Tag Archive: Obama


Holder says drone strikes since 2009 have killed four U.S. citizens

On the eve of a major address by President Barack Obama on his counterterrorism policy, the Obama administration revealed Wednesday that drone strikes since 2009 had killed four Americans overseas – one of whom, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was targeted in Yemen because he’d planned and was planning terrorist attacks on the United States – principally the plot to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Eve 2009.

Three others who were not “specifically targeted” were killed in circumstances the administration did not explain.

The revelation came in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders and chairmen of key congressional committees in which Holder said, “the president has directed me to disclose to you certain information” about the number of Americans killed by U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of areas of active combat such as Afghanistan.

Holder said the U.S. government was “aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period (since 2009): Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

Jude Kenan Mohammed was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and the FBI notice said, “On July 22, 2009, a Federal Grand Jury in North Carolina indicted Jude Kenan Mohammad for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons in a foreign country. Mohammad is at large and a federal warrant was issued by the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for his arrest.”

Read Full Article Here

 

 

 

*********************************************************************************************************

About these ads

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Funny Obamas

Dave Hodges
Activist Post

Mark Twain once talked about history not necessarily repeating, but he noted that history sure does rhyme.

Richard Nixon was unable to survive one direct hit upon his administration, namely, the Watergate scandal. Conversely, Obama is facing five scandals which dwarf Watergate in terms of criminality, abuse of power, malfeasance of office and outright treason.

The damage inflicted upon the American people by the criminal syndicate occupying the White House is unparalleled in American history. Yet, Obama is going to survive and this article will describe how Obama is this century’s version of the famous escape artist, Houdini.

The Alternative Media Is Doing Its Job

In Part One of this series, I detailed how various researchers have determined that it only takes 10% of the population to passionately hold to an ideal for the ideal to reach critical mass and go viral. I also described how the knowledge that this country is being run by a criminal syndicate is taking hold and we have likely passed the 10% threshold as evidenced by the fact that America is outraged by (1) Benghazi-Gate; (2) IRS-Gate; (3) AP Spy-Gate; (4) Whistleblower-Gate; and even (5) Fast and Furious is beginning to make a second pass. The alternative media is being so effective that it is forcing the MSM to jump off Obama’s ship and claim they do not support him any longer (e.g. MSNBC Chris Mathews).

The Calm Before the Storm

Even the great fence-sitter, Glenn Beck, is beginning to throw words around like “impeachment” in reference to Obama. And this is coming from a man who cannot decide if he is in the MSM or the alternative media. Remember, according to Beck, 9/11 is exactly as the Bush administration claims it was, an al-Qaeda venture. This is the same al-Qaeda that we are allegedly fighting in Afghanistan while supporting in Syria in our effort to oust Assad.
Regardless of the pedigree of many reporters who are now hinting at the fact that we are witnessing the last days of the Obama administration, the President himself seems unbelievably calm.

Obama is calm because he knows that he is going to survive the largest onslaught of simultaneous scandal exposures in our country’s history. There has never been a time in our history in which a sitting president has been besieged with this much exposed fodder aimed at his removal. If Watergate forced Nixon to resign, Obama should have been crushed by the comparative weight of his scandals and he should have already exited the White House. Why hasn’t this happened?

Sacrificial Lambs Buy Time

It is not likely that the Mafioso inhabitant presently residing in the White House will ever leave office prematurely. In fact, I think it is likely that Obama may not leave the Oval Office in 2016 as well.

If this were 1974, I would be advising Obama to pack his bags and I would also be advising him that he should be begging Joe Biden to grant him a pardon for his criminal acts including the facilitation of the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Make no mistake about it, Obama will survive these crises. However, Holder and possibly even DHS director, Janet Napolitano, may not.

Undoubtedly, Obama will offer up the head of Eric Holder as a sacrificial lamb and he will be gone by Labor day, if not much sooner, and this will buy Obama time to enact his endgame strategies which will negate the five Watergate wolves trying to break through his door.

Holder’s departure will bring celebrations in the alternative media and their followers will be dancing in the streets. We will also smell blood and want more removals. But the head of the president will never be touched despite the fact that all of us will soon be screaming for Obama’s scalp. It will just never happen.

What Will Save This President?

There is one game-changing event which will suddenly and irreversibly negate the momentum that the alternative media has achieved in terms of exposing and removing this criminal administration from power.

In the last eight months, I have repeated the mantra that most of what drives this government today is the preservation of the Petrodollar on behalf of the Federal Reserve. I have also detailed how Iran is selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold, thus threatening the preeminence of the Petrodollar in which the other countries of the world must first purchase dollars from the Federal Reserve for the “privilege” of purchasing oil. This process provides the only backing that our dollar possesses.

Iran, China, Russia and India are destabilizing the dominance of our currency. Before you cheer the fact that the Federal Reserve is about ready to take a much-deserved bloodbath, please realize that you have a job to go to every Monday morning because of this one-sided arrangement and it is all about to end unless Iran can be toppled.

Why Syria?

Have you yet figured out why Obama will survive these crushing scandals and assume power in this country in a manner only reserved for such despots as Stalin? The road to Obama’s immediate survival runs through Damascus.

On the surface, Syria seems so very insignificant on the global chessboard. However, the key to invading Iran and seizing their oil fields is to first control Syria, because the occupation of Syria is an insurmountable checkmate against Russian ground troops’ intervention.

If the US takes over the Syrian revolution that we started through our al-Qaeda proxy forces, the US will gain a huge tactical advantage in the Middle East. The installation of short- and medium-range missile batteries in Syria will serve as a deterrent and a blocking mechanism for Russian ground troops’ ability to intervene in Iran.

If Russia allows the US to control Syria, Russia will lose any chance of preventing a US/NATO takeover of Iran. Russia and China have heavily vested themselves in gold. If Iran is stopped from selling its oil for gold, China, Russia and India will have wasted an enormous amount of the respective GNP’s in acquiring gold. And the acquisition of gold will be for naught if the US is about to re-establish the dominance of the Petrodollar as the world’s reserve currency through a successful invasion of Iran.

For awhile, it appeared as if Russia did not have the stomach for WWIII and they were going to let us topple Assad without so much as a whimper. I have been shocked as I have watched Russia apparently acquiesce to an impending takeover of Syria by US-led forces. However, recent Russian events make it clear that WWIII is on the horizon.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.marinecorpquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/usmc03.jpg

“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they’ve made a difference.  The Marines don’t have that problem.”

~ Ronald Reagan, 1985

Marine Corps Quotes- A Testament to the Marine Corps’ Sacrifice for our Freedom

***********************************************************************************************

A great many  of  us  feel that   regardless of  our  opinions  on the   Wars, Missions, Conflicts or  whatever the  moniker  of the month for those Military scenarios  taking  place  all over the  world,  our  Men and  Women  in Uniform deserve  respect.  Not  only  for  their position  , but  for their  service.  The  sacrifice  they  have  made  for their  country should  conjure  up  respect  if not  gratitude for  all they  do as  we stay  home  and  go   about  our  lives untouched  by the horrors  they  witness.

I  am  one  who believes  wholeheartedly  that  all  members of the  Armed  Forces  deserve  respect.  Regardless of the  fact  that  I  do not  agree  with the  illegal  wars  and  intervention  infringing  on the  National  Sovereignty  of other  Nations.  That  however,  does not  reflect onto the  service  each  and  everyone of  them have  dedicated  to  their  Nation with  Honor  and  Bravery.

I do not  feel  that   what  was  done  here  reflects  that respect nor  the  gratitude  that should  be shown these  Men and  Women.  However,  I  realize  that  there  are   those  who believe  that  to  be a  very  personal opinion.  As  was mentioned  to me  by  a  good  friend who happens  to  be a  former   Marine  and  who’s  daughter  happens to  be an active  duty Marine.  I  asked  how  he  felt  about  what  happened  this  day.  His  response  was  simple,  “No big deal”.  He  is of  the opinion  that  it  was   neither  disrespectful nor should anyone  feel  that  it is  an  obligation to show respect to  anyone  in  uniform  out of the  ordinary human  common  courtesy  variety….of  course.   He went  one  step  further  and  asked  his  daughter  how  she  felt  about  what  happened  and  her  response was  also, “No big  deal”.

Now  in  my  mind  it is par  for  the  course  that  many  of  the   Armed  Forces  Personnel do  not feel that  they are  owed  for  their  service.  I find  that  very  honorable that they  be  so  humble in their perception of  themselves and  their  service.  That  however, is their  prerogative  as  they are the ones  who  sacrificed  and  served.  For  those of   us  who have  not ,  I  think  if  one  were to  reflect  on the freedoms we  have  enjoyed and  the life  we  have  lived  in comparison  to those in  other countries.  We should be  grateful and the least  we  can do  is  give  them  respect. 

I  also  do  not think it  out of line  to  expect  that  the President  of  the United  States show  proper respect.  Not only  for the service   these  Men  and Women have given.

Not  only  for the role  that  Marines  have  played  and  proudly  declare  that they are  the  President’s  own.

Not only for the Corps  that  they  represent.

But  because  he is the President  of the United  States  and  his  role  is  to honor them  and  the  sacrifice they  have  given  on his  orders.

Am  I  wrong?  Perhaps  so  as  there  are  Marines  who  do not  agree  that  it   was  required.

Wrong  or  not  I  will always  stand  behind  the  premise  that  they are  deserving  of respect  and that  this task should have  been  preformed  by White  House  Staff  Personnel.  As  they  are  paid  to assist the  Administration in the  everyday nuances  of  business and  personal necessities within the  government.

******Before any of you  who believe  this  is an  agenda against  Obama go off on  tangent, I  say  this………In  my  case, as  I  can  only  speak for  myself,  I  would have felt the  same had it  been any  other President. My  immediate  thought  was how other  Presidents have  shown such  respect  and  decorum  towards Armed Forces Personnel.  Just  so you are  aware ……****

While  I  do not  agree  with  my  friend  ,  I  respect  him  for  his humility and  for his   Service.  I  defer  to  him and  so   have  decided to  make a point  of   recording  his  thoughts  here as  well.

Thank  you   A.T.   Even  if  you  neither  expect nor  require it  ,  you  have  my  respect and  my  gratitude.

~Desert Rose~

************************************************************************************************

‘It made him look like a butler’: Retired general blasts President Obama for ordering U.S. Marine to break military rules by holding an umbrella

  • The President unwittingly forced two U.S Marines to break protocol and regulations as he ordered them to use umbrellas
  • Former United States Air Force Lieutenant Thomas McInerney criticized the President for making the officers look like butlers
  • Came as he was assailed by questions over three scandals engulfing White House during Rose Garden press conference with Turkish Prime Minister
  • Answered questions on Benghazi where no marines guarded ambassador Chris Stevens despite his repeated requests for better protection

By David Martosko In Washington, James Nye and Daniel Bates

|

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

President Obama humiliated the marine who he asked to hold his umbrella by making him ‘look like a butler’, a respected military general claimed today.

Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’ by making the soldier shelter him from a shower.

He also said that the President has plenty of aides so did not understand why one of them could not have held the umbrella.

Scroll Down for Video

Hoping for a break in the storm

Hoping for a break in the storm: Obama faced a barrage of questions over three simultaneous scandals engulfing his administration

Broken Regulations

Broken Regulations: US Marines hold umbrellas during light rain for US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The President caused a stir when he summoned over two marines to keep him dry at a press conference in the Rose Garden.

The marines held an umbrella over the President and the Turkish Prime Minister individually as Obama made jokes about the weather.

However, for some the move was not a laughing matter particularly as it is a breach of protocol for marines to hold umbrellas while in uniform.

Lt Gen McInerney told MailOnline that he found it particularly insulting how the President at one point his his hand under the marine’s arm ‘like he wasn’t doing a good job or something’.

He said: ‘The President has stood in the rain before without an umbrella and a marine would generally stand there without holding an umbrella.

‘He isn’t some kind of butler or something.

‘It makes the other guy (the other marine) look like a butler too.’

‘I think it’s a lack of respect for the marine, that’s what I think.’

‘I don’t understand why one of his aides could not have held the umbrella. The marine is a warrior but the aides are not.’

Lt Gen McInerney, 76, served in Vietnam and fought with NATO and was commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska before retiring.

He said: ‘If I was his (the marine’s) commander…I’d say good job, you did what he wanted you to do but you can’t, really he has to keep his comments to himself because if you say anything you’re going to get in trouble.’

‘Any time a marine has said something…one general who spoke out, he got fired, he got canned from his job.’

Lt Gen McInerney also lashed out at the President for not doing enough to support soldiers when they return home from combat.’

He said: ‘The President talks a good line but he doesn’t follow a good line. These guys are coming home and they’re not getting what they are supposed to get.’

‘The guy’s (Obama) got to get real and he’s got to start doing stuff the right way and answering questions in the right manner, not changing subject in the middle of the interview.’

According to Marine Corps regulations, not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express permission of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corp Manual, which is the bible for all soldiers serving, specifically states that a soldier’s uniform dress code does not allow the carrying of an umbrella and ‘no officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.’

Indeed, male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.

Regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, rules out any use or carrying of an umbrella while a Marine is in uniform.

However, female Marines ‘may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered.’

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President's actions

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President’s actions

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Many commentators found the use of the marines to be particularly insensitive, given the President was answering questions on Benghazi.

The lack of marines protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Libyan consulate and the failure to deploy marines to protect him amid the outbreak of violence has come under fire ever since last year’s attack on September 11.

Usually a marine guard would be in force at an overseas diplomatic compound but in Benghazi the government opted to use a private Libyan security team.

Stevens had made repeated appeals for improved security at the Libyan base but to no avail.

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a CIA security team stationed a mile away who heard gunshots and intervened to try and help Stevens. They were also killed in an attack on their compound.

When violence broke out there were also delays sending in marines to assist.

A rapid response team were twice told to stand down amid the chaos while reports at the time said the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team was delayed because the state department ordered them to deplane and change into civilian clothing.

Answering questions on Benghazi, President Obama said the government was ‘ continuing to review our security at high-threat diplomatic posts’ in light of the attack. 

At the press conference originally intended to be a victory lap for the United States’ relationship with Turkey, Obama stood alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and fielded questions which quickly shifted to the trio of scandals that are engulfing his administration.

Critical: Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ¿lack of respect¿

Critical:Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to 'learn the lessons of Benghazi' but he called it an 'incident' rather than a terror attack

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to ‘learn the lessons of Benghazi’ but he called it an ‘incident’ rather than a terror attack

He also dodged questions about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and said ‘I offer no apologies’ for the Department of Justice’s secret seizure of reporter’s phone records in search of a classified intelligence leak.

He has been under growing pressure over these issues and Benghazi in recent weeks.

It has emerged that his State Department political appointees intervened in the aftermath of the 2012 terror attack, in a process that resulted in a misleading set of talking points which ignored terrorism in favor of a more muted explanation, in the midst of a re-election campaign.

 photo obamacarelogo_zps3de31909.jpg

He  fails to discuss the fact that the majority of the constituents  in those  Republican  governed  States agree  with their States  decision.  They  want  nothing to do  with  Obamacare…….But that  would  not  fall into the  sweet  little  package  being  used  by  both  sides of  the  aisle.  That  little topic   he  loves  to  use  at  every turn,  claiming  that  the other side  is  playing  politics.  How  convenient for  him.  The  truth is this is not   a fight  for the  good of  the  People  or  the  Nation.   But  rather  a fight  to  control  the  flow  of all those  taxpayer   and  corporate  lobbyist  dollars.  A  political  game  of Tug-of-War  if you  will.  

Partisan BS at  it’s finest!

He  also  fails to  address something  aside from  the fact that  while  those  who do not  have insurance may be  his  concern because  those who already have  insurance have  seen the  changes  and  the  added  cost that  have been  implemented  by the  healthcare  program.  There  has  been  no  adequate  discussion on the repercussions to   middle  class Americans  who are  having to make  due with smaller paychecks  and the ever rising  costs  associated  with the  financial  rot that  is  affecting  this  Nation.  Yes  those  who qualify  will be  able to receive free healthcare or State  sponsored  healthcare.  What  about  those  who make   just  enough  to  keep their  bills paid  and  food on the table?

What  about  those  barely  able  to  eek  out a living with what  little  they  make and  still be able to  put  gas in the  car  to keep  going  to that  underpaid job?

Who is  going to help them  when the  time  comes  to  get  this   insurance  exchange,  that  is  being  touted  as  the answer to all our  ills ( pun most  definitely intended),   is more than they  can  possibly  afford  and still feed their  children?

The fact is that those  who cannot  afford  insurance because  they   literally cannot afford  to , even , take  their  kids  to  a  burger  king for a  cheap meal just as a treat,  something once  taken  for  granted by  mainstream  families  everywhere in this  Nation. 

They  cannot  afford  a kid  meal’s worth  out  of  their established  budget and   yet  they  will be  expected  to pay  for insurance? 

Adding insult to injury they  will be  found   to not  qualify  for  the  financial  assistance necessary to  receive discounted  or  free  healthcare  because  they  make  more than is allowed  according to the  bean counters  that  established  the criteria, from their   cushy  offices in  Washington.  The  simple  truth is  they  will either  have  to  pay  for an  insurance  they  cannot  afford   or they  will have  to  pay  a  fine that they  still cannot  afford.  Either  way   the  middle  working  class pays out the  nose  , like it  or  not .  

After all  ,  with all the  homeless  American  families  now  eating in  soup  kitchens  and   sleeping in cars  or  in shelters,  what’s a few  more  right ? 

They  won’t lose  any  sleep  over it that  much  has  been made painfully  obvious.  As  they are  so  far  removed  from the  everyday   struggle that   Americans  have  to  simply  survive. The truth being that they  are unable to  fathom  what  it is  like going to bed  at  night hungry  because  the  only  food  in the  house  has  been  set  aside  to make  sure  the  children  have  something to  eat.

Either  way  we  don’t get  to  choose  because  this  legislation  has been  jammed   down   our throats  and  now they are  worried  about  their  2014  campaign?

Yes, well  we  already  know that the only  thing  politicians  care about  is  being  re-elected  so they  can  keep  filling  their  pockets  with their  ill gotten  gain  from  selling the  American  people  down the  river.  That  however,  does  not a proper  and  just program  make of the  Healthcare program  that  has  now  been made  law against the  will and to the  detriment of  the PEOPLE!!

~Desert Rose~

*********************************************************************************************************************

Obama defends health law as Democrats fret over 2014 elections

By Sam Baker 05/10/13 03:29 PM ET

President Obama on Friday sought to quell Democratic worries and public misconceptions about his healthcare law, months before its biggest provisions are set to take effect.

Members of Obama’s own party have relentlessly criticized the administration for not doing enough to sell the public on ObamaCare, especially as new coverage options are about to come online. Some Democrats fear a rough rollout could cost them in the 2014 midterms.

“Undoubtedly, there will be some mistakes and hiccups” as major pieces of the law fall into place later this year, Obama said Friday.

But he said the law’s supporters “have an obligation to now make sure that full implementation moves forward the way it needs to.”Most of the law’s biggest provisions will take effect between Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, 2014.

“I’m here to tell you, I am 110 percent committed to getting it done right,” Obama said.

Public polling shows the healthcare law remains unpopular — just 35 percent of those polled in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll said they have a favorable opinion of the law, while 40 percent had an unfavorable view.

That’s a major concern for Democrats ahead of a midterm election that historically goes against the president’s party. Republicans are hoping to add to their advantage in the House, and to retake the Senate.

Obama, for his part, is hoping to buck history. If Republicans gain congressional seats next year, his years as a lame-duck president are likely to begin immediately. But by gaining seats — and especially by winning back the House — Obama could give himself a chance to add to his record in the last two years of his term.

A senior administration official downplayed the bad polling Friday, saying reactions to the health law break along partisan lines and that internal polls look slightly better for the White House.

Read Full Article Here

**********************************************************************************************************************

Poll: Many Americans uninformed about health care overhaul, some don’t know it’s law

A Tea Party member reaches for a pamphlet titled “The Impact of Obamacare”, at a “Food for Free Minds Tea Party Rally” in Littleton, New Hampshire October 27, 2012. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

President Barack Obama reflects on the status of the Affordable Care Act while speaking Tuesday at the White House.

As the Obama administration girds for “glitches and bumps” along the path to full implementation of the health-care law, a new poll indicates many Americans are still unclear about the details of the new law and, in some cases, unaware it’s actually law of the land.

A whopping 42 percent of Americans do not know that the Affordable Care Act is, in fact, law. Included in that 42 percent — 12 percent believe it has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent think the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it, and 23 percent are unsure of its status, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll.

For the record, no portion of the law has been repealed; and the Supreme Court upheld it last summer in a 5-4 decision. The law continues to be viewed more negatively than positively, with just 35 percent saying they have a favorable view and 40 percent saying they have an unfavorable one. But the prolonged implementation, complexity of the law, and messaging by opponents has aided in the confusion. The administration is starting to push back, beginning with the president.

“It’s still a big undertaking,” President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday in a press conference at the White House. “And what we’re doing is making sure that every single day we are constantly trying to hit our marks so that it will be in place. … Even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps. … And that’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.”

The poll comes as the administration Tuesday took one step to streamline the application process for health insurance for the uninsured, unveiling a shorter, three-page application form rather than the earlier, 21-page version that was criticized. Enrollment begins Oct. 1 for insurance that would take effect Jan. 1.

Nearly half of all Americans – 49 percent – say they still do not have enough information about the law and how it will impact their families. There are plenty of people happy to try and fill in the gaps.

Republicans, for example, have begun mounting a messaging campaign against the law’s implementation, hoping it can help them in the 2014 midterms and potentially hand over control of the Senate to the GOP, which needs to net six seats to accomplish that goal.

They have seized, in particular, on retiring Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’ comment at a hearing earlier this month that implementation of the law will not just see “glitches and bumps,” but said it will be a “train wreck.”

“I urge my friends on the other side to join with Republicans and stop this ‘train wreck’ before things get even worse,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, up for re-election in 2014, said on the floor of the upper chamber.

Views of the law have gotten worse since the presidential election, sliding from 43 percent favorable to 35 percent. Democrats are mostly responsible for the drop, as pre-election partisanship begins to fade and details of implementation begin to come into focus.

But on Tuesday, President Obama –  in his most extensive defense of the implementation of the law so far –  said, “Despite all the hue and cry and ‘sky is falling’ predictions about this stuff, if you’ve already got health insurance, then that part of ‘Obamacare’ that affects you, it’s pretty much already in place.”

What remains, he added, is getting the 10 percent to 15 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance, and who will face a penalty next year if they choose not to purchase it, to enroll in state or federal exchanges. The federal government’s job is also made more difficult, the president said, because big states like Florida and Texas, both states with Republican governors, have opted against setting up exchanges.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

Schumer: Health Insurance Rates Likely To Spike, Obamacare Partly Responsible

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Rochester, N.Y. (CBS DC) – Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame.

Speaking with WHEC Rochester, Schumer said, “Our insurance department is empowered to protect families and we’re going to watch them like a hawk to make sure they do, because if they don’t, these rates could go through the roof.”

“It’s in part because of Obamacare, but health care costs have been going up in double digits for years and years and years. The good news is in this bill, there’s a way to stop it.”

The comments from Schumer were in response to many insurance companies’ failure to announce premium increases for next year. Some healthcare experts are warning that premiums could go up by more than 10 percent on January 1 when Obamacare kicks in across the country.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

GOP seeks $4B for ObamaCare program

By Sam Baker 04/17/13 07:52 PM ET

House Republicans are trying to pump $4 billion into an ObamaCare program.

The Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill Wednesday to beef up funding for the healthcare law’s high-risk insurance pools, which have stopped accepting new patients due to a lack of funding.

The additional money for high-risk pools would come out of another part of the healthcare law — its fund for prevention and public health, which Republicans decry as a “slush fund.”

It’s the first time Republicans have tried to fix, rather than repeal, a program in the healthcare law, and the move has angered many on the right.
Some Republicans were clearly prepared for criticism.

“A minority of our conference feels that the only vote that should be taken against ObamaCare is a repeal vote — all or nothing, to kill it dead,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said. “I’ve always felt that … if we see areas we can chip away at, that are the most egregious parts of the bill, we really should do that.”

Republicans have a lot riding on the performance of the high-risk pools.

While the program is a relatively small piece of the Affordable Care Act, high-risk pools make up the cornerstone of Republican plans to “repeal and replace” the law.

House Republicans have said high-risk pools should replace one of the healthcare law’s most popular provisions — the requirement that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions.

If the high-risk pools in the Affordable Care Act prove ineffective, Republicans could have a harder time making the argument that they could help make up a viable alternative to ObamaCare.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said it’s “ironic” that Republicans are trying to spend more money on a government-run healthcare system, while the Democrats’ healthcare law covers the uninsured through the private market.

“People ought to be able to buy insurance,” Waxman said. “And people with pre-existing conditions are higher-risk and would be charged a higher price if we didn’t spread out the population to get as many people as possible covered.”

Under a high-risk pool, the government pays to insure sick people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. The pools contain only the sickest and most expensive patients, and the government is left with the bill.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers lose the right to deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions and the cost of covering sick people is spread across the entire healthcare system. The law established temporary high-risk pools as a bridge until the ban on coverage denials takes effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

Benghazi Whistleblower’s Lawyer: Obama, Kerry Aware of State Dept. Obstruction

Pajamasmedia Pajamasmedia

Published on May 1, 2013

Victoria Toensin, legal counsel for State Department officials seeking to provide evidence for the investigation into the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi 9-11-2012, says that both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are aware that the State Department is threatening and obstructing the investigation.

*****************************************************************************************************

Benghazi Gate Obama Admin Calls Lawyer Of Whistleblower a Liar – 3 Whistleblowers To Testify

Massteaparty Massteaparty

Published on May 3, 2013

3 Whistleblowers To Testify Wednesday 11am In House Security Hearing
Benghazi Gate Obama Admin Calls Lawyer Of Whistleblower a Liar – 3 Whistleblowers To Testify

***************************************************************************************************

Benghazi Whistleblowers Revealed Lawyers Interview With Geraldo Explosive Interview Part1

Massteaparty Massteaparty

Published on May 4, 2013

Benghazi Whistleblowers Revealed Lawyers Interview With Geraldo Explosive Interview Part 1

Obama Admin Accuses Whistleblowers’ Lawyers As liars

*******************************************************************************************************

Benghazi Whistleblowers Revealed Lawyers Interview With Geraldo Explosive Interview Part 2

Massteaparty Massteaparty

Published on May 4, 2013

Obama Admin Accuses Whistleblowers’ Lawyers As liars
Benghazi Whistleblowers Revealed Lawyers Interview With Geraldo Explosive Interview Part 2

*******************************************************************************************************

Benghazi Whistleblower Claims Clinton Tried To Cut Out Counterterror Dept – Lou Dobbs

Massteaparty Massteaparty

Published on May 6, 2013

Benghazi Whistleblower Claims Clinton Tried To Cut Out Counterterror Dept – Lou Dobbs

*******************************************************************************************************

Judy Miller On The Benghazi Whistleblower

NewsmaxTV NewsmaxTV

Published on May 7, 2013

Judy Miller, Manhattan Institute Fellow and Newsmax Contributor, joins Steve to preview the upcoming Benghazi whistleblower hearing and discuss Israel’s strike against Syria and now possibly Iran.

*******************************************************************************************************

File:Senate in session.jpg

Image Source

If  Bill Clinton’s lying about  an indiscretion that  took place in the  White House led  to  Impeachment   proceedings.  Then how can  anyone justify not taking the  same  course of  action  on a  lie and the  cover up of  the  death  of 4 American citizens???

The  consensus thus far had been that  Obama’s  failure to follow through on  campaign promises  was not an  impeachable offense.  The  reason  being that campaign  promises  are  meant to  be  broken  as  they are  just a  means  to an end.  In other words  they  will say  whatever the people  want  to  hear to   get  elected.  The comparison made  on  many  occasions is  that one  cannot compare   what  Clinton did  to  what Obama had  done because   Clinton  lied to  the  People directly  and  under  oath.  Well one wonders what the  excuses will be  now.  Since  Obama and his   administration have  lied at  every turn to   whitewash  the part they played in the death  of  4  Americans.  They  have lied to t he  people directly and they  have lied to   Congress.  I believe under oath is a definite factor to the  latter, is it  not ,  or am  I  mistaken ?

Now going a bit  further  we can couple the cover up  with the  slow and  nefarious enroachment  of the Federal government  upon the Constitutional rights of the  American People. Not only by proxy through pressure or self interest via the  Congress. But also personally via  Executive  orders.  Obama has slapped The People  in the  face  every time he  has sidestepped Congress and or signed  an  order infringing upon  our  rights.  Being a Constitutional  Attorney  apparently has   given him  the delusion that  he can   re-write  it as he  sees fit to mold the Nation to  a  more  acceptable America  than the Founding  Fathers envisioned. 

If the manner in  which  he  has blatantly  lied, forfeited ,calculatedly  twisted the truth and  the  opportunities to utilize  them for the unfolding of a very  personal agenda.  Is not enough, If the statistics of the vanishing middle class as we  watch the growing numbers of working poor and  wealthy  divide  this  Nation.  If  the   looming class  wars and economic devastation are  not enough  .  Then   I  would like someone to tell  me exactly   what  would be  enough to  bring  this man to  heel and remove him  from power!!

~ Desert Rose ~

******************************************************************

Huckabee: Benghazi Scandal Will Cost Obama His Presidency

 

Image: Huckabee: Benghazi Scandal Will Cost Obama His Presidency

 

Tuesday, 07 May 2013 11:25 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald and Kenneth Hanner

 

 

Share:


 

  • 3
    Share

Influential Republicans are setting their sights on toppling the Obama administration as evidence of a cover-up over the assault on the Benghazi consulate gets stronger.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is now openly talking about impeachment, saying he does not believe Barack Obama will survive the remaining 3½ years of his presidency.

Urgent: ObamaCare Is About to Strike — Are You Prepared?

“When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,” Huckabee said on his radio show Monday.

“As the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3½ years.”

Huckabee isn’t alone in his belief that Obama could be toppled. The pressure is growing just as Congressional hearings on the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead are due to start on Wednesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who will chair those hearings as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said he intends to make the president “come clean.”

“The administration has made a claim that for classified reasons they changed the story,” Issa told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “We believe right now that may be the biggest lie of all, and we intend on making the president come clean as to, quote, ‘What the classified reasons are that would justify lying to the American people.’”

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina added to the onslaught against the administration’s handling of the assault.

“Political manipulation is rampant here,” said Graham in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “The dam’s about to break on Benghazi.”

And former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg on Monday that he too believes the growing scandal could lead to the “unraveling” of the Obama administration.

Read Full Article Here

The Official Facebook page of President Bashar Assad, via Associated Press

Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, right, surrounded by bodyguards on Saturday in Damascus for the inauguration of a statue dedicated to university “martyrs” who were killed in the country’s civil war, in an image released on his official Facebook page.

WASHINGTON — Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options.

Thaer Abdallah/Reuters

Members of the opposition Free Syrian Army guarding mortar shells last week in Khirbet al-Ghazaleh, in Dara’a Province.

The origins of this dilemma can be traced in large part to a weekend last August, when alarming intelligence reports suggested the besieged Syrian government might be preparing to use chemical weapons. After months of keeping a distance from the conflict, Mr. Obama felt he had to become more directly engaged.

In a frenetic series of meetings, the White House devised a 48-hour plan to deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by using intermediaries like Russia and Iran to send a message that one official summarized as, “Are you crazy?” But when Mr. Obama emerged to issue the public version of the warning, he went further than many aides realized he would.

Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.

“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”

As a result, the president seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago. American officials have even discussed with European allies the prospect of airstrikes to take out Syrian air defenses, airplanes and missile delivery systems, if government use of chemical weapons is confirmed.

An Israeli airstrike in Syria on Thursday, apparently targeting advanced missiles bound for the Shiite Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, highlighted the volatile situation. With Syrians already dying by the thousands from conventional weapons, Mr. Obama now confronts the most urgent foreign policy issue of his second term, one in which he must weigh humanitarian impulses against the risk to American lives. After about two years of ineffectual diplomacy, whether or how he chooses to follow through on his warning about chemical weapons could shape his remaining time in office.

The evolution of the “red line” and the nine months that followed underscore the improvisational nature of Mr. Obama’s approach to one of the most vexing crises in the world, all the more striking for a president who relishes precision. Palpably reluctant to become entangled in another war in the Middle East, and well aware that most Americans oppose military action, the president has deliberately not explained what his “red line” actually is or how it would change his calculus.

“I’m not convinced it was thought through,” said Barry Pavel, a former defense policy adviser to Mr. Obama who is now at the Atlantic Council. “I’m worried about the broader damage to U.S. credibility if we make a statement and then come back with lawyerly language to get around it.”

While Mr. Pavel favors a more active response to the killings in Syria, others worry that Mr. Obama may have trapped himself into going too far. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, told Bloomberg Television that military involvement in Syria would risk “a large-scale disaster for the United States.”

Further complicating the president’s choices is the murky nature of the evidence against Syria, a constant concern because of the lingering memories of mistaken intelligence on Iraq’s weapons a decade ago. American intelligence agencies have medium to high confidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, but it is not completely clear who was using them.

The Obama administration recognizes that the rebels and their supporters have an incentive to assume or even exaggerate the use of such weapons because it may be the one thing that could draw in direct Western military intervention against Mr. Assad. The rebels have access to information online about the effects of the weapons, so they may know what symptoms to describe to make their claims seem real.

That makes physical samples crucial — a challenge in a chaotic environment of conflict where there are few functioning health facilities and little reliable electricity, not to mention roads that are often impassable because of the danger of attacks. Still, residents in areas of suspected attacks have collected evidence like urine, soil, dead birds and hair. In one case, a local group dug up the corpse of a man to remove head and nose hair and place it in plastic vials, then posted a video of the process online.

Yet in turning the matter into an international “CSI” case, Mr. Obama may have set a standard of evidence that could never be met.

Disturbing Reports

While concerns about Syria’s chemical arsenal go back years, apprehension rose sharply last July when American intelligence agencies detected signs that the Assad government was moving part of its huge stockpile out of storage. There was some evidence that the Syrian military was mixing chemicals, a possible indication that they were being prepared for use.

The reports grew more disturbing, if still fragmentary, by the weekend of Aug. 18 and 19. Denis McDonough, then the president’s principal deputy national security adviser and now the White House chief of staff, coordinated a series of urgent classified meetings in the West Wing. “It was a catalyzing event,” said one official involved.

Read Full Article Here

 

**************************************************************************************************

Obama Aide On Syria’s Assad: ‘If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, What’s That Got Do Do With Us?’

10:12 AM, May 5, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Barack Obama got ahead of himself and his advisers when he said that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” the New York Times reports.

“How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution?” an unnamed Obama administration official tells the paper. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”

But they concluded that drawing a firm line might deter Mr. Assad. In addition to secret messages relayed through Russia, Iran and other governments, they decided that the president would publicly address the matter.

Several officials said they recalled no discussion about the “red line” phrase but suspected that it came out of the election-year conversation about Iran and how far to allow its nuclear program to progress before being forced to take action. It was a concept that was “embedded in people’s prefrontal cortex,” one of the officials said.

While surprised at the president’s use of the term in regard to Syria on Aug. 20, advisers concluded that it had succeeded, at least for a while, since months passed with no chemical weapons attack.

 

Read Full Article Here

**************************************************************************************************

Stephen Lendman ~ America’s Addiction: Waging War On Humanity

Stephen Lendman April 28 2013

Via  Shift Frequency

Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called it being “cold-blooded about the self-interests of your nation.”
Obama’s the latest US warrior president. Imperial lawlessness defines his agenda. Out-of-control militarism rages. Humanity’s survival is threatened.
Syria is Obama’s war. Direct intervention looms. Claims about Syria using chemical weapons don’t wash. Syrian officials categorically deny them.
On April 27, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Information Minister: Western Sides Are Directly Responsible for Chemical Weapons Use in Khan al-Assal,” saying:
Omran al-Zoubi said chemical weapons likely came from Turkey. “The US-British and Western allegations in general on this issue do not have any credibility.”
A missile targeting Khan al-Assal came from a terrorist-controlled location. Syria requested an investigation. According to SANA:
“Al-Zoubi held the Western sides directly responsible for what happened in Khan al-Assal, saying they want now to hide behind this ‘fabricated and false’ talk to justify their silence on failing the investigation mission requested by Syria and to exonerate the terrorists.”
“The Minister added that the US is already involved in large-scale terrorist operations in the world, and is involved in Syria now because of its support for and silence on the terrorism committed by the terrorist groups.”
The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. Waging full-scale war on Syria looms. It appears prelude to targeting Iran. Spurious Iranian threats continue.
Connect the dots. Post-Boston bombings, expect Obama to take full advantage. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Doing so facilitates America’s war agenda.
Independent nations aren’t tolerated. Washington demands pro-Western ones. Outliers are targeted for regime change. War is America’s option of choice if other methods fail. Syria may be prelude to Iran.
On April 25, the Jerusalem Post headlined ” ‘Red lines’ at the ‘Post’ conference,” saying:
“Red lines” dominate today’s headlines. Israel and Washington repeat them. In late February, former Israeli intelligence head Amos  Yadlin’s New York Times op-ed headlined “Israel’s Last Chance to Strike Iran,” saying:
“Today, Israel sees the prospect of a nuclear Iran that calls for our annihilation as an existential threat.”
Iran, of course, threatens no one. It hasn’t attacked another nation in over two centuries.
“An Israeli strike against Iran would be a last resort, if all else failed to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program,” Yadlin added.
Now he’s warning that Israel’s on “a collision course (with Iran) by the end of the year.”
He’ll speak at the Jerusalem Post’s second annual conference. It’s theme is “Fighting for the Zionist Dream.” It’s scheduled for April 28 in New York.
Two panels will discuss Syrian and Iranian red lines. Yadlin will participate along with former and current key Israeli officials.
Yadlin heads Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. He spoke at its recent Tel Aviv conference. He claims Iran may cross Netanyahu’s red line by summer.
If uranium enrichment continues “at its current rate, toward the end of the year (Tehran) will cross the red line in a clear manner,” he claimed.
Earlier he said, “Despite all of the attempts made to stop the nuclear program, no one is able to stop the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.”
“By summer, Iran will be a month or two away from a decision about the bomb,” he added. He claims Tehran has enough low-enriched uranium for six bombs.
“They have no problem converting back what they allegedly turned to nuclear fuel. Within a week, it could be turned into nuclear material for a bomb,” he said.
He urged military action. America’s credibility is on the line, he stressed. “This credibility will be achieved if the US aims a precise strike to stop the Iranian nuclear program and shows that it can deal with the escalation that would follow this strike.”
He’s not alone. Jerusalem Post deputy managing editor Caroline Glick headlined “Time to confront Obama,” saying:
Iran “crossed the threshold. Iran will be a nuclear power unless its uranium enrichment installations and other nuclear sites are destroyed or crippled. Now.”
“Iran has threatened to use it nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel.”
“(E)ither Israel must launch an attack without delay, or if we can’t, then Netanyahu has to publicly state that the time for diplomacy is over. Either Iran is attacked or it gets the bomb.”
It bears repeating. Iran threatens no one. No evidence suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Annually, US intelligence says so. Israeli, American, and other Western officials know what they won’t admit publicly.

Obama’s Ties to CIA May Explain His Totalitarian Views

By Sherwood Ross

 Veterans Today

In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky said he never expected much of President Obama, adding, ”The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don’t seem easy to explain.”

Maybe the reasons for Obama’s transformation from a Chicago law professor into a world-class totalitarian thug is that he is a creature of the Central Intelligence Agency; that both his parents were CIA payrollers; that the CIA financed his college education and gave him his first job afterwards—-so that we may well have a president beholden to this international criminal organization, an agency that has left a trail of blood, turmoil, and assassinations around the globe.

According to the May 6th The New Yorker, when General James Cartwright, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked at an Obama Situation Room meeting why the U.S. was building a second air force in the form of a CIA drone attack fleet, Obama told him, “The CIA gets what it wants.” That Obama holds this view is reinforced by Cameron Munter, President Obama’s former ambassador to Pakistan. Munter questioned whether the drone strikes in Pakistan weren’t having a blowback effect on the Pakistani public. Writing in the magazine, Steve Coll says Munter learned under Obama: “It was what the CIA believed that really counted.”

Reporter Coll says America’s drone war is a major factor in why U.S. relations with Pakistan have “collapsed.” Today, he writes, “the U.S. has surpassed India as the most hated nation in Pakistan.” Coll adds, “Obama seems unwilling to confront the possibility that drone strikes may be creating more enemies than they’re eliminating.”

So far, the drone strikes are believed to have killed 3,000 people, not one of whom got a fair trial in the American tradition. The attacks are being made in countries where the U.S. has never officially declared war: besides Pakistan, in Somalia, Yemen, and even in the Philippines. Obama has turned the whole world into an American shooting gallery.

 

Read Full Article Here

Impeachment of U.S. President Albert Gore, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949

Friday, May 3rd, 2013 | Posted by
 Veterans Today

 

(Editor’s note:  Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established.  Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43) presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated, all executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal empire undone.   The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president thus has no legal standing.  Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)

Before the Supreme Court of the United States

1. IMPROPER FAILURE TO REPORT,
2. CONTINUOUS ABSENCE FROM HIS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES,
3. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE  ELECTORAL VOTE DECISION OF THE AMERICAN
    POPULACE MAJORITY,
4. CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST AND EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT DUE
    PROCESS, INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the U.S.A. [hereafter the U.S. Constitution, or Constitution] are jointly the contract of specific performance between the U.S. citizens as the parties on one side of the agreement, and the U.S. government, its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors as the parties on the other side of the agreement.

The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A President must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a President impose limitations on its exercise.

The “take care” duty emphasizes the responsibilty of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take care that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is preformed.

The duty of a President to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits — not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution.

Please Note : - Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories:

  1. exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government;
  2. behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and
  3. employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Definition :  Political – Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administration of government, state or national …. As political theories … seek to determine or control its public policy …

(Black’s Law  6th Ed.)
****************************************************************************************************

Glenn Beck: “IMPEACH Obama”

by Right March on May 3, 2013     Print This Post Print This Post

Obama is GUILTY of High Crimes and Misdemeanors — Select Here to DEMAND Congress IMPEACH OBAMA!

ALERT: Glenn Beck has accused the White House of covering up suspects in the Boston terrorist attack — and is calling for President Barack Hussein Obama to be IMPEACHED.

And Rush Limbaugh says that Obama’s recent actions leading to the release of thousands of illegal alien criminals from our jails is an impeachable offense.

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: GLENN BECK AND RUSH LIMBAUGH ARE DEMANDING THAT OBAMA BE IMPEACHED — NOW YOU AND I NEED TO DEMAND CONGRESS TAKE ACTION TO IMPEACH OBAMA!

 

Beck has revealed that a Saudi national is a suspect in that bombing– but the media has covered it up:

“When I found out yesterday, who that guy is and what we have on him, and how our media was rooting for an American to be the killer. And how our president, this administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and everything else. How they have covered this up. How they have aided and abetted this guy is obscene, and it’s criminal. It’s out of control, and when America knows the full story on this, if she doesn’t stand up, and quite honestly, I think demand impeachment and the mass firing if not shutting down of agencies, we don’t stand a chance.”

According to Beck (see the video provided), we have reached the “beginning of the end for so much of this administration… This is much bigger than we thought.” A massive cover-up continues and Janet Napolitano, who Glenn feels will get jail time for her role in this cover-up, is going to be the first to fall. Will Barack Obama soon be impeached for his role in covering-up US government ties to terror in our own country?

This report from Beck contains much more new information, including news that unnamed and heroic federal law enforcement agents are deeply involved in investigating this cover-up, and several other news organizations have censored reports from their own reporters and investigators.

Before Glenn Beck’s report even came out, Rush Limbaugh, the nation’s highest-rated radio talk-show host, was already the latest public figure to suggest that President Obama could be impeached, over his actions related to the so-called “sequester.” This time, his regime decided to release what could end up being “a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons… before any budget cuts even went into effect!

On Limbaugh’s Feb. 27th show, stated:

“The president of the United States has opened up the jails. The president of the United States, because of budget cuts which have not happened yet, has released 500 or so illegal immigrants, and, by definition, of law, they are criminals… Janet ‘Big Sis’ Napolitano says that because the sequester is gonna cut 1% of their $2 billion detention budget, they will no longer be able to afford to detain as many as 30,000 criminals….

In what used to be considered, if we can remember this far back, normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense. This is in direct violation of the oath of office. Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and the people. We’re opening the doors of prisons before the sequester has even happened, before there have even been any budget cuts. This is so childish, except the consequences are real for people that live nearby these detention centers. This is on-the-ground, hard, cold reality…

Let’s not forget, thanks to Obama’s various executive orders, ICE, the immigration people, no longer detain any illegal aliens unless they’ve been convicted of a serious crime. That’s who we’re talking about here. You have to commit a serious crime before we detain you, if you’re illegal. So this isn’t just a bunch of discriminated against freedom fighters that have been wrongly jailed finally seeing freedom at all. These really are convicted criminals that are being released.”

RUSH IS CORRECT — now we have another impeachable offense by Barack Hussein Obama!

WE HAVE TO PUT A STOP TO THIS! IT’S TIME TO IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA!

 

Of course, this comes hot on the heels of the latest impeachable offenses by President Obama — this time, this time, trying to impose gun control on our country. The American people have been successful (so far) in stopping Congress from passing new laws that would violate the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution… but now Barack Hussein Obama is threatening to impose “gun control” by Executive Order in order to BYPASS Congress!

At his press conference recently, Obama floated the possibility of using “executive action” to enact policies aimed at “reducing gun violence,” stating that, “I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president.”

In response, a U.S. Congressman is now threatening to IMPEACH OBAMA if he takes such actions against gun rights. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened that he would file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order:

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment… Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible. Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans. If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.

FINALLY, A CONGRESSMAN WHO GETS IT! NOW IT’S UP TO US TO KEEP PUSHING THE REST OF THEM TO IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA!

 

Apparently, more and more Americans are starting to agree with Rep. Stockman — and with YOU! A new scientific poll is out, that shows nearly HALF of Americans are now in favor of IMPEACHING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

The new WND/Wenzel Poll is stunning in its details:

  • 44% say Obama should be impeached for his campaign for amnesty for illegal aliens
  • 46% say he should be impeached launching a war in Libya
  • 43% say he should be impeached over his deciding on his own what is and is not a Congressional recess appointment
  • 51% say he should be impeached over his appointment of dozens of “czars” without any congressional oversight or approval
  • 44% say Obama should be impeached for his fight with Arizona over enforcing immigration laws
  • 40% say he should be impeached for how the Defense of Marriage Act was handled
  • 60% disagree with his drone killings of American citizens overseas
  • 47% — including 1 in 6 Democrats — rate Obama’s job performance as “poor”

We’re getting closer and closer to a majority of Americans who agree that Obama deserves to be impeached…

NOW WE NEED TO CONVINCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH OBAMA!

But what has Barack Obama already done to deserve IMPEACHMENT?

Constitution Lawyer Michael Connelly recently published a comprehensive list of what he calls his “dirty dozen of impeachable offenses” committed by President Barack Hussein Obama — “offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States”. He emphatically states, “President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional.”

Connelly’s “dirty dozen” list has been viewed online more than 25 MILLION TIMES — it’s time to force Congress to TAKE ACTION and IMPEACH OBAMA, once and for all!

Constitutional Attorney Connelly listshis “dirty dozen” of Obama’s impeachable offenses:

  1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution.
  2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional.
  3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases… in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution.
  4. Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any states in the United States… in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans.
  5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama hasbetrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline from Canada to the United States that would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in the United States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.
  6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities… He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.
  1. The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Columbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states of Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.
  2. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
  3. Obama has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits. His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.
  4. It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.
  5. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country (Libya) without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League. Now, administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval. The White House also insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties, followed almost immediately by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.
  6. Since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of the United States that allows the President to do this.

This “dirty dozen” list of impeachable offenses committed by Barack Obama is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG! It’s time to GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE!

 

There are SO MANY impeachable offenses that have been committed by Barack Hussein Obama…

HERE’S THE LATEST:

It’s THE LAW that every year, the President is REQUIRED to submit a budget to Congress. He is REQUIRED BY LAW to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February.

The law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) reads: “On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year.”

So, President Obama sent his budget to Congress by February 4th… right?

WRONG. In fact, the White House is now saying Obama’s budget “will probably come out April 8.” And it’s NOT the first time this has happened — in fact, it’s the FOURTH time in five years the president has FAILED to submit a budget on time!

Obama’s NEVER late on picking his Final Four bracket teams… but he’s almost ALWAYS late on obeying the LAW and submitting a budget to Congress in time!

Do you GET that? President Barack Obama has BROKEN THE LAW over and over and over and over again — with impunity! It’s not a felony… but it IS a misdemeanor… which is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!

This is only the latest reason to impeach Obama — and we’re not the only ones calling for his impeachment!

Add another big name to the list of people who believe that Barack Hussein Obama has met the Constitutional requirement of “high crimes and midsdemeanors”, and should therefore be IMPEACHED. This time, it’s rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent:

Referring to Obama, Nugent says, “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief. It’s so diabolical…”

He called the probe into the fatal onslaught at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, “the most recent outrage” worthy of the Obama administration.

“When you’ve got the secretary of state of the United States of America who was brought in for questioning regarding the murder, the slaughter, the predictable slaughter of four American citizens in Benghazi, what kind of subhuman numbnut would not know you need security in Benghazi 24/7?” Nugent asked.

“And why does Hillary Clinton know that she’s got the backing of the president and the government overall when she has the audacity to scold those elected officials who ask proper questions. The hearings are over. Nothing [is the result]!”

 

Read More Here

****************************************************************************************************
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 729 other followers