Sunday, May 19, 2013

High Crimes And Misdemeanors


Benghazi Lies: High Crimes
and Misdemeanors?
Everything about Barack Obama, and the faction spawned by his political success, has been cut from a fabric of deceit.
The account of his birth and early life, including the self-confessed work of fiction passed off as an autobiography, was a fabrication. He as a lawyer "voluntarily" withdrew from the Illinois bar. Often described as a "moderate" when he campaigned in 2008, his education and early forays into politics were steeped in radical, Communist extremism.
Even the claim that his political success somehow represents an historic breakthrough for black Americans is belied by the fact that he claims his black heritage from a father who was not American; and his American identity from an anti-American mother whose life choices made him more at home with Islam than with his father's African nationality, or his mother's biologically American heritage.
As a political movement, the Obama faction is thus focused on a figure whose political persona is a fabrication.

Moreover, Obama has often stated his conviction that the U.S. Constitution is inadequate to deal with what he believes to be the goals and challenges of contemporary life. So when he swore the oath promising to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, HE LIED.
Since the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the U.S. government in the person of the President, when the President's oath is spurious, every element of the Executive Branch is tainted as well. Root and branch, the whole Obama Administration is the offspring of deceit.
I have been thinking about this as I ponder the various reactions to the lies deployed by Obama; his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; and his UN Ambassador Susan Rice, with respect to the murderous attack against the United States at Benghazi.
Why, I wonder, do so many people waste their time and energy indulging shocked, emotional reactions to the fact that Obama and his minions lied even when it tended to shield and excuse the despicable terrorists who assassinated an American Ambassador and several other American officials?
Obama lies when he asserts the so-called "right" to abortion, and America's posterity suffers death as a result. Obama lies when he asserts that his health care proposals don't involve "death panels", and Americans will prematurely suffer death as a result. Obama liesabout gun control legislation that aims to disarm the law-abiding inhabitants of the United States, and the American people's life in decent liberty may suffer death as a result.
Lies are the Obama faction's routinely deployed weapons of mass destruction. So where the fatal Benghazi debacle is concerned, we should waste little time wrestling with the fact that this is so. Instead, we should thoroughly examine the nature of their lies in order to ascertain and think through the ultimate purpose they served.
Were they deployed to hide something; and/or to distract attention from something else?

If another government deliberately launches a murderous attack on those who represent the government of the United States, that attack is, on the face of it, an act of war. If some organized entity other than a state does so, the formalities are different, but the essential nature of the act is the same.
By pretending that the deliberately murderous Benghazi attack was the spontaneous outcome of disorganized mob passion, Obama faction officials avoided the need to fix responsibility for the act of war, effectively shielding from harm the hostile entity or entities that launched the attack.
They also effectively distracted Americans from the fact that war is being waged against them.
Almost since the first moment Obama occupied the Oval Office, the Obama faction has consistently sought to dispel the notion that a state of war exists between the United States and the governments and other entities responsible for a global infrastructure for terrorism, an infrastructure energized by a violent commitment to establishing Islamic global hegemony.

Obama faction officials, and especially Obama himself, have been at pains to promote the idea that terrorist acts against Americans arise instead from a passionate reaction against America's alleged history of global wrongdoing and unjust military and economic domination.
This was the nature of the lie willfully fabricated about the source and nature of the Benghazi attack.
Is it just a coincidence that it corresponds with the party line, as it were, of the radical Communists Obama sought out as a student in his youth; and with whom he collaborated as a political activist up until it became strategically imperative to lie about his ideological identity?
If the lie is a weapon in their campaign to consolidate political power, what is the strategic import of the fact that it serves to hide and distract from terrorist threats that may be intended to destabilize and overthrow the government established by the Constitution of the United States (particularly in the context of the Benghazi episode's possible connection with the Obama faction's ongoing collaboration with anti-U.S. elements involved in Syria's civil war?)
Given his proven ideological background, Obama's infamously open ended slogan about change has always included the possibility that regime change is the main purpose of his faction's political program.
  • They are seeking to disarm the American people.
  • They are seeking to purge the U.S. military of the Christian elements most likely to resist being deployed against the people they are supposed to defend.
  • They are seeking to consolidate national control of state and local police forces, while persistently attempting to indoctrinate them to regard the lawful, normal political activism of American citizens as a threat.
  • They seek to hide and distract attention from their faction's collaboration with key elements of the global infrastructure of terrorism (including, in connection with Al-Qaeda, the very forces responsible for the 9-11 attacks in the U.S.)
  • Against the wishes of the majority of Americans, they seek to impose policies that effectively open America's borders to infiltration by terrorist cadre, now lying in wait for the order to attack Americans where they are most vulnerable.

Sen. John McCain cheerfully smiles upon Hilary Clinton despite the lies deployed at the behest of officials subject to her authority.
Cong. Darrell Issa inscrutably declares that neither Obama nor Clinton are targets of the search for truth about the Obama Administration's decision to leave an American Ambassador naked to our enemies.
This contributes to a "business as usual" atmosphere in which it is supposed to be unthinkable to consider the possibility the Ambassador's fate is a portent of that intended for the American people and our way of life.
Meanwhile, is the Obama Administration preparing for massive "civil disorder" throughout the United States – just the kind of disorder that would be produced by a coordinated series of terrorist attacks against soft civilian targets in the U.S.?
If those attacks are perpetrated by people who, at first glance, have no connection with the global infrastructure of Islamic terrorism, they could be portrayed as a spontaneous reaction to the hardship entailed by a suddenly deteriorating economy. In that scenario Americans would have no one to blame but each other.
As the nation descends into a frenzy of mutual recrimination, anger and fear the forces of order, focused on Obama and his elitist faction cohorts (from both wings of the elitist faction's sham party system) could rush forward to do, under martial law, what Obama claims the Constitution is inadequate to do: impose a new regime for government consistent with the proven exigencies of the times.

Seen against the backdrop of this synoptic view of the possibilities, lies we were told about the murderous attacks on Americans at Benghazi are all the more disturbing because of the strategic purpose those lies may have been deployed to advance.
That strategic purpose encompasses a result that more than qualifies as a high crime and misdemeanor, within the meaning of the provisions that justify impeaching those responsible, and removing them from office.
If an real opposition party were in fact controlling the U.S. House of Representatives, this would be their conscientious goal.
Keep Faith,
Alan Keyes Signature
Alan Keyes
www.DeclarationAlliance.org

Saturday, May 18, 2013

What Tyranny Looks Like

May 18, 2013

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like

Bryce Buchanan
Here is a woman we will need to learn much more about in the coming weeks. Sarah Hall Ingram is a highly valued employee at the IRS. In the last three years she has received $103,390 in bonuses for her excellent work. She was the Commissioner of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entitles Division. Under her leadership, groups that expressed a fear of large, out-of-control government were systematically crushed by her branch of our large, out-of-control government. They were specifically singled out for harassment for political reasons. Secret information about the conservative applicants was leaked to leftist opposition groups to facilitate further harassment.
This was an organized political operation using State power to silence opposition voices. It is part of every tyrant's playbook. It tells you everything you need to know about the current state of our country to see that those who favor a limited government, the explicit goal of our founding documents, are now considered enemies of the State.
In a 2009 speech, Ms. Ingram explained her approach:
As a practical matter, we cannot subject every application for tax-exempt status to a painstaking, leave-no-rock-unturned review. Nor can we audit every organization's 990 every year. Nor would you want us to do so, right? To govern is to choose, and we must choose appropriately which applications or 990s to focus most attention on.
It is clear now that by "choose appropriately", she meant to harass the limited-government groups endlessly and let liberal and Islamic groups sail right through the approval process.
The good news is that this woman is no longer in charge of that department. The bad news is that she has been promoted and is now the head of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office. She and her comrades could have access to all your medical records. They will "choose appropriately" who has trouble with the state-controlled medical system and who sails right through. They will decide if it is appropriate to share your medical history with others.
But don't worry. I heard the outgoing IRS Commissioner say in Friday's congressional hearings that he has reviewed the situation and found that there was "no partisanship" in the years-long practice of singling out conservative groups for IRS harassment. None at all. There is just no reason to think that specifically targeting one side of the political spectrum had anything to do with politics.
And when Commissioner Steven Miller was asked why conservative groups were targeted for prolonged scrutiny, he said that it just happened because people were trying to be efficient. Sure. Months and months of delays with endless demands for more paperwork is the efficient way to go.
Miller was forced to admit that secret information gathered from certain conservative groups was passed along by the IRS to their leftwing political opposition. So the IRS illegally gathered information and illegally passed it along for political reasons. Mr. Miller said that these actions were "inadvertent".
There is more evidence of direct lies from IRS officials in Kevin Williamson's column, "The Nine Lies of Lois Lerner". One thing we learn from Williamson's article is that the current campaign by some officials to act surprised and disappointed by the news of IRS criminality is just a scam to deflect their own culpability. Everyone knew the Inspector General's report on the IRS was about to be released. The IRS needed to jump ahead of the report and act concerned. They were not concerned for years prior to being caught.
Bryce Buchanan lives in Oregon and blogs at www.realitybatslast.com


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/this_is_what_tyranny_looks_like.html#ixzz2TgHpbGpn
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Monday, May 13, 2013

Senate Traitors



Subject: Traitor Senators
Date: April 29, 2013 2:50:57 PM EDT


Something to remember!


Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

 
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by theObamaAdministration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gunregistry on all private guns and ammo.

 
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.  Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

 
Hello All, here is the list of all the TRAITORS in the U. S.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed.  46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Benghazi Liares Exposed

May 10, 2013

Why discovering the truth about Benghazi matters—and it has to do with 9/11

by Guy Rodgers
Executive Director ACT! for America


There’s a lesson from 9/11 that MUST be applied to the Benghazi terror attack—and very few people are talking about it. Please take a few minutes to read this.

We know that terrorist attacks against America pre-9/11, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attack on the USS Cole, emboldened Osama bin Laden.

He watched the weak and confused responses by our government to those terrorist attacks and concluded the United States government and its people didn’t have the will to fight back against a larger attack.

He even alluded to this in one of his videos in the late 90’s, when he made reference to the world watching to see who is “the strong horse.”

Fast forward to Benghazi.

It should be abundantly clear by now to any reasonable observer that there were government decisions made prior to the attack that compromised security in Benghazi; there were decisions made during the attack that compromised the ability to rescue those under attack; and there were decisions made after the attack to alter the narrative to make it look like a video prompted the attack.

Even the “establishment media” has finally, finally, finally begun to take a closer look at this.

For instance, this short, must-see ABC News report, provides powerful evidence that it was people inside the Obama administration who changed the talking points about what happened in Benghazi—not the intelligence community as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed on November 28, 2012.

Here’s one excerpt from that ABC News report:


In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

Nuland was referring to information from the CIA that was originally included in the talking points. The CIA clearly had concerns about previous al Qaida-related activity and how it could not “rule out” that al-Qaida related Islamists were involved in the attack.

In other words, Nuland was more concerned about the State Department getting a black eye for ignoring security warnings than it was about putting out the truth as to why those four men died.

In spite of all of these new revelations, there are those who still ask, “Why does it matter?” Even some ACT! for America members have emailed us asking why we keep focusing on this.

Here’s why we won’t let this go. It’s because of the lesson America should have learned from 9/11.

9/11 happened in large part because American leadership displayed weakness, confusion, and a lack of resolve in responding to the terrorist attacks that occurred prior to 9/11.

Now, today, consider what jihadists around the world are watching:


  • An administration blaming a video for the Benghazi attack.
  • An administration desperately trying to keep the American people in the dark about what really happened—both before the attack and after the attack.
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in testimony before Congress, blurting out “what difference does it make” regarding what really happened.
  • A compliant “establishment media” that failed to doggedly investigate this attack prior to last year’s election, capped off by CNN’s Candy Crowley, the debate moderator, jumping to Obama’s side during his debate with Mitt Romney.
  • Secretary of State John Kerry recently saying “we need to move on to more important matters.”
  • State Department career officials, such as Gregory Hicks, getting punished for trying to get the truth out.
  • Democrats in Congress attacking these whistleblowers from the State Department, and describing the investigation as a “witch hunt.”
What message is being sent, loud and clear, to our jihadist enemies in America and around the world?

The same message of weakness, confusion and a lack of resolve that was sent prior to 9/11.

But this time it’s worse, because not only has the response by this administration been weak and confusing, it has compounded that failure by attempting to cover up what really happened.

Are there Republicans in Washington who want to use this debacle for partisan, political purposes? Of course—just as there would be Democrats trying to do so if this happened on the watch of a Republican president.

But that’s not why ACT! for America continues to press for the full truth to be brought to light.

Our reason is this:


THE JIHADISTS OF THE WORLD NEED TO KNOW, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL NOT CAPITULATE IN THE FACE OF TERRORISM AND WHO ARE NOT CONFUSED ABOUT WHO THE ENEMY IS AND WHY THE ENEMY IS ATTACKING US.

THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO WILL NOT REST UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF WHY THESE MEN DIED, SO THAT AMERICA CAN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENSURE SOMETHING LIKE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL CONTINUE TO DEMAND THAT OUR GOVERNMENT POLICIES RELATED TO JIHAD BE CHANGED TO ACCURATELY DEFINE WHO OUR ENEMY IS AND WHY THEY ARE ATTACKING US.

We cannot, as a nation, afford once again to send signs of weakness and confusion to the jihadist world, as we did before 9/11.

If we do, we are giving the jihadists of the world every encouragement to attack us again in a major way.

The “easy button” would be for ACT! for America to, as John Kerry said, move on to other matters.

But our mission to protect our national security—our very reason for being—and our responsibility to our fellow Americans, will not allow us to do that.

This is why, on Monday, we will issue a national ACTION ALERT to pressure House Speaker John Boehner to appoint a special select committee to finally and completely ferret out the truth—and issue recommendations regarding what must be done so that this does not happen again.

Rest assured, we will continue to fight for you, for your families, and for the well-being of this country we love.

Yours for a safe and free America,


Guy Rodgers

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Arizona May Legalize Gold/Silver As Legal Tender


Arizona returning to gold rush roots with bill making gold legal tender

Ed. Note: Gold Value is real, Paper Money value is imaginary and fluctuates far more than metals.
More Facts Here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08/trust-in-gold-not-bernanke-as-u-s-states-promote-bullion.html

Arizona is returning to its gold rush roots with a bill that would make precious metals legal currency.

The GOP-led Senate gave final approval Tuesday to the bill that could make Arizona the second state in the nation to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, the measure would take effect in 2014.

The state Department of Revenue opposed the measure. It passed in the House only after an amendment was added to exempt the department from having to accept gold or silver as tax payments.

The measure reflects a growing distrust of government-backed money amid the declining value of the dollar, according to proponents. Republican Rep. David Livingston of Peoria, a financial adviser who ushered the legislation through the House, said his clients were eager to tap into their gold and silver reserves.

But Democrats, who voted against the measure in the Senate and House, said it sends a false message to constituents that gold and silver are safer than traditional currency.

"This is too extreme," Democratic Sen. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix said. "We don't need it."

Democratic Sen. Steve Farley of Tucson said the measure is unnecessary and would create long lines at businesses as store clerks inspect and weigh the gold and silver. The measure would allow the use of precious metals as money only when businesses agree to take them.

"Businesses are not clamoring for this, to say the least," Farley said. "This is basically growing the size and scope of government to create an entirely new currency system."

Farley noted that the price of gold saw a significant drop in early April, its biggest one-day plunge since 1983. He said allowing gold and silver as legal payment at grocery stores and other businesses would prove too unpredictable.

"Anybody who thinks gold or silver is a safe place to put your money had better think again," he said.

The Senate had previously passed Senate Bill 1439, but it was sent back for final approval after the House amendment passed.

Utah became the first state to allow gold or silver payments in 2011. Lawmakers in Minnesota, North Carolina, Idaho, South Carolina, Colorado and other states have debated copycat laws in recent years. The Maine Senate and House recently rejected a similar measure.

Gold-backed money fell out of favor during World War I because the U.S. and many other countries needed to print more cash to pay for the war. President Richard Nixon formally abandoned the gold standard in 1971.