chain of emails, Nuland told Mills, Sullivan, and Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary of State for Management) that she “ignored” a question about Ambassador Steven’s status and whereabouts from a CBS News reporter.
Think about this: Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s top aide, would rather go to bed and let hang out there the lie that Hillary Clinton put out about the attack than tell reporters the truth about the attack, which by that time had escalated to include mortar fire.
Another top State Department official is eager to promote a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, then-Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a liberal group. The September 2012 statement condemns “the video that apparently spurred these incidents. It was clearly crafted to provoke, offend, and to evoke outrage.” Michael Posner, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, forwarded the statement on September 12, 2012, to Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Jacob Sherman with the note:
This is an excellent statement – our goal should be to get the Conference of Presidents, the ADL etc. to follow suit and use similar language.
(President Obama nominated the left-wing Rabbi Saperstein to be Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom in July 2014. The U.S. Senate confirmed him in December 2014. Posner, by the way, is another far left activist installed at State by Obama.)
Also included in the documents are foreign press reports establishing the cause of Ambassador Chris Steven’s deathas being from asphyxiation. According to the reports, doctors attending Stevens said he could have been saved had he arrived at the hospital earlier.
The Obama administration has blacked out reactions from White House and top State Department officials to news stories published on September 14, 2012. One of the stories quoted a visitor who criticized the lack of security at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound and another headlined, “America ‘was warned of attack and did nothing.’” What was the reaction of key Obama officials to this truth-telling about the media. They don’t want you to know. If it were helpful, it would have been released to us!
Other emails list well over 20 invited participants in a “SVTC” (secure video teleconference). The invited participants for the September 14, 2012, early morning call include senior White House, CIA, and State Department political appointees. Details about that call, which likely documents the cover-up operation on Benghazi, haven’t been produced to Judicial Watch.
These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about “inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.”
The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents, but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang’s cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information.
Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath.
Islamic terrorists connected to al Qaeda attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the evening of September 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both killed. Just a few hours later, a second terrorist strike targeted a different compound about one mile away. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed and 10 others were injured in the second attack.
The families of those four men deserve truth and accountability. So do those who suffered injuries and others haunted by the attacks.
So as Congress is set to acquiesce in Obama’s deadly nullification of our nation’s immigration laws…
So as the mainstream media spends all of its time covering presidential wanna-be’s with all the depth of entertainment media coverage of the Oscars…
So as “Rome burns,” your Judicial Watch will, alone it seems, continue with the hard work of conducting government oversight in a city otherwise bereft of it. The Benghazi Four deserve no less.
We expect more Benghazi documents over the next few months, so stayed tuned for more disclosures.
About Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach. Visit: www.judicialwatch.org
Because as a scientist, I can do the math. How do you explain the 18 years of zero temperature increases, when CO2 levels have continued to rise?
The computer model predictions have all failed, every single one of them.
I recommend Watts Up With That You can read the studies, they give all the links and analysis there.
Please don’t Google ‘deniers’ & run back to me saying that it is not a credible site, go see the studies, the math, & the manipulation of data for yourself. Because there are literally trillions of dollars at stake, so of course there is a vested interest in keeping this thing going. If you disagree with something I say, quote me exactly which sentences you disagree with, then show me the actual research that contradicts what I have said.
Follow the money [and] you will see where the truth lies. Say it were true: If you believe that humans cause climate change, how does moving vast quantities of money help that? Exactly how would a carbon tax help and exactly when would we see the verification of that?
Australia’s carbon tax was to take $139 billion out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Had it been successful, it was supposed to reduce CO2 from the atmosphere from 412 parts per million (ppm) all the way down to 411.87 ppm.
That would have been a reduction of 13/100 of a part per million. It is imperceptible The computer model predictions have ALL failed, yet people want other people, poor people, to die today due to lack of cheap energy and clean water.
…If there were no harm associated with the “green” policies, then it would not matter, but people are actually being harmed right now by energy poverty. People in Germany are illegally cutting wood in the historic Black Forest, just to heat their homes and stay alive. People are being forced to decide between heat and food, due to the massive increases in energy prices in Ontario, so that we can pay 15x the market rate for wind electricity and be forced to pay the Americans to take our excess electricity. Meanwhile, the only true green energy in Canada; hydroelectric power, has to be shut down to keep from destabilizing the grid when the wind is blowing. That’s right, water is diverted from the turbines at Niagara Falls, so you can pay 15x the rate to subsidize big green. Don’t lie to yourself, those are not wind farms, they are not farming the wind, they are farming the subsidies and taking money out of your pocket by theft.
…I cannot fault anyone for buying into this, originally, I had too. The news media has been hard selling it for years. When you do an internet search and most of the results tell you something is true, does that mean that it is true? You may get angry with me for suggesting that you have been duped, so go do the math and research for yourselves. Is it possible that you have been lied to? When they give a stat like: 97% of all scientists agree, it sounds compelling. Isn’t it interesting how that study looked at 10,000 papers and out of those, only chose 70 something to claim a 97% consensus from?
…BTW, I’ve been to the Antarctic peninsula, it is not melting. Gore went there in 2012 to prove how much had melted, notice that he never followed up on that?
As they say on the real blogs, read the whole thing, if for no other reason than its excellent denouement of Al Gore.
Then we’ll switch to calling it “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming.”
The temperatures STILL aren’t rising?
Er, um, don’t mention temperature when talking about Global Warming.
Yes, the Gore-distas really are that pathetic…
First rule about global warming: don’t talk global warming.
The White House quietly released a draft guidance telling federal agencies to consider the impact more carbon dioxide emissions will have on the environment, but only in terms of how much more carbon dioxide will be emitted.
When conducting environmental impact analyses on rules and projects, federal agencies should only talk about carbon dioxide emissions increases — not things like potential increases in temperature, precipitation, storm intensity and other environmental impacts that scientists warn about.
“In light of the difficulties in attributing specific climate impacts to individual projects, [Council on Environmental Quality] recommends agencies use the projected [greenhouse gas] emissions and also, when appropriate, potential changes in carbon sequestration and storage, as the proxy for assessing a proposed action’s potential climate change impacts,” the White House wrote in its guidance federal regulatory agencies conducting environmental reviews.
“CEQ recognizes that many agency [National Environmental Policy Act] analyses to date have concluded that [greenhouse gas] emissions from an individual agency action will have small, if any, potential climate change effects,” the White House wrote.
Basically the White House is telling agencies not to make any predictions about how much an individual project or program will impact the environment through global warming because there’s too much uncertainty.
The Cato scientists argue the White House’s order to agencies not to consider the actual environmental impacts of global warming allows the government to hide how little its actions will actually impact the climate.
Michaels and Knappenberger say climate models, which the federal government has spent billions of dollars developing, can be used to quantify the environmental impacts from higher carbon dioxide emissions.
But what the Obama administration doesn’t want you to see is just how small an impact individual federal actions will have on temperature increases, sea level rises, precipitation and other factors.
“So instead of assessing actual climate impacts (of which there are none) of federal actions, the CEQ directs agencies to cast the effect in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—which can be used for all sorts of mischief,” write Michaels and Knappenberger. “For example, see how the EPA uses greenhouse gas emissions instead of climate change to promote its regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.”
The EPA says its rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030 will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 555 million metric tons per year in 15 years — sounds like a lot, but it will have a negligible impact on global temperatures.
“Government action occurs incrementally, program-by-program and step-by-step, and climate impacts are not attributable to any single action, but are exacerbated by a series of smaller decisions, including decisions made by the government,” the White House wrote.
“Therefore, the statement that emissions from a government action or approval represent only a small fraction of global emissions is more a statement about the nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether to consider climate impacts under [the National Environmental Policy Act],” the White House added.
Investor’s Business Daily is reporting that there are almost two dozen Jihadist training camps right here in America.
Jihad Enclaves: With names like Islamberg and Mahmoudberg, some 22 of what the FBI calls “enclaves” have been established across the U.S. by a group linked to a Pakistani militant group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra.
The specter of 21 Christians being murdered “on the shores of Tripoli” in Libya where U.S. Marines first encountered Muslim forces — the Barbary pirates — and threats by the Islamic State against Rome show how President Obama’s “JV team” has metastasized as a global threat.
And, yes, it can happen here.
The Islamic State is encouraging attacks on infidels in the West like the one in Moore, Okla., where office worker Colleen Hufford was stabbed and beheaded.
Lost in the debate about the threat of Islamic terrorism is that the “home-grown” and “lone wolf” terrorists IS seeks to enlist already walk among us.
They may find aid and comfort in a network of what might be called training camps established by a group called Muslims of the Americas (MOA), a group that has been linked to the Pakistani militant group Jamaatul-Fuqra, whose members are devoted followers of Pakistani extremist cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani.
Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that seeks to educate the public about the threat of Islamic extremism, reports, based on FBI documents the group has obtained, the existence of a 22nd MOA paramilitary training camp in Brazoria County, Texas.
Called “Mahmoudberg” by the MOA, the FBI describes it as an “enclave” and “communal living site” at least seven to 10 acres large from which gunshots, possibly from target shooting, are frequently heard.
With its U.S. headquarters in the enclave of Islamberg, New York, MOA operates its communes in mostly remote areas of Georgia, South Carolina, California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and other states.
Sonic evidently wants the criminal element to know that they and their customers are easy pickings…
One customer would have no part of that!
On February 8 2015, a customer who ignored Sonic’s request that “customers refrain from bringing guns to the restaurant” was able to pull his gun and shoot one of three alleged armed robbers, killing him and stopping the would-be robbery.
I previously reported that on May 30, 2014, Sonic asked law-abiding citizens to come to the restaurant unarmed. We also reported that a Sonic in Topeka, Kansas, was robbed the very day that customers were asked to come and eat while defenseless.
But on February 8 2015, the tables were turned. Atlanta’s NBC 11 reports that 23-year-old Joseph Toombs “was waiting in line at the drive-thru [in DeKalb County, Georgia,] when he saw three suspects approach him on foot.” Toombs alleges that “at least one of the suspects” had a gun.
Toombs then drew the gun he’d brought with him and opened fire, striking and killing one of the suspects–19-year-old Kenneth Brayboy. The other two suspects immediately fled and are still at large.
Domino’s Pizza has no firearms rule for its delivery employees, and as I previously reported, a Domino’s delivery woman was forced to drive to a secondary location and was raped, then robbed, in broad daylight on February 8 2015.
Gun-free policies invite trouble from those who prefer their victims be unarmed. Businesses can show honor for their patrons and employees by recognizing their right to self-defense.
Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty just keeps getting worse the more we find out about it.
Senator Jeff Sessions‘ statement on new USCIS “guidelines” allowing amnestied illegal immigrants to bring in relatives:
“One of the President’s most shocking unilateral actions is his chain migration program for the relatives of illegal immigrants. Guidance issued yesterday from USCIS declares that many illegal immigrants’ foreign relatives may legally join them in the U.S. Under this decree, the Administration is allowing the Central American relatives of those covered by the President’s amnesty order to come to the U.S. as ‘refugees’ or ‘parolees.’
In effect, the President’s answer to the ongoing run on the border is to order government officials to transport many of those same individuals from Central America into the U.S. with lawful paperwork and guaranteed access to federal benefits.
This government-ordered amnesty chain migration will impose enormous costs on federal taxpayers and jobseekers, as those who arrive as refugees will be able to receive automatic federal benefits. We must be taking action to reduce the incentive to enter the country illegally. Helping illegal immigrants bring their relatives here as refugees only provides further incentive for illegal immigration. More broadly, we must be taking steps to curb the flow of unskilled labor and help families already living here—whether past immigrants or U.S.-born—find good jobs, good schools, and thriving communities.”
[NOTE: The U.S. currently admits 1 million permanent immigrants each year along with 70,000 refugees and asylees. According to Gallup, Americans want to see record immigration reduced, not increased, by a 2-1 margin.]
Emphases added. As far as I can see, this story has been picked up nowhere in the MSM.
Someone ought to alert Mothers Against Drunk Drivers because the Obama Administration is seeing fit to let drunk drivers “go their way” as long as they’re in the country illegally.
The Obama administration has ordered federal agents responsible for protecting one of the nation’s busiest and most crime-infested regions near Mexico to stop apprehending drunk drivers, according to an internal government memo that also concedes an officer that elects to detain them is “acting within the course and scope of his employment.”
Obtained by Judicial Watch this week, the notice is titled “Enforcement Options With Alcohol-Impaired Drivers” and directs the 4,000-plus U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, Arizona sector to “release” individuals under the influence and “allow them to go on their way.”
The document acknowledges that this feels counter-intuitive for Border Patrol agents, but eases concerns by answering a hypothetical question for the officers who have sworn to uphold the law: “If you allow this driver to continue down the road and they kill someone, aren’t you liable?” The answer is no, according to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo. “There is no legal requirement for a Border Patrol agent to intervene in a state crime, including DUI,” the order says, adding that “therefore there is generally no liability that will attach to the agent or agency for failing to act in this situation.”
The directive offers another scenario—detaining the impaired individual at the request of state or local law enforcement officers (LEO). “There is no duty to detain the alcohol-impaired individual,” the memo says, “but if you do this option can raise potential liability for the agent and the agency.”
The document goes on to say that Border Patrol policy is to cooperate with local and state law enforcement officers who alert of suspected violations under state law. That means the agent would be considered to have been acting within the course and scope of his employment while detaining a drunk driver at the request of local law enforcement officers under Arizona law, the document confirms.
Evidently, the Department of Homeland Security is more worried about a civil lawsuit than letting a drunk driver go so he can kill more innocent people…
The last scenario offered in the recently issued decree has a Border Patrol agent detaining a drunk driver in Arizona without a request from a state or local law enforcement officer.
“This option poses the greatest liability for both the agent and the agency,” according to the order. After revealing that private citizens in Arizona can make felony and misdemeanor arrests, it nevertheless prompts Border Patrol agents to stay away from drunk drivers. “Be advised, this option poses the greatest threat to an agent for a civil lawsuit,” the memo warns.