Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Damage Control

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

Read more

Obama’s Expanding Kill List []

Prosecutors always expand laws far beyond their intent. Attorneys in civil cases do the same. For example, the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was passed in order to make it easier for the government to convict members of the Mafia. However, the law, despite its intent, was quickly expanded by prosecutors and attorneys and used in cases against pro-life activists, Catholic bishops, corporations accused of hiring illegal immigrants, and in divorce cases. “Junk bond king” Michael Milken, a person with no ties to organized crime, was threatened with indictment under the RICO Act. Prosecutors have found that the asset freeze provision in the Act is a convenient way to prevent a defendant from being able to pay attorneys and, therefore, makes it easier for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into a guilty plea.

We are now witnessing the expansion of Obama’s Kill List. The list began under the Bush regime as a rationale for murdering suspect citizens of countries with which the US was not at war. The Obama regime expanded the scope of the list to include the execution, without due process of law, of US citizens accused, without evidence presented in court, of association with terrorism. The list quickly expanded to include the American teen-age son of a cleric accused of preaching jihad against the West. The son’s “association” with terrorism apparently was his blood relationship to his father.

Read more

Obama signs law giving himself, Bush lifetime Secret Service guard [YahooNews]

President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.

The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

Read more

Obama signs $633B defense bill [thehill]

President Obama signed the $633 billion defense authorization bill into law on Wednesday, despite objecting to several key portions of the bill.

The president signed the sweeping 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) while in Hawaii after the White House had threatened to veto the legislation over restrictions on transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay and a number of program reversals from the Pentagon’s proposed budget.

“I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as a whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certain sections of the act, the need to renew critical defense authorities and funding was too great to ignore,” Obama said in the statement accompanying the sweeping Pentagon policy bill.

The defense authorization bill, which has now passed for 51 straight years, sets Defense Department policy and authorizes $633 billion in defense spending. The bill includes new sanctions against Iran, an increase of 1,000 Marines to guard U.S. embassies around the globe, plans to study a new East Coast missile defense site and military healthcare coverage of abortions in the case of rape and incest.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/275349-obama-signs-633b-defense-bill

Obama Sheds Fake Tears For Sandy Hook Victims

Some of you may remember the Susan Smith double murder, where she strapped her two young children—a 3-year-old and 14-month-old toddler—to their car seats and pushed the car into a lake.

For several days, the entire nation searched frantically for the man she said kidnapped her children.

All the while, she cried and cried and cried.

Except if you looked close, there were no tears.

Barack Obama cried and cried and cried for the Sandy Hook Elementary school children two hours after the massacre.

Except if you looked close, there were no tears.

Why would a man cry anyway who has supported the murder of fifty million babies since Roe v. Wade?

Why would a man cry anyway who has dumped hundreds of millions into murder factory Planned Parenthood?

Why would a man cry anyway who voted three times against banning the barbaric practice of letting babies born alive after botched abortions die alone in soiled utility rooms?

Read more

Why Does Obama Want to Spend $8 Trillion on Defense in the Next Decade? [policyshop]

Washington is in a fiscal panic, yet surprisingly few people are asking an obvious question: Why in the world is the Obama Administration proposing to spend $8 trillion on security over the next decade? Included in that giant sum is not just Pentagon spending, but also outlays for intelligence, homeland security, foreign aid, and diplomacy abroad.

If the Administration gets its way, security spending would account for a fifth of all government outlays over the next decade. Such spending would be roughly twice as great as all non-mandatory spending through 2022 — a category that includes everything from NASA to Pell Grants to national parks.

And — get this — around 40 cents of every dollar collected from individual income taxes over the next decade under the President’s plan would go for security spending, according to White House estimates.

That’s a whole lot of defense for a country that, as of 2014 (when U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan), will be officially at peace and faces no major global adversaries.

Defenders of such spending point out that, in relative terms, security spending will fall significantly in coming years — and they are right. By 2017, according to the Office of Management and Budget, Pentagon spending will equal just 2.9 percent of GDP — about half of what it was in the 1980s.

Read more

Obama Fact Sheet

Read more

Obama ‘drone-warfare rulebook’ condemned by human rights groups [Guardian]

OBAMA BEGINS PUSH TO CONFISCATE IRA’S & 401K’S [SilverDoctors]

It may be time to take the tax hit and withdraw funds from private retirement accounts before they are forced into long term T-bonds.

The Obama administration is reportedly quickly moving on plans to nationalize private 401k and IRA retirement accounts, and replace them with government sponsored annuities(aka Treasury bonds that the Treasury currently can’t sell to anyone but the Fed).

National Seniors Council Director Robert Crone warns: “This whole issue is moving forward very quickly.  Alreadythere is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts.“

All your retirement savings are belong to us:

A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.

The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.

“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”

A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a “government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation).” She proclaimed that even “private annuities are problematic.”

Read more

Trigger jitters: Arms sales surge as Obama stays in office [RT]

Immediately after President Obama’s re-election, gun sales have risen dramatically, with buyers fearing new restrictions on firearms.

During the October 16 presidential debate, CNN moderator Candy Crowley asked the president to clarify how he would keep assault weapons “out of the hands of criminals.” Obama said he was considering reintroducing an expired ban on civilian purchases of assault weapons. Ever since – and especially after the election – gun sales and background checks for firearm licenses have been on the rise. Some Americans have expressed fears about restrictions and higher taxes on assault weapons and ammunition.

“Sales are up,” John Kielbasa, owner of Fernwood Firearms in Hankins, NY, told CNN. “I had a guy waiting here first thing in the morning [after the election.] He came in, bought two AK-47s.”

While there have been no substantial changes in gun law under Obama’s leadership, his debate comment sparked deep concerns that things would change during his second term.

“They’re worried about tax increases on ammunition, and the second thing’s probably gonna be the assault weapons,”Colt Page of Colt’s Gun and Pawn told WITN TV. “AR-15s, AK-47s are typically hit hardest by government control.”

Firearm manufacturer Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. saw a 10.8 percent increase in its stock price after the president was re-elected. Shares had already doubled since the beginning of the year and spiked after the election results were announced.

Read more

The Politicians We Have Chosen Reflect Who We Are As A Nation [blacklistednews]

The American people have spoken.  It is estimated that approximately 6 billion dollars was spent on political campaigns in 2012, and we ended up exactly in the same place that we were before.  Barack Obama is still in the White House, the Democrats still have solid control of the U.S. Senate and the Republicans still have solid control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Clearly, the American people want more of the same, and that is really bad news.  The path that we have been on will only lead to unprecedented disaster, and now it is abundantly clear that there is not going to be any solutions to our problems on the national level.  Not that things would be that much different if we reversed things and gave Republicans control of the White House and the Senate and we gave Democrats control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Over the past several decades, nothing has really seemed to get any better no matter what faces we have sent to Washington.  But this time there is really a feeling of “finality” to things.  The American people have made their choices, and those choices are going to have consequences.  There is no turning back now.  The politicians that we have chosen reflect who we are as a nation.  It is not just our leaders that have turned their backs on the U.S. Constitution and on the principles that this country was founded upon – the truth is that the majority of the American people have rejected them.  We have willingly chosen our destiny, and there are no more excuses.

What Barack Obama has pulled off is absolutely mind blowing.  First of all, I must acknowledge that the Obama campaign had the best “ground game” in the history of American politics.  Their ability to deliver their voters to the polls was absolutely amazing.  Yes, the election was close, but I thought it would be much closer.  The Obama “ground game” made a significant difference.

Having said that, it says a lot about who we are as a nation that the American people would willingly send Barack Obama back to the White House for a second term.  You could almost excuse the American people for having the wool pulled over their eyes the first time, but at this point American voters have had four years to evaluate Barack Obama and learn what he is all about.

Barack Obama, like many of our politicians, is a con man.  He just doesn’t have a few skeletons in his closet – he has a whole army of them.  Over the course of two presidential campaigns he has refused to release his school records, there are very serious irregularities concerning his Social Security number, and he has managed to keep vast stretches of his past a total secret to the American people.  Anyone applying for a decent job or trying to get into a decent school would have been required to disclose more background information than Barack Obama has revealed to the American people.  What Obama has pulled off is completely and totally absurd.  I truly believe that Barack Obama will someday be regarded as one of the greatest con men of all time.

But even setting all of that aside, the outrageous things that Barack Obama has publicly said and done should be more than enough for every American that loves the U.S. Constitution to reject him.  The truth is that no American should have ever cast a single vote for him for any political office under any circumstances.

And yet now he is headed for a second term in the White House, and now he will feel absolutely no accountability to the voters since he will not be running in 2016.  He can do whatever he wants over the next four years, and nobody can do anything about it.

Not that Mitt Romney would have been much different.  Out of all of the Republican candidates, the Republicans selected the candidate that was most similar to Barack Obama.  During primary season, in many of my articles I pleaded with the Republicans not to choose Mitt Romney.  I warned that large numbers of very conservative voters would refuse to support him in the general election.  I was horrified by how Romney treated Ron Paul and his supporters during the primaries.  It turns out that Romney desperately could have used their help in swing states that Romney barely lost like Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

In the end, Mitt Romney ran one of the most inept campaigns in modern American political history.  Except for his one brief shining moment during the first debate, Romney just seemed to keep falling flat on his face over and over.  He seemed to have absolutely no idea how to attack Obama’s track record, and he kept shifting positions every five minutes.  To be honest, his campaign was an embarrassment to the Republican Party.

I know that a lot of Republicans are mourning today, but things would not have been much different under a Romney administration.  Romney was perhaps the most liberal candidate the Republicans have ever nominated for president, and Obama and Romney were perhaps the two most similar candidates that we have ever seen run against each other on the national stage.

The fact that the Republicans picked Mitt Romney says a whole lot about the Republican Party just like the fact that the Democrats picked Barack Obama says a whole lot about who they are.

But let us not overlook the other choices that the American people made yesterday either.

The U.S. Senate has been an abysmal failure for years, and yet the American people just keep voting for more of the same.

If you can believe it, the U.S. Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,200 days.

Read more

Obama executive order expands Homeland Security reach into local law enforcement [dailycaller]

President Barack Obama signed an executive order Friday that expanded the Department of Homeland Security’s ties to local law enforcement.

The executive order creates a White House Homeland Security Partnership Council and Steering Committee, aimed at fostering local partnerships between federal and private institutions “to address homeland security challenges.”

The council will be chaired by “the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (Chair), or a designee from the National Security Staff.” The Council chair will also chair the Steering Committee.

The executive order comes weeks after a damning Senate report on Homeland Security’s 77 fusion centers, which the Washington Post called “pools of ineptitude, waste and civil liberties intrusions.”

The fusion centers were created between 2003 and 2007 as part of a joint effort between DHS and the Justice Department to ease information sharing among federal intelligence agencies, military services, and state and local law enforcement.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/29/obama-executive-order-expands-homeland-security-reach-into-local-law-enforcement/#ixzz2AlowQ5zm

Media’s Silence on Benghazi May Not Save Obama [rickackerman]

(Update, Monday, 11:25 a.m. EDT:  Most unfortunately, it now appears that the “Frankenstorm” forecast, if few other predictions we’ve read about in the news, will prove correct. A meteorologist on the Weather Channel  — someone who, like me, experienced the March 1962 storm, the benchmark for destructive power visited on the Jersey Shore — says the similarity between the two storms is clear:  extremely high tides and winds exceeding 100 knots. The kicker this time is that a hurricane AND a Nor’easter will be hitting together, probably causing spectacular destruction in my old home town and along the New Jersey coast.  Early Tuesday morning: The damage has been bad so far, but we won’t know how bad until later in the day.  The hurricane caught Atlantic City squarely, flooding the island and demolishing sections of the Boardwalk, but these were fairly common occurrences when I was growing up on Absecon Island in the 1950s. From the news reports and videos I’ve seen so far, it doesn’t look quite as bad as the March Storm of 1962.)

What do these current news stories have in common: the World Series, Hurricane Sandy and Benghazi?  Answer:  Each has been covered by the news media in a way that reminds us why we trust journalists even less than we trust bankers, politicians and used-car salesmen. Recently the press has embarrassed itself with boldly mistaken predictions about the Series; courted skepticism by relentlessly hyping “Frankenstorm”;  and disgraced itself as never before by deliberately ignoring an apparent White House cover-up of the attack on America’s diplomatic mission in Libya.

Let’s start with baseball’s matchup between the San Francisco Giants and the Detroit Tigers. Heavy underdogs last Wednesday when the seven-game series began, the Giants on Sunday night completed a four-game sweep of the Tigers. Days before the series began, the sports pages were filled ad nauseum with paeans to Detroit’s murderous batting lineup

Read more

Obama The Traitor: The Hits Keep Coming [MarketTicker]

The lid isn’t going to stay on this much longer folks.

First, we have this with General Ham, who apparently had a rapid-deployment force ready to go into action when he learned that the consulate was under assault.  Then:

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it,  he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move  to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he  was now relieved of his command.

Got that?  It appears from this report that he was placed under armed arrest for attempting to rescue our people.

But it doesn’t stop there; apparently General Ham is not the only member of the armed forces who attempted to respond as one would expect from Americans at-arms:

The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Inappropriate judgment eh?  Like, perhaps, deciding that he was going to go do his job when our people were under attack through an act of war by belligerents?

There isn’t much that’s “inappropriate” in my view under such circumstances in terms of rapid response, but the CIC (that would be Obama) apparently sees things differently.

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, we have a military that is under civilan control.  That means you and I are the final arbiters of what is and is not permissible military action, not the other way around.  We, and not they, make that decision.

The questions you must now ask yourself as we come into these next couple of weeks, culminating in the election, are:

• Are you are going to remain silent and by doing so consent to the murder of four in Benghazi?  If this is unacceptable to you then it is your duty as an American to do something about it.  What you choose to do about it is of course up to you, and I urge lawful actions, not lawless ones, but the fact remains that our military structure means that you, and not they, are ultimately in control.
• It appears that there were assets in the air that could have responded; are you going to remain silent knowing they were there and refuse to demand the public identification of the person or persons who refused to use them? It appears now that our men had designated the mortar team that was firing on them with a laser targeting device.  Such an act never takes place unless there are assets in the air able to hit what’s been designated as the target and everyone else in the area can see the emission of energy used to “paint” the target.  We therefore know, assuming the reports of that “painting” are accurate, that some form of aerial fire support was available and was intentionally not used.  Again, you must decide if this is acceptable conduct.
• The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then “leaked” beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used.  Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation?  There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.)  You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptable under any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it.

Read more

Obama and Romney concur on War, Assassination and Reaction [globalresearch]

In their debate on foreign policy Monday night, President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney voiced nearly identical positions in support of war, illegal killings and imperialist intervention across the globe.

With just two weeks until the election, this third and final presidential debate made it clear that the US political establishment is laying the groundwork for new military interventions in the aftermath of November 6, and that the American people will have no means of expressing at the ballot box their opposition to an escalation of global militarism.

While both Obama and Romney threw in empty rhetoric about “nation-building at home” and bringing back “good jobs and rising take-home pay,” the overwhelming theme of this third debate was US imperialism’s determination to utilize its military superiority to counter the decline of American capitalism’s position in the world economy and offset the deepening crisis that began with the Wall Street meltdown of 2008.

In what can only be described as a degrading and filthy political spectacle, both the questions posed by the moderator and the answers provided by the candidates of the two major capitalist parties began with the premise that US imperialism has the unassailable right to defend its interests by inflicting death and destruction on anyone or any country that is deemed an obstacle.

No attempt was made to probe the broader interests of American capitalism underlying the wars, occupations and assassination campaigns that have dominated world affairs over the past decade. The impression was promoted that opposing these policies is beyond the pale of American politics, at once forbidden and futile.

Read more

The Big Chill: How Obama Is Operating in Unprecedented Secrecy — While Attacking the Secret-Tellers [huffingtonpost]

It’s a particularly challenging time for American national security reporting, with the press and public increasingly in the dark about important defense, intelligence and counterterrorism issues.

The post-post-9/11 period finds the U.S. aggressively experimenting with two new highly disruptive forms of combat — drone strikes and cyberattacks — for which our leaders appear to be making up the rules, in secret, as they go along.

Troubling legal and moral issues left behind by the previous administration remain unresolved. Far from reversing the Bush-Cheney executive power grab, President Barack Obama is taking it to new extremes by unilaterally approving indefinite detention of foreign prisoners and covert targeted killings of terror suspects, even when they are American citizens.

There is little to none of the judicial and legislative oversight Obama had promised, so the executive branch’s most controversial methods of violence and control remain solely in the hands of the president — possibly about to be passed along to a leader with less restraint.

More than a decade after it started, we still have no clue how much the government is listening in on us or reading our email, despite the obvious Fourth Amendment issues.

And the government’s response to this unprecedented secrecy is a war on leaks.

Read more

Obamneycare Converts Health Care into Profits [Boilingfrogs]

“Americans are governed for the benefit of corporate profits.”

 In the guest section there is a new contribution by Dr. Robert S. Dotson. He points out that Obamneycare is two versions of the same thing. A person has to be gullible and uninformed to believe the claims of Obama and Romney that their replacements for Medicare will save money and improve care. What the schemes do is convert public monies into private profits.

The exploding costs described by Dr. Dotson and the rising profits for private corporations are paid for by reducing health care. For example, Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, writing in Investors Business Daily reports that “On Oct. 1, the Obama administration started awarding bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on elderly patients.” The result will be fewer knee and hip replacements, angioplasty, bypass surgery, and cataract operations. These procedures transformed aging by allowing the elderly, who formerly languished in wheelchairs and nursing homes, to lead active lives.

Obamacare rolls back the clock. “By cutting $716 billion from future Medicare funding over the next decade and rewarding the hospitals that spend the least on seniors, the Obama health law will make these procedures hard to get and less safe.” Doctors will be paid less to treat a senior on Medicare than to treat someone on Medicaid, a poverty program that is not financed by the payroll tax. McCaughry reports that doctors will be paid only one-third as much for treating Medicare patients as for treating a patient with subsidized private insurance and that Obamacare means that hospitals will have $247 billion less over the next decade to care for the same number of seniors.

According to McCaughey, prior to Obama raiding Medicare in order to subsidize the price of health policies sold by private insurance companies, Medicare was already paying hospitals only 91 cents for every dollar of care provided. The way Obamacare saves money is by cutting back care for the elderly and shortening their lives. As I pointed out in my last article, Obamacare is a death panel.

This doesn’t mean that Romneycare is any better. Conservatives like to pretend that the private sector is always more efficient and less corrupt than the public sector, and that replacing Medicare with vouchers toward the purchase price of a private insurance company will lower costs and improve care.

Read more

Who Is Responsible for the Mess in Libya? [LewRockwell]

How many times have you heard the truism that in modern-day America the cover-up is often as troubling as the crime? That is becoming quite apparent in the case of the death of Chris Stevens, the former U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Stevens and three State Department employees were murdered in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month, on September 11th. About an hour before the murders, the ambassador, who usually resides in the U.S. embassy in Tripoli but was visiting local officials and staying at the consulate in Benghazi, had just completed dinner there with a colleague, whom he personally walked to the front gate of the compound. In the next three hours, hundreds of persons assaulted the virtually defenseless compound and set it afire.

Around the same time that these crimes took place in Benghazi, a poorly produced, low-grade 15-minute YouTube clip was going viral on the Internet. The clip shows actors in dubbed voices portraying the prophet Mohammed and others in an unflattering light. The Obama administration seized upon the temporary prevalence of this clip to explain the assault on the consulate. Indeed, the administration sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to represent it on five Sunday morning TV talk shows on September 16th, to make the claim that the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube clip, that it could not have been anticipated, and that the perpetrators were ordinary Libyans angry at the freedom moviemakers in America enjoy.

Soon, U.S. intelligence reports were leaked that revealed that the intelligence community knew the attack was not as described by Rice. The intelligence folks on the ground in Libya reported before September 16th that the attack was well organized, utilized military equipment and tactics, and was carried out by local militias with ties to al-Qaida. In response to these leaks, the State Department, for which Rice works, acknowledged that the assault was an organized terrorist attack.

Read more

Obama’s Lastest Executive Order Freezes Americans’ Accounts [teapartyeconomist]

So, you think your capital is safe. You think it would take a law to freeze your assets permanently.

Silly you.

All it takes is an executive order signed by the President.

Here is the most recent example. It applies to all Americans: individuals and corporations.

The way this legal precedent is being set is simple: it targets the latest bad guys in the ever-rotating roulette wheel of evil. (“Round and round it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.”)

Hillary and Turbo Tim Geithner will be brought into the process. They will decide, meaning faceless bureaucrats under them will decide.

It’s all in bureaucratese, the better to hide what the Executive Order is really doing.

Read more

“We’ve Heard It All Before” (Extended Cut)

Obama Un-narrated Documentary/Review (in his own words)

Jeremy Scahill Takes Down MSNBC Panel On Obama Foreign Policy

Out of Options? ‘Obama a failure, Republicans not an alternative’ [RT]

Reality Check: 1 on 1 With President Obama, How Does He Justify A Kill List?

Obama campaign brags about its whistleblower persecutions [Guardian]