.JPG)
.JPG)
.png)
I just turned 80 and this Friday I am celebrating with 18 of our 20 immediate family at Callaway Gardens and the new two members, Stella and Dagny, will be there as well.
I consider myself a very lucky man and particularly since I have not been audited by Obama's IRS.
---
Obama's lust for raw power and the devious manner he employs to achieve may finally prove his deserved
un-dôing. Now that his sycophants in the press and media have been stung they have, if only temporarily, withdrawn the prop they have used to hold him up and he is now in a semblance of free fall. His need to win at any price, Chicago style, has always carried a price but being shielded by the press and media and the weakness and incompetence of his opponents permitted him to appear bigger than life, bigger, than the incompetent he truly is and always has been, Perhaps his current triple troubles will pass and he will regain his footing on the high wire of D.C politics but he will no longer will be seen as a political Wallenda. Now, as the problems he helped create, avoided , mishandled begin to mount they will be laid at his feet, where they belong and their constant drip will begin to shape his legacy. (See 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e below.) Kim is not one to pussy foot around the edges. She goes right to the heart of the matter, ie. Obama and his campaign thugs orchestrated the atmosphere and his bureaucratic sheep fell in line. Obama apparently chose to win a second term rather than man the post and try and save fellow Americans which was his sworn responsibility. His Secretary of State was also absent without leave and then made the despicable assertion "At this point what different does it make." Obama wanted to win re-election so badly and was so concerned about Romney's ability to raise funds, he created an atmosphere , if not actually orchestrated, an IRS targeting effort of Conservatives, and religious groups who opposed him and his policies. Finally, the worst Attorney General in my memory, under the guise of national security, decided to take it upon himself the illegal threatening of AP reporters. If you persist in believing this president tells the truth then , at the very least, you have to admit, in all honesty, he is one of the most incompetent managers in recent history because he admits he does not know anything about what happens around him. Obama, Clinton and Holder have tried everything but the truth. Stay tuned because the lies will eventually be squeezed out of them and the truth will be revealed. --- While I was away a dear friend gave me a profound book to read entitled: "The 5000 Year Leap" written in 1981, by W Cleon Skousen. I intend to do my best at reviewing this remarkable book in a subsequent memo and when I have moe time. It is the kind of book every American should read because it explains ,in the simplest of manners, the absolute brilliance of our founders and drafters of our remarkable Constitution and how, every time we stray from its dictum and deeper meaning we pay a price . As I read it, I applied its message to our current president and found him wanting in virtually every aspect. --- As if you needed more evidence. (See 2 below.) --- So you seek peace? (See 3 below.) --- Dick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ 1) A Care-less Foreign Policy By Alan W. Dowd
The Middle East is on fire. More than 80,000 people have been killed in Syria's brutal civil war. Chemical weapons are
being used against civilians. Scud missiles are raining down onto population centers. Jordan is drowning in a tidal wave
of war refugees. Jihadists are on the march across the region. Sectarian violence is claiming up to 50 people a day in
Iraq. The death toll last month was more than 700 — “the highest since the dark days of summer 2008,” as Lt. Col.
Joel Rayburn recently reported. Encircled by enemies and buffeted by chaos, Israel appears to be on its own. And as
the Middle East burns, America sits on the sidelines — not helpless but rather care-less. The White House just doesn't
seem to care.
For those of us who were listening as Barack Obama began his endless campaign, this comes as no surprise. An America
detached and disengaged is exactly what he advertised.
For instance, Candidate Obama made it clear that it is not America's job to prevent genocide. As the AP reported in
July 2007, “Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve
humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces
there.”
His defense of this position sounded jarringly similar to that of isolationists, who always justify nonintervention
somewhere by pointing out that America has not intervened everywhere. “If that's the criteria by which we are making
decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces,” then-Senator Obama explained, referring to genocide, “then by that
argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a
consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done.” He continued: “We would be deploying unilaterally and
occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done.”
This is sophistry. Just because America can't intervene everyplace doesn't mean American shouldn't intervene in some
places. Indeed, presidents from both parties have used military force to address humanitarian problems and affronts to
human rights:Ireland was ravaged by famine in the 1840s, and the U.S. sent warships loaded with food; Spain turned
Cuba into a concentration camp, and McKinley launched what was arguably America's first humanitarian war; Stalin
tried to starve Berlin into submission, and Truman launched Operation Vittles;Vietnamese babies were abandoned, and
Ford launched Operation Babylift; the Soviets bludgeoned Afghanistan, and Reagan armed the freedom-fighters;
Saddam Hussein tried to strangle the friendless Kurds, and the elder Bush dispatched U.S. troops to protect them;
Slobodan Milosevic “cleansed” the Balkans, and Clinton used a NATO air armada to stop him.
In short, answering when the forgotten and the oppressed cry out for help is part of what America does. At least it
used to be.
Elie Wiesel noticed the change after a year of killing in Syria. In April 2012, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace
Prize recipient was called upon to introduce the president at a U.S. Holocaust Memorial ceremony, and he used the
opportunity to offer a stinging rebuke of the president's care-less approach.
The greatest tragedy in history could have been prevented had the civilized world spoken up, taken measures in
1939, '40, '41, '42,” he intoned. “So in this place we may ask: Have we learned anything from it? If so, how is it that
Assad is still in power? How is it that the No. 1 Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad is still a president — he who threatens
to use nuclear weapons to destroy the Jewish state?
Incredibly, when the president took to the podium, he declared, “Too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing
of innocents on a massive scale. And we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not
save… remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. Awareness without action changes nothing.”
This was after a year of slaughter in Syria.
It's as if the president is living in an alternate universe where Syria is not happening. President Obama's care-less
approach would be more understandable, more acceptable, if he didn't pretend to care, if he didn't talk like Vaclav
Havel and act like Henry Kissinger. As it is, he's indicted by his own words.
Reasonable people can and do disagree about the merits of intervening in Syria. Indeed, informed observers are divided
over the question of intervention — with some arguing that intervention is unnecessary because Syria poses no threat
to U.S. interests, others that intervention is too risky given that terror groups hide among the rebels, others that
because of its special role in the world the U.S. can't sit by while civilians are being butchered, and still others that the
ouster of Assad would be a blow to Iran and thus in America's geostrategic interests.
These are valid and important points. But these points — and Syria's civil war — are secondary to the broader issue at
stake. Whether freedom in Syria is worth risking American blood is open to debate — whether freedom will even take
root in Syria is open to debate — but the importance of American credibility, American leadership, American moral
standing is not.
The president doesn't seem to recognize this. Regrettably, Syria is only the latest example.
When the Iranian regime crushed its opponents after the farcical 2009 election, President Obama responded to the
“Twitter Revolution” by averting his gaze. No one was calling on him to send in the 82nd Airborne to support the
Iranian protestors. But freedom-loving people — and their enemies — look to America for signals. And the president's
signals were loud and clear that summer. The sad irony of the president's inaction in Iran was that it answered his
own rhetorical question of a year before, albeit in a manner his mesmerized supporters would never notice. “Will we
stand for the human rights of… the blogger in Iran?” he asked during his 2008 speech in Berlin. “Will we give meaning to
the words 'never again' in Darfur?” The Iranian people know the answer — and now, so do the Syrian people.
To be fair, the president did intervene in Libya. But it seems he was prodded — shamed — into acting by Nicolas
Sarkozy. Even then, the president was content to “led from behind” — the oxymoronic term coined by his staff to try
to justify the president's stand-off approach. And America's closest allies remember that when they asked Washington
to continue air operations at one critical point in Libya, a NATO official took pains to emphasize that extension of U.S.
air power “expires on Monday.”
In other words, American leadership comes with an expiration date — what a bruising but apt metaphor for President
Obama's approach to foreign policy.
1a) The IRS Scandal Started at the Top
By Kim Strassel
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation
needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an
"independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and
Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the
tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need
to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for
three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in
nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see
harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly
what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He
put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting
at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
.Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator
(and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an
Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed
Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the
Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle
ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses.
Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four
months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a
fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a
sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account
for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one
pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors
from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at
worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who
worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a
telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election.
As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast
aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a
century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to
"terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these
groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows
who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming
from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this
country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for
Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates
. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't
know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as
close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own
versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to
address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns.
Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a
president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In
his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay
Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's
"animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the
IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady,
undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute
integrity." Even when he does not.
1b)It's 1973 All Over Again
By Victor Davis Hanson
In Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, he ran to the left of Hillary Clinton
as a moral reformer. Obama promised to transcend the old politics and bring a
new era of hope-and-change transparency to Washington. Five years later, those vows
are in shambles.
True, the murder of four Americans in Benghazi has become a mess of partisan bickering.
But the disturbing facts now transcend politics. The Obama administration -- the
president himself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White
House Press Secretary Jay Carney -- all at various times blamed an obscure video maker
for the "spontaneous violence" that killed Americans last September.
The problem is not just that such scapegoating was untrue, but that our officials knew it
was untrue when they said it -- given both prior CIA talking-point briefings and phone
calls from those on the ground during the attacks.
One theme ties all the bizarre aspects of Benghazi scandal together -- the doctored talking
points, the inexplicable failure to beef up diplomatic security before the attacks and to
send in help during the fighting, the jailing of a petty con artist on the false charge that
his amateur video had led to attacks on our consulate, and the shabby treatment of
nonpartisan State Department whistleblowers.
There was an overarching pre-election desire last year to downplay any notion that al-
Qaeda remained a serious danger after the much ballyhooed killing of Osama bin Laden.
Likewise, Libya was not supposed to be a radical Islamic mess after the successful "lead
from behind" removal of Muammar Gadhafi. Facts then had to change to fit a campaign
narrative.
As the congressional hearings on Benghazi were taking place last week, we also learned
that the IRS, administered by the Department of the Treasury, has been going after
conservative groups in a politicized manner that we have not seen since Richard Nixon's
White House. There was no evidence that any of these conservative associations had
taken thousands of dollars in improper tax deductions -- in the manner of former
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the one-time overseer of the IRS.
Instead, groups with suspiciously American names like "Patriot" or "Tea Party" prompted
IRS partisans to scrutinize their tax information in a way that they would not have for
the tax-exempt MoveOn.org or the Obama-affiliated Organizing for Action. On top of
that, the Justice Department just announced that it had secretly seized the records of
calls from at least 20 work and private phone lines belonging to editors and reporters at
the Associated Press in efforts to stop suspected leaks.
At about the same time as the Benghazi and IRS disclosures, it was widely learned that
there was a strange relationship between the Obama White House and the very center of
the American media -- odd in a way that might explain the unusually favorable media
coverage accorded this administration.
Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications in the
Obama administration, is linked to the doctoring of the Benghazi talking points. He also
happens to be the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes. CBS recently pressured
one of its top reporters, Sharyl Attkisson, for "wading dangerously close to advocacy," as
one report worded it, in her critical reporting of Benghazi.
Unfortunately, such relationships are not rare with this administration. The head of ABC
News, Ben Sherwood, has a sister who works for the Obama White House as a special
assistant, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall.
And there is more. The CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary
Clinton's former aide at the State Department, Tom Nides, who is also a former Fannie
Mae executive. Carney, Obama's press secretary, is the husband of Claire Shipman, the
senior national correspondent for ABC's "Good Morning America."
Apparently, in the logic of the Obama White House and the Washington media, there is
nothing improper about wives dispassionately reporting to the nation on what their
husbands are doing, or brothers adjudicating the news coverage of their own siblings.
Last month, the congressional architect of Obamacare, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
announced his plans to retire -- in part because he feared his legislative child would
become "a train wreck." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who shepherded the bill
toward passage, has echoed that worry.
Democrats are panicking because before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
is even fully implemented in the midterm election year 2014, it appears neither
affordable nor protective of patients. That reality was long ago foreseeable -- given that
Obamacare passed on a strictly partisan vote, with a number of questionable legislative
payoffs to skeptical fence-sitting Democrats, and even after Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, who helped ram the bill through the House, admitted that, "We have to pass the
bill so that you can find out what is in it."
What is the common denominator in all these second-term administration embarrassments? "Hope and change" is fast becoming the 1973 Nixon White House.
1c)Lies About Libya
By Thomas Sowell
There can be honest differences of opinion on many subjects. But there can also be
dishonest differences. Last week's testimony under oath about events in Benghazi on
September 11, 2012 makes painfully clear that what the Obama administration told the
American people about those events were lies out of whole cloth.
What we were told repeatedly last year by the President of the United States, the
Secretary of State, and the American ambassador to the U.N., was that there was a protest
demonstration in Benghazi against an anti-Islamic video produced by an American, and
that this protest demonstration simply escalated out of control.
This "spontaneous protest" story did not originate in Libya but in Washington. Neither
the Americans on duty in Libya during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, nor officials of the Libyan government, said anything about a protest demonstration.
The highest American diplomat on the scene in Libya spoke directly with Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton by phone, and told her that it was a terrorist attack. The president
of Libya announced that it was a terrorist attack. The C.I.A. told the Obama
administration that it was a terrorist attack.
With lies, as with potato chips, it is hard to stop with just one. After the "spontaneous
protest" story was discredited, the next claim was that this was the best information
available at the time from intelligence sources.
But that claim cannot survive scrutiny, now that the 12 drafts of the Obama
administration's talking points about Benghazi have belatedly come to light. As draft
after draft of the talking points were made, e-mails from the State Department pressured
the intelligence services to omit from these drafts their clear and unequivocal statement
from the outset that this was a terrorist attack.
Attempts to make it seem that Ambassador Susan Rice's false story about a "spontaneous
protest" was the result of her not having accurate information from the intelligence
services have now been exposed as a second lie to excuse the first lie.
Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's loudly proclaimed question "What difference,
at this point, does it make?" the difference is between an honest mistake and a calculated lie to deceive the American people, in order to win an election.
Barack Obama's election campaign oratory had proclaimed the death of Osama bin Laden
as an accomplishment of his administration, as part of a general defeat of Al-Qaeda and
other terrorists. To admit that these terrorists were still in action, and strong enough to
kill an American ambassador and three other Americans in a well-coordinated military
style attack, would be a politically devastating admission during the election campaign.
Far better, politically, to come up with a story about a protest demonstration that just got
out of hand. This could be presented as an isolated, one-time event, rather than part of a
continuing pattern of terrorism by groups that were still active, despite President Obama's spin suggesting that they were not.
The problem with telling a lie, or even a succession of lies, is that a very small dose of the
truth can sometimes make the whole thing collapse like a house of cards. The State
Department's own foreign service officer Gregory Hicks was in Libya during the attack,
so he knew the truth. When threats were not enough to silence him, it was then necessary to try to discredit him.
After years of getting glowing job evaluations, and awards of honors from the State
Department for his work in various parts of the world, Mr. Hicks suddenly began to get
bad job evaluations and was demoted to a desk job in Washington after he spoke with a
Congressman about what he knew. The truth is dangerous to liars.
The Obama administration's excuse for not trying to get help to the Americans in Benghazi while they were under attack -- namely, that it would take too long -- is as shaky as its other statements. A small fighting unit in Tripoli was ready to get on a plane to Benghazi when they were ordered to "stand down." Other fighting units located outside of Libya are designed precisely for fast deployment -- and nobody knew how many hours the attack would last.
But it will take more investigations to determine who gave the order to "stand down," and why. How many new lies that will generate is another question.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford,
CA 94305.
1d)
The Bloody Hands of Barack ObamaBy Stella Paul
The Three Whistleblowers at the Benghazi hearing spoke softly, but with the emotional wallop of The
Three Tenors. They told the truth, and it blasted like thunder through Obama's tissue palace of lies.
Listening to these strong, solemn men, I heard the sound of old America: a place of hardworking people
who love their country and believe in something bigger than their own power.
The America of Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom won World War II, walked on the
moon, and defeated Communism. But today, their America is forced to serve a different god: a cold,
smiling man with a hollow heart and hands that get bloodier by the day.
Obama stands center stage in this tragic opera of America's downfall, cheapening, endangering, and
destroying the lives of the best among us. The pile of corpses grows ever higher, and the lies more noxious.
Let's pay tribute to some of his many victims, and vow to honor their memory by holding him to account.
BENGHAZI: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods.
Obama failed to attend a single intelligence briefing in the week before September 11, 2012. As the Libyan
consulate in Benghazi came under attack that day, he disappeared for the evening, then jetted off the next
day for a Las Vegasfundraiser. Meanwhile, Ambassador Stevens was raped, murdered, and dragged
through the streets by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, while three brave Americans died trying to defend him.
Having ignored Ambassador Stevens's previous reports of a "security vacuum" in Libya, Obama allowed
the abortion of two rescue missions ready to fly to Benghazi. Regional security officer Eric Nordstrom
testified that "... whether or not you're sitting off at a post, requesting resources, preparing for testimony
before this committee, or standing on a building surrounding by an armed mob attacking you, the
message is the same: 'You're on your own.'"
BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING: Martin Richard (age 8), Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, and
Sean Collier.
The Russians and the Saudis both say they warned Obama's security team about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one
of two jihad-crazed brothers who set off fatal bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line and then killed
police officer Sean Collier. The FBI interviewed Tamerlan, found nothing, and failed to inform the Boston
police of Russia's multiple warnings. The Tsarnaev brothers were free to pursue their murderous plot,
while living the high life on taxpayer welfare.
After the city of Boston was put on lockdown, surviving brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured and
began to talk about his schemes. But this potential life-saving information (reportedly, the brothers planned
to attack New York) was squelched when Obama's Department of Justice rushed to charge him with a
crime and read him his Miranda rights. Dzhokhar immediately shut up.
The feds refuse to let the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth release Dzhokhar's college records,
claiming it would violate federal privacy law. Meanwhile, two illegal aliens have been arrested as
accomplices; Obama's Department of Homeland Security allowed one of them to re-enter the U.S. in
January without a valid student visa.
OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of unnamed
Mexicans.
Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, conducted a secret gun-running operation that supplied thousands
of assault weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime
Zapata were both murdered with Fast and Furious guns. Their families have filed wrongful death lawsuits
against the federal government.
The Terry lawsuit claims that the federal officials "created, organized, implemented and/or participated in a
plan - code named 'Operation Fast and Furious' - to facilitate the distribution of dangerous firearms to
violent criminals" and that they "knew or should have known that their actions would cause substantial
injuries, significant harm, and even death to Mexican and American civilians and law enforcement, but
were recklessly indifferent to the consequence of their actions." Eric Holder has been found in contempt
of Congress for refusing to release requested documented to congressional investigators, and he appears
to have committed perjury in his testimony.
FORT HOOD: Juanita Warman, Libardo Caraveo, John P. Gaffaney, Russell Seager, Justin
Decrow, Amy Krueger, Jason Hunt, Frederick Greene, Aaron Nemelka, Michael Pearson, Kham
Xiong, Francheska Velez (and unborn child, and Michael G. Cahill.
On November 5, 2009, Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire on a group of soldiers preparing to deploy to
Iraq, killing 13 and wounding 32. Associates raised repeated questions about his strange behavior but
were squashed by what they call the Pentagon's "political correctness." A devout Muslim, Hasan was in
extensive communication with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, printed up business cards that read
"Soldier of Allah," dressed in Islamic martyrdom garb, and handed out korans the morning of the attack.
He screamed "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire.
Nevertheless, Obama refuses to deem the largest attack on a U.S. military installation in history a terrorist
assault, insisting that it be classified "workplace violence." Hasan's victims have been denied Purple Hearts.
Fort Hood hero Kimberly Munley told ABC News that Obama "betrayed" her and the other victims.
"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact, they've been neglected."
NAVY SEAL TEAM VI HELICOPTER CRASH IN AFGHANISTAN, AUGUST 2011: Jonas B.
Kelsall, Louis J. Langlais, Thomas A. Ratzlaff, Kraig M. Vickers, Brian R. Bill, John W. Faas,
Kevin A. Houston, Matthew D. Mason, Stephen M. Mills, Nicholas H. Null, Robert J. Reeves,
Heath M. Robinson, Darrik C. Benson, Christopher G. Campbell, Jared W. Day, John
Douangdara, Michael J. Strange, Jon T. Tumilson, Aaron C. Vaughn, Jason R. Workman, Jesse
D. Pittman, Nicholas P. Spehar, David R. Carter, Bryan J. Nichols, Patrick D. Hamburger,
Alexander J. Bennett, Spencer C. Duncan, John W. Brown, Andrew W. Harvell, and Daniel L.
Zerbe.
On May 2, 2011, members of SEAL Team VI invaded Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound and killed
him. Three months later, 30 American troops, most of them members of SEAL Team VI, were shot down
by the Taliban over Afghanistan.
On May 9, 2013, families of the fallen held a press conference to accuse Barack Obama of complicity in
their deaths. They charged Obama with endangering SEAL Team VI by breaking protocol and revealing
its identity as bin Laden's killers. They also revealed that their sons were sent to battle with inadequate
equipment and air support and denied requested pre-assault fire.
The families played a video of their sons' military funeral. No mention of the Judeo-Christian God was
allowed, but the Pentagon invited a Muslim cleric to speak, who cursed their sons in Arabic as infidels
condemned to hell.
Karen Vaughn, mother of fallen SEAL Aaron Vaughn, said, "Why was there no pre-assault fire? We were
told as families because pre-assault fire damages our efforts to win the hearts and mind of our enemy. In
other words, the hearts and mind of our enemy are more valuable to this government than my son's
blood."
Alas, I have no room to name all the troops killed by Obama's crippling Rules of Engagement. "American
troops are needlessly exposed to increased enemy attack, suffer unnecessary casualties, cannot secure or
control the indigenous population and are not allowed to deny freedom of movement or maneuver to the
Taliban," according to a tactical commander in Afghanistan. As a result, more than twice as many
American soldiers have died in Afghanistan under four years of Obama than in eight years under Bush.
Nor do I have room to list all the Americans murdered and maimed by the illegal aliens to whom Obama
shows such special devotion. This week, Chris Crane, president of the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officers union, said Obama has "attempted to shut down" border enforcement and
"absolutely" tied law enforcement's hands. Recently, Obama released 5,000 criminal aliens from jail,
blaming sequestration cuts, and created special protections against deportation for illegal aliens with
In the White House lives the man with the blood-red hands. The screams and sobs of his victims grow
louder by the day.
1e)CBS, ABC Presidents Have Siblings Working for Obama The presidents of ABC News and CBS News have siblings who work in the Obama administration and are
involved with Benghazi.
Political consultant Richard Grenell told "Fox News Watch" that the ties raise concerns as to why the
mainstream media has not more aggressively pursued the story.
"I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it," Grenell said. "CBS News President David Rhodes and
ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that
not only work for President Obama, but they work at the (National Security Council) on foreign policy issues
directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade."
Rhodes' brother, Ben, is President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser for strategic
communication, and Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is Obama's special assistant,
Newsbusters reports.
Additionally, CNN deputy bureau chief Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides,
Grenell noted. "It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It's a family
matter for some of them."
Nides is deputy secretary of state for management and resources. ABC reported Friday that Rhodes, brother of the CBS News president, was key to revising the talking points
that were issued after the attack and are under scrutiny from a House subcommittee.
CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson has come under fire from her own employer for allegedly "wading
dangerously close to advocacy on" Benghazi."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
2)IRS employees are members of the National Treasury Employees Union.The NTEU - 150,000 Federal
government employees from 31 separate agencies.
The iRS union gave its money to Congressional candidates this way in the 2012 election cycle:
For the U.S. Senate:
Total to Democrats - $156,750
Total to Republicans - $1,000
For the U.S. House:
Total to Democrats - $391,062
Total to Republicans - $23,000
The overwhelming bulk of the contributions to Democrats went to "Anti-Tea Party candidates" who
were running against Republicans who were nominated with large Tea Party support.
-------------- 3)
Saudi Peace InitiativeArab League No Model for Peace
By Eli E. Hertz
In March 2002, the Arab League met in Beirut and adopted a two-state solution proposal,
based on normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli
withdrawal to the pre–Six-Day War and the return of the 1948 refugees. This proposal was a
non-starter, designed more as a positive image builder for Arabs and especially for the
Saudis, who made up 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers,than a genuine contribution to
peace in the Middle East.
On April 30, 2013, Qatar’s foreign minister suggested the revival of the Arab Peace Initiative,
introduced in 2002, and for the first time eased its demand that Israel return to its pre-
1967 borders. Instead, the minister accepted the possibility of tweaking those borders with a
comparable and mutually agreed “minor swap of the land.”
However, it is illuminating to examine the record of the League of Arab States’ resolutions,
since the founding of the Arab League in 1945, which is hardly a model for peaceful
settlement of disputes in the spirit of the United Nations. For instance, prior to the
establishment of the Jewish state, the League took the following steps:
• In December 1945, the Arab League launched a boycott of “Zionist goods” that continues to
this day.
• In June 1946, it established the Higher Arab Committee to “coordinate efforts with
regard to Palestine,” a radical body that led and coordinated attempts to wipe Israel off the
map.
• In December 1946, it rejected the first proposed Palestine partition plans, reaffirming “that
Palestine is a part of the Arab motherland.”
• In October 1947, prior to the vote on Resolution 181 – the “Partition Plan” – it reasserted
the necessity for military preparations along Arab borders to “defending Palestine.”
• In February 1948, it approved “a plan for political, military, and economic measures to be
taken in response to the Palestine crisis.”
• In October 1948, it rejected the UN “Partition Plan” for Palestine, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181.
• On May 15 1948, as the regular forces of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and
contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen invaded Israel to “restore law and order,” the
Arab League issued a lengthy document entitled “Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine.”
In it, the Arab states drew attention to:
“The injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right of the people of Palestine to immediate independence … declared the Arabs’ rejection of [Resolution 181]” which the League said “would not be possible to carry it out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area” and claimed that the “security and order in Palestine have become disrupted” due to the “aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists” and “the Governments of the Arab States, as members of the Arab League, a regional organization … view the events taking place in Palestine as a threat to peace and security in the area as a whole. … Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs … the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine.”
The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, was less diplomatic and far more candid. With no patience for polite language, and on the same day that Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, at a Cairo press conference reported the next day in The New York Times, Pasha repeated the Arabs’ “intervention to restore law and order,” revealing:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
The League of Arab States continued to oppose peace after Israel’s 1948 War of Independence:
• In July 15 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 54 calling on Arab aggression to stop:
“Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine.”
• In October 1949, the Arab League declared that negotiation with Israel by any Arab state would be in violation of Article 18 of the Arab League.
• In April 1950, it called for severance of relations with any Arab state which engaged in relations or contacts with Israel and prohibited Member states from negotiating unilateral peace with Israel.
• In March 1979, it suspended Egypt’s membership in the League (retroactively) from the date of its signing a peace treaty with Israel.
• In March 27 2002, it adopted the Beirut Declaration, at the height of Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel, the Arab League declared:
“We, the kings, presidents, and emirs of the Arab states meeting in the Council of the Arab League Summit in Beirut, capital of Lebanon ... have conducted a thorough assessment of the developments and challenges ... relating to the Arab region and, more specifically, to the occupied Palestinian territory. With great pride, we followed the Palestinian people’s intifada and valiant resistance. … We address a greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people’s steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine. We greet with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada.”
Note, the League of Arab States’ which has systematically opposed and blocked all peace efforts with Israel for the past 68 years, is also in a declared state-of-war with Israel.
When talks broke down at Camp David in 2000, Palestinian Arab leaders unleashed the al-Aqsa Intifada, which amounted to a full-blown guerrilla war against Israel.
Unfortunately, Arab leaders often turn to such violence to gain what they were unable to achieve at the negotiating table.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment