Al Qaeda’s expansion in Libya, following the successful terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on Sept. 11, is part of a long-term plan by Al Qaeda senior leadership, according to a seasoned counterterrorism investigator.
“Al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has long had his sights on Libya, and what he devised long ago was a plan to send senior operatives from Pakistan and elsewhere into Libya to build up Al Qaeda’s clandestine network,” Tom Joscelyn, a senior fellow with Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News.
Joscelyn, who is well known in the counterterrorism world for his “drill-down” on Al Qaeda operatives, said the vacuum left after the attack in Benghazi has created another opening which has allowed the terrorist network to “capitalize on the anti-American momentum and to show how they do have cards to play around the world.”
According to an August report by the Library of Congress in conjunction with military analysts, at least two Al Qaeda operatives — Abu Anas al Libi and Abd al Baset Azzouz — answer directly to Zawahiri.
Joscelyn said a “witches’ brew” of three basic elements now creates fertile ground in Libya for the establishment of a safe haven. They include those dispatched by Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan; the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; and local militias which are sympathetic to Al Qaeda and led by former Guantanamo detainee Abu Sufian Ben Qumu.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/07/al-qaeda-expansion-in-libya-part-long-term-vision/#ixzz2EWfozgul
Unless we fundamentally transform our nation by electing Senators , Congressmen and a President that will work together to refocus and redirect , our society, fiscally and morally, our country will be headed in the same direction as our European neighbors across the pond, namely Socialism.
Additionally and most crucially this election is the most critical in generations because:
1. If re-elected Barack Hussein Obama will continue molding our country into a weak, Socialist, apologetic nation while Mitt Romney will mold our country to a strong, Capitalist, trustworthy nation.
2. At least two Supreme Court Judges, who will determine the direction of our jurisprudence for several generations, will be nominated by our next President.
3. Obamacare will not be repealedunless we have Mitt Romney in the White House and majorities in the Senate and House. Additionally, It has become quite apparent that the changes to Medicare, resulting from Obamacare’s implementation, will be costly for Seniors, young workers and our economic well being. Additionally, if allowed to be implemented, Obamacare is guaranteed to override our fundamental God given and Constitutionally recognized Right-of- Conscience by imposing Anti-Religious mandates.
4. We can no longer tolerate a Chief Executive who for his own political expediency and beliefs pits one ethnicity against another, the poor against the rich, the young against the old and promotes all manner of class envy.
As stated earlier, an important issues in this election is whether America will abruptly be turned toward Socialism or remain a Capitalist society. Obamacare will not only affect the elderly but “…will impose massive penalties on young workers, small businesses and others…” Thus, Obamacare promises to not only lead us towards Socialism but also promises to further Bankrupt our already precarious financial position and to accelerate our demise over the oft mentioned Financial Cliff
We can not allow legislation like Obamacare, which came to fruition by extreme Congressional misconducts like the “Cornhusker Kickback ”, the ”Louisiana Purchase” and a host of other covert “deals”, to destroy our nation’s financial viability, our Individual Liberty and our National Sovereignty.
This is our time!The candidates that we elect will serve in office for the next two, four or six years. If we do not choose wisely, those years could be agonizing. So vet the candidates, know their core principles, choose wisely and vote for candidates that will strengthen our Constitutionalism, our Capitalism and will reject Socialism!
Barack Hussein Obama Put His Personal Interest In Front Of America’s.
Our Country Is In Danger when We Have a Man That Put His Personal Interrest in front of our Country.
Our Nation is In Danger Of Collapse If We do not Change Course So Wake Up America Before It Is To Late To save Our Country
Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account
By Adam Housley Published November 03, 2012 FoxNews.com
Despite a carefully narrated version of events rolled out late this week by the CIA claiming agents jumped into action as soon as they were notified of calls for help in Benghazi, security officials on the ground say calls for help went out considerably earlier — and signs of an attack were mounting even before that. The accounts, from foreign and American security officials in and around Benghazi at the time of the attack, indicate there was in fact a significant lag between when the threat started to show itself and help started to arrive. According to the CIA, the first calls for assistance came at 9:40 p.m. local time from a senior State Department official at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, to the CIA annex about a mile away. But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack began. One source said the Blue Mountain Security chief seemed “distraught” and said “the situation here is very serious, we have a problem.” He also said that even without these phone and radio calls, it was clear to everyone in the security community on the ground in Benghazi much earlier than 9:40 p.m. that fighters were gathering in preparation for an attack. Many of these security contractors and intelligence sources on the ground in Benghazi met twice a week for informal meetings at the consulate with Blue Mountain and consulate staff, and at times other international officials. They were all very familiar with security at the consulate — and said the staff seemed “complacent” and “didn’t seem to follow the normal American way of securing a facility.” Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to “heavily armed troops showing up with artillery.” Fox News was told by both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only “loosely based on the truth” and “doesn’t quite add up.” Fox News was also told that the local guard force meant to protect the consulate perimeter “panicked” and didn’t know what to do as the attackers took up positions. Sources say other guards simply “walked away”. One former Special Op now employed by a private company in Benghazi said that even the safe room wasn’t properly set up. He said “the safe room is one of the first measures you take” and that he is “not sure how you can set a safe room without fire suppression and ventilation in case of fire.” He also said, “Ambassador Stevens would likely be alive today if this simple and normal procedure was put into place.” As details emerge of serious security issues before the attack on Sept. 11, Fox News is also beginning to hear more frustration from sources both on the ground in Benghazi and in the U.S. Multiple British and American sources insist there were other capabilities in the region and are mystified why none were used. Fox News was told there were not only armed drones that monitor Libyan chemical weapon sites in the area, but also F-18′s, AC-130 aircraft and even helicopters that could have been dispatched in a timely fashion. British intelligence sources said that unarmed drones routinely flew over Benghazi every night in flight patterns and that armed drones which fly over chemical sites, some a short flight from Benghazi, “were always said to be on call.” American sources confirmed this and questioned “why was a drone armed only with a camera dispatched?” Another source added, “Why would they put a ragtag team together in Tripoli as first responders? This is not even what they do for a living. We had a first responder air base in Italy almost the same distance away.” Despite the team arriving from Tripoli that night, sources said sufficient American back-up never came. British sources on the ground in Benghazi said they are extremely frustrated by the attack and are still wondering why they weren’t called for help. “We have more people on the ground here than the Americans and I just don’t know why we didn’t get the call?” one said. Both American and British sources said, at the very least, the security situation on the ground and the lack of proper response were the result of “complete incompetence.” The covert team that came in from Tripoli was held up at the Benghazi airport for more than three hours by Libyan officials. Sources said the team notified officials in Washington that they were being delayed within 30 minutes of their arrival. They also point out that these questions “don’t even address the military capabilities of our United Nations ally Turkey, who (has) forces available a similarly short flight away.” Fox News has learned that Turkey had a number of embassy staff in town the night of the attack and that the Turkish consul general met with Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi the night he and the three other Americans were killed. One source asked, “Were the Turks not warned? What forces were available from our ally Turkey? Especially since they had officials there in Benghazi also and had to be concerned … and where was the U.N. in all of this?” Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report
Mass Tea Party Good Friend and Patriot, Representative Louie Gohmert (TX-01) talked to Fox & Friends about the exclusive Fox News report that found that CIA operators were denied request for help during the Benghazi attack. He discussed the plausibility that the White House knew about the dire situation at the U.S. Embassy and ignored it due to political gain.
President Obama has been outed and now he will stonewall all inquiries about what he knew and when he learned about the Benghazi attack . Instead his campaign is attempting to denigrate and smear Mitt Romney through their accomplice, the Boston Globe, with unsealed testimony he gave on behalf of Staples founder Tom Stemberg’s divorce case.
Barack Hussein Obama hopes to DIVERT our attention away from Libya, Benghazi , four preventable deaths and the utter and complete failure of his Foreign Policy along with his Domestic Policy!
Are you going to fall for his DECEPTION once again? Like implementing stringent New Administrative EPA rules the day after the election. How many jobs will this single act cause? Can you even imagine what he is capable of doing if elected to another 4-years?
WH: ‘We Decline to Comment’ on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi
(CNSNews.com) – The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.
The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack.
“I have been asked by one of our spokespeople to relay ‘that we decline to comment,’” said White House National Security Staff aide Debbie Bird in a written response to CNSNews.com.
CNSNews.com had asked Bird: 1) “When did the President first meet with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12?” 2) “When did White House staff first discuss the substance of the e-mails that went to the White House with the President or with the National Security Advisor?”
Carney also took a question about the e-mails today during a press gaggle held aboard Air Force One at 9:34 a.m. A reporter asked: “Jay, there are some emails that have emerged, which suggest that the White House and other areas of the government were told within hours of the Benghazi attack that an extremist group had claimed responsibility. How is that compatible with the idea that it was a spontaneous attack?”
Carney downplayed the significance of the State Department emails.
“There were emails about all sorts of information that was becoming available in the aftermath of the attack,” Carney said. “The email you’re referring to was an open-source, unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in.
“The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible,” said Carney, “and I would refer you to what we’ve already said about, and what the DNI [Director of National Intelligence] has already said about, the initial assessments of the intelligence community, and the fact that throughout this process, I and others made very clear that our preliminary assessments were preliminary, that an investigation was underway, and that as more facts became available, we would make the American people aware of them.
“Again,” said Carney, “this was an open-source, unclassified email about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact. That’s why there’s an investigation underway.”
The NSC is chaired by the president, and includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. A NSC meeting would allow the leader of the intelligence community to communicate directly with the leader of the State Department in the presence of the president and for all of them to weigh any conflicting information.
The three emails in question, which were obtained by CBS News, were sent by the State Department to various government officials, including two officials in the Executive Office of the President, on Sept. 11, 2012, while the attack on the Benghazi was taking place and immediately after it had taken place.
While Americans are distracted by the presidential campaign, which has focused more and more on jobs and the economy, President Barack Obama has stealthily abandoned one of the cornerstones of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy: Radio Liberty.
The Obama administration claims the station was driven from the airwaves by a new law pushed by Russian President Vladimir Putin that bars foreign-owned media from broadcasting on AM radio frequencies.
Does this mean it was legal for Radio Liberty to broadcast to the Soviet Union back at the height of the Cold War, and the Russians just got around to realizing all they needed to do was change the law and we’d give up?
Of course not.
The real reason, as NewsMax quoted one Radio Free Europe source putting it somewhat indelicately is, “because they don’t want to piss off the Russians.”
As the NewsMax source also observed, “Putin is very sophisticated and knows how to work the Americans… The reaction [by the Obama administration] has been too limp.”
This is nothing more than capitulating to Putin, and the contrast with Ronald Reagan couldn’t be starker.
Reagan understood that to defeat the communist enemies of freedom, we had to engage them on every battlefield of national power: cultural, economic and military. That is why he pumped up Radio Liberty and the Voice of America, supported the Solidarity labor movement in Poland, deployed America’s technological and industrial prowess in merciless military competition with the Soviets and made liberating the captive people of the Soviet empire the foundation of his foreign policy.
As Reagan said so eloquently in his second inaugural address, “America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Every blow we inflict against poverty will be a blow against its dark allies of oppression and war. Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace.”
Radio Liberty and the Voice of America were important parts of Reagan’s strategy to let the world know that America was “freedom’s staunchest friend,” in spite of the fact they would “piss off the Russians.”
Radio Liberty and Voice of America were, and are, important to something that Ronald Reagan did so well, but that Barack Obama seems utterly incapable of understanding, let alone doing – selling freedom around the world.
PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 08:59 EST, 16 October 2012
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
global temperature changes
Research: The new figures mean that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’
Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Flawed science costs us dearly
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.
Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.
Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama Who would have thought, and yet many are thinking it.
By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble
A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT
* THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America ‘s true living legends
- an Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as “partnering.”
Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble
and over the course of 36 years; made corporate history.
AN OPENLETTER TOPRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike Any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no Visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus Don’t understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ Crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system With a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of Living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics Against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider Opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both Omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything You do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, Conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
* * This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for
good men and women to do nothing.. It’s happening right now.
NEW YORK — Concerning the fun parts of his job, Barack Obama resembles the Energizer Bunny. If there are crowds to wow, entertainers to schmooze or donors to pitch, Obama is Johnny on the spot.
Too bad Obama’s sparks stop flying when it comes time for the serious, heavy lifting of the presidency.
This phenomenon’s most chilling example involves Obama’s national security-related presidential daily brief. As the conservative Government Accountability Institute calculated, and Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen first reported Sept. 10, Obama attended only 43.8 percent of his daily briefings between Jan. 23, 2009, (three days after his inauguration) and May 31, 2012.
Available nearly every day, the briefing allows the commander-in-chief to hear directly from top intelligence professionals about the latest threats to U.S. safety. These experts are on hand to answer questions, hear suggestions and otherwise help Obama foil America’s enemies.
But Obama has had higher priorities.
According to the institute’s data culled from the official White House calendar and Politico.com’s news coverage of that schedule, Obama chose to skip his daily briefings and, instead, simply read his briefing book.
This is a bit like studying one’s chest X-rays at home while spurning a radiologist’s offer to interpret them and answer pertinent questions.
In this sense, Obama quietly reviewed his national security X-rays alone during 56.2 percent of the time the institute analyzed. Obama missed 61.6 percent of these briefings in 2011.
Obama skipped his briefings between last Sept. 4 and 11, the entire week before the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, suffered an Islamic terror attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, technical officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Who knows if a briefer’s classified utterance, or a particularly astute question from Obama, might have triggered tighter security in Benghazi and perhaps prevented the murders of four Americans?
Even worse, as Thiessen reports, Obama postponed and eventually skipped his briefing on the day after these planned and deliberate assassinations. This liberated Obama for a truly indispensable responsibility that day. As American embassies burned brightly throughout the Islamic world, Obama jetted off on Air Force One for a campaign fundraiser in America’s least solemn city — Las Vegas.
At last, three days after the Benghazi bloodshed, and nine days after his previous briefing, Obama sat still for a proper briefing Sept. 14, the White House schedule shows. Perhaps the scrutiny of Thiessen and other critics finally has inspired Obama to attend his briefings with the regularity of his predecessors.
Obama this week met with exactly zero world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly, not least of them Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to stop Iran from redecorating Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with mushroom clouds. Obama found time, however, to serve as “eye candy” for Whoopi Goldberg and the cast of “The View.”
Obama has shirked his domestic obligations, too. He reportedly has held just two Cabinet meetings this year — on Jan. 31 and July 26.
While claiming to be totally focused on reducing naggingly high unemployment, Obama has not met with his Jobs Council since January. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained, “The president’s obviously got a lot on his plate.” This has included a $38,000-per-plate fundraiser at the Manhattan home of actress Sarah Jessica Parker and golf, of which Obama has enjoyed some 104 rounds as president.
Obama’s dereliction of duty would be bad enough if he were a latter-day Eisenhower: a well-respected, perhaps feared, world leader enjoying prosperity at home and peace (or at least a manageable Cold War) overseas.
Instead, Obama grows increasingly comical, the domestic economy languishes, and the American flag has become an alternative fuel source across the Middle East. Nonetheless, Ike Jr. parties like it’s 1959.
Perhaps Obama has devolved from president to slacker-in-chief in an elaborate display of empathy for America’s 12.5 million unemployed. With so many citizens not working, Obama may reckon, why should he?
Former judge, American patriot, great friend of the Tea Party and outspoken critic of the Obama Administration, Representative Louie Gohmert very succinctly describes the President’s most recent debacle, the creation of a new Ottoman Empire and its threat to World Peace.
The Middle East events of the last two weeks have resulted in such gross negligence by this administration that in their confusion and rush to minimize their collateral damage they gave us a brief glimpse into their corrupt “Machine.” A “Propaganda Machine” that has permeated and been an integral part of Barack Hussein Obama’s regime since his Chicago beginnings. These past four years have seen the melding of a corrupt Political Machine with a corrupt News Media whose end result has been the largest disinformation campaign ever perpetrated against an American citizenry. The Obama Administration’s Libyan misinformation campaign has been so blatant that Mike Huckabee, a Protestant Minister, felt compelled to call out and at the same time warn the American people that “Your Government Lied to You”.
Please take our polls on the front page whose purpose is to determine whether we trust various government institutions.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” Elmer T. Peterson
Food Stamps is just one of Barack Hussein Obama giveaways from our “public treasury’ that will eventually cause our Republic to collapse under the weight of his Socialist Programs.
It’s not just the increase in recipients: Obama allows each recipient to receive much more. Can’t blame that on Bush.
One of the least-appreciated reasons for conservatives to dislike former President George W. Bush is that even while the unemployment rate was declining, the U.S. saw a massive increase in participation in the food-stamp programs (Women, Infants and Children, or WIC; and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). It’s quite accurate to refer, as the Washington Examiner recently did, to the “Great Bush-Obama food-stamp expansion.” But a recent article on the subject of food-stamp costs in National Review didn’t even mention Bush’s name. Firebrand Newt Gingrich, who has tirelessly focused attention on this topic, has been similarly negligent in omitting Bush from the picture.
Yet Obama has done much more than simply oversee an increase in participation.
Obama brings up Bush’s expansion when challenged about his food-stamp record — he has aggressively sought to blame his performance on his Republican predecessor. Here’s what he told ABC News when confronted on this issue:
First of all, I don’t put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. No. 3, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in eight million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government.
It’s stunning that the Romney campaign is allowing Obama to get away with not mentioning the costs that have no precedent whatsoever in Bush administration records or policy.
Under Obama, 14.7 million more Americans began using the food-stamp program than had been using it under Bush. That’s a whopping increase of 46%, from 31.9 million users in 2009 to 46.6 million today. One in every seven Americans. The WIC program now purchases over half of all infant formula sold in the United States.
But most importantly, the cost of the program to taxpayers has increased by far more than the expected, proportionate 46%.
Under eight years of George Bush, annual spending on food stamps rose from $15 billion to $35 billion — an increase of about $2.5 billion per year. But in just the first two yearsof the Obama administration alone, spending rose from $35 billion to $75 billion — a staggering increase of $20 billion per year, nearly ten times the rate of increase in cost under Bush.
The cost of food stamps under Obama rose from an average of $3.6 billion per month when he came to office to $6.2 billion per month now, a disproportional increase of 72% compared to the 46% increase in program usage. And even that figure is misleading because it is based on averages: the total cost of the program over Obama’s four years in office, as noted above, actually rose by well over 100%, now running in excess of $75 billion per year. If you compare 2007 and 2011, the total cost increase is an astounding 135%.
There are two possible explanations for the wildly disproportionate rise in food stamp costs under Obama: either he’s being much more generous with recipients than Bush ever dreamed of being, or food prices are rising because of his inflationary policies. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office weighed in. They concluded that a combination of both factors was in play — but that Obama’s generosity (with taxpayer money) is the much bigger culprit.
“The Hope and The Change” is set to air dozens of times, reaching 130 million cumulative households, over the next few months – an historic first for any political documentary.
This smartly produced documentary will be shown on HDNet Movies, AXS TV, RFD-TV, FamilyNet, and Rural TV. The film is also licensed to Lesea Broadcasting for World Harvest Television and their broadcast stations: WHMB (Indianapolis, IN), WHNO (New Orleans, LA), KWHB (Tulsa, OK), KWHE (Honolulu, HI), KWHS (Colorado Springs, CO) and WHME (South Bend, IN).
Please check local listings for channels: up-to-date information about showings will be added towww.TheHopeAndTheChange.com/TV as soon as it becomes available.
It is important to note that these distribution opportunities would have been against the law a mere three years ago. This is why I went to the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission – to fight for the right to produce a political documentary.
“The Hope and The Change” exposes the hard truth that many Democrats and independents are suffering at the hands of President Obama’s failed policies, and we will aggressively market this film so Americans can finally have an unfiltered conversation they deserve.
P.S. “The Hope and The Change” has the power to change many minds this fall. That is why it is so important for millions of Americans to see it. Please help us get this film out to as many people as possible by forwarding this message and spreading the world about the TV showings!
Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.
Barack Hussei’sn Obama’s first mentor, who he described as “Frank” in his autobiography Dreams from My Father was an avowed Communist and was suspected of being a Russian spy. Trevor Loudon, a political journalist and researcher identified “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis who Obama’s Progressive Propagandists are portraying as an “American journalist, poet, and political and labor movement activist.” In fact, Frank Marshall Davis’s poetry praised the Russian Communist butcher, Stalin. Obma’s confident in the White House, Valerie Jarett’s grandfather was a leader in the American Peace Mobilization Movement, a Soviet front group. Do the research yourself by reading Trevor Loudon’s book, Barack Obama and the Enemies Withinand Paul Kengor’s, The Comunist. There is an old proverb that declares, “Show Me your Friends and I will Tell you who You Are.” If we use this criterion for Barack Hussein Obama, we immediately come to the same conclusion as Michael Savage. We need to educate our Independent family and friend voters to this creeping Soviet-style repression before it is too late.
Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers, another Obama Mentor:
“We’re seeing the beginning of Soviet-style repressionhere in the U.S.’
Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things “Savage.” In today’s issue: Savage was outraged when he learned that Marine veteran Brandon J. Raub had been detained for psychiatric evaluation after posting anti-Obama messages on his Facebook page. “Are we living in the USA or in the USSR?” Savage wondered, warning that these sorts of arrests were commonplace in the former Soviet Union.
“Ask any Russian who lived in the Soviet Union,” Michael Savage continued, “and you’ll find that President Obama is doing exactly what occurred in the early days of Stalinism.”Those people lived behind an iron curtain. Everything they knew, all the information they received about the world, came to them from the government. The average Soviet had no idea what kind of lives people were leading outside the USSR They didn’t even know there were tomatoes in Western grocery stores; such “luxuries” weren’t available to them. They were living with very little but were told they were living with a lot, and their lives were wonderful thanks to socialism. Soviet people had no idea what reality actually was. Meanwhile, here in America through the late 1950s, liberal newspapers ignored and buried stories about work camps and prison camps in the U.S.S.R. The truth is, more than 20 million people who were accused of opposing centralized government were worked to death or executed in the Soviet Union. Now we are seeing the beginning of this in the United States of America. If the U.S. government can snatch a Marine off the streets simply for posting anti-government feelings on Facebook, then we’re living in the old Soviet Union.
by Cynthia Kennedy
The Preamble to the Rules of the Republican Party state, “Be it resolved, that the Republican Party is the party of the Open door. Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality, of opportunity for all, and favoritism for none. It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans.”
As the committee was ready to adjourn yesterday, Florence Sebern, delegate from Colorado, bravely moved to strike the Preamble, as, “It’s inconsistent with what we did today.”
Her succinct comment was appropriate, and reflected in Jeremy Blosser’s comments today. Blosser, a delegate from Texas, has been attending all the GOP committee meetings coordinating, and encouraging liberty delegate members, in their efforts to bring fairness to the RNC. He writes:
“Manipulating concerns of many in the party mainstream over the success Ron Paul’s supporters had becoming delegates this cycle, the DC insiders led by the Romney campaign are staging a complete takeover of the national Republican Party from the conservative wing and ensuring they will never lose power again.”
Romney campaign attorneys and other operatives ran a large set of changes through the convention rules committee on Friday. The vast majority of which were not discussed prior in the RNC Standing Rules committee. Two changes stand out far beyond the rest and must be defeated on the floor of the convention if we do not want to see the grassroots shut out of the party for decades to come.
First, the committee voted to allow the RNC to make rule changes between conventions, with little to no checks or balances. The original threshold proposed was 2/3 of the entire RNC. Melinda Fredericks of Texas got this changed to 3/4, but as Morton Blackwell of Virginia noted, in his many years on the RNC he has never seen a situation where the chairman did not get what he wanted on a vote, regardless of threshold.
Second, the committee voted to dramatically restrict who can be elected a delegate to the national convention. All states now are required to pledge all delegates, and all national delegates must be approved by the candidate they are pledged to. As originally proposed, the candidate had to pre-approve people before they could run, but this was changed to instead give candidates veto power over elections. Attempts to carve out exceptions for caucus states that have party rule requiring they not pledge some delegates failed.
I’m pleased to say our representatives on the committee opposed this one as strongly as anyone did, with Butch Davis saying that stopping it was “a hill to die on”. David Barton ran for the Platform Committee so that he could make sure the Romney campaign would not successfully gut the platform–that kind of speech or position will never be tolerated in the future if this stands.
Morton Blackwell and others are leading efforts to defeat this via minority reports on the floor. We NEED to make sure either those pass or the entire report is voted down so we stay with the 2008 rules. PLEASE help us inform the delegates and put pressure where needed to stop this. This is not a “Ron Paul vs mainstream GOP” thing, this is a complete party takeover by the DC insiders we may not be able to reverse if it succeeds.
The last form of the adopted language I have available is below–we don’t have access to the official report yet but unless I missed something this is it.
New rule inserted as number 12:
“The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”
New rule inserted as number 15(a):
15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.
15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.
15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.
If these rules pass as the committee passed them, the Republican Party will be completely closed to the grassroots. The only way to fix it will be to take over the RNC, because we won’t likely be able to get into the national convention as delegates again. We’ll certainly do that if it’s the only option they leave us, but we have to defeat these rule changes if we want to fulfill our mandate to affect the national party in this cycle.
For this change to take effect it has to be approved by a vote of the entire convention on Monday (now Tuesday, as the convention opening has been postponed to early Tuesday afternoon because of the hurricane).
Pat Kerby, delegate from Nevada, had this to say, “With their change to the rules giving them “flexibility,” can’t they just change it to whatever suits them? The days of the grassroots having input in the GOP are over until the grassroots are the majority.”
General Services Administration – with the Blessing of the Obama White House – Tells Law Enforcement to “Stand Down” and Not Enforce the Law Against Occupy Protestors According to Records Uncovered by Judicial Watch
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating that the General Services Administration (GSA), with the blessing of the Obama White House, instructed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protestors who were in violation of the law.
The records, obtained pursuant to a November 11, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, include internal DHS correspondence. One November 6, 2011, e-mail exchange between DHS/National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff Caitlin Durkovich and GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Robert Peck (who has since been fired) specifically related to Occupy Portland protests taking place on federal property in Portland:
I am sorry to be emailing you on a Sunday night, but wanted to let you know our Press Shop has received a couple of calls from Portland media outlets about a group of 11 protesters who again set up camp at Terry Shrunk Plaza in Portland last night. They have chained themselves to a large drum filled with concrete. GSA controls the permits and has asked FPS [Federal Protective Services] not to enforce the curfew at park and the prohibition on overnight encampments. Reporters have asked if we will be arresting the protestors as FPS did last week.
Our FPS Commander in Portland says they are standing down and following GSA’s request to only intervene if there is a threat to public safety.
Caitlin: yes, that is our position; it’s been vetted with our Administrator and Michael Robertson, our chief of staff, and we have communicated with the WH [White House], which has afforded us the discretion to fashion our approach to Occupy issues…The arrests last week were carried out despite our request that the protesters be allowed to remain and to camp overnight…
Occupy Portland is part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has been beset with accusations of “crimes and dangerous behavior” during its protests.
According to the Oregonian, the week before this email exchange, on October 30, 2011, “Twenty-five Occupy Portland demonstrators were arrested…after refusing to leave Jamison Square. The arrests capped an intense hours-long standoff between police and dozens of protesters who refused to leave the Pearl District park after it was declared closed at midnight. Officers, some in riot gear and others on horses, faced off with protesters who remained in the square, despite being ordered to leave.” The protestors were reportedly arrested on accusations of “trespassing, interfering with a police officer and disorderly conduct for the noise complaints from neighbors.”
Robert Peck was at the center of a scandal involving the GSA in 2010, where the agency spent $823,000 on a lavish Las Vegas “training conference” that featured a clown, a mind reader and a $31,208 reception. Peck was fired as a result of the incident. Peck, who has donated thousands of dollars to Democrat candidates, including Barack Obama, was previously implicated in an unrelated GSA scandal for reportedly brokering a controversial lease deal for a Democratic donor and friend of former Vice President Al Gore. Per The Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott: “In Peck’s first go-round at GSA, controversy was sparked when it was learned that excessively high rent was being paid by the FCC to the owner of a building who also happened to be a Democratic donor. Peck was the official who made the deal possible.”
Peck was deposed by Judicial Watch today in a separate lawsuit on behalf of Linda Shenwick, a GSA whistleblower who Peck and others allegedly retaliated against because of Ms. Shenwick’s opposition to wasteful spending, such as parties, that have now caused so much controversy.
“We now have a new GSA scandal – one that involves the Obama White House,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents clearly show that federal agencies colluded with the Obama White House to allow the Occupy Wall Street protestors to violate the law with impunity. These documents tell us that the GSA and DHS can’t be relied upon to protect federal workers or property.”
Has an Obama gaffe finally revealed his innermost contempt for America, our Constitution and our traditional institutions? A contempt so deep and so villainous to American Principles and Values that he had to keep it concealed from public view. Hidden lest his villainous ideology be exposed and ruin his wicked plan to destroy America’s most cherished constitutional, social and economic institutions. Every once and a while those seers of our American culture would get a glimpse of his veiled intent and would alert our populous who either would not or could not believe that an American President could be capable of such infamous deeds.Then last Monday night while speaking at a fundraiser in Oakland last, Obama momentarily removed his superficial cloak as he told a mob of supporters that, “Just like we’ve tried their plan, we’ve tried our plan, and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.” He thereby, perhaps unconsciously, revealed his ongoing plan to subvert and destroy America.
The Top 50 Obama Short comings-50 reasons not to vote for Obama
2. The failed $850 billion stimulus
3. High, persistent unemployment
4. Gas prices
5. The 2012 budget’s fecklessness
6. Massive deficits each and every year
7. The seizure of GM and Chrysler, the transfer of bondholder wealth to unions, and the dumping of the GM stock at a loss
9. Hostility to Israel, including attack on apartment expansion and icing of Prime Minister Netanyahu in basement of White House
10. Failure to support Iran’s Green Revolution
11. Failure to support Syrian revolution
12. The Libyan Fiasco
13. The incompetent handling of the Gulf Oil disaster
14. The unnecessary permitorium in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil disaster
15. The shutdown of Shell’s Arctic oil exploration by EPA
16. The president’s push for cap-and-tax in the Congress
17. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose cap-and-tax via EPA when the Congress wouldn’t pass cap-and-tax
18. The president’s push for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech on his political enemies while keeping the unions free to spend money on campaigns via The Disclose Act
19. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose The Disclose Act on his political opponents but not unions via Executive Order
20. The president’s use of unaccountable “czars”
21. The president’s refusal to accept Congressional direction vis-a-vis his “czars” contained in the last 2011 Continuing Resolution
22. The president’s verbal assault on the Supreme Court while the members of the Court sat before him in the state of the Union
23. The president and Eric Holder’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the black panthers case and the refusal to defend DOMA
24. The president’s use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents, such as accusing doctors of performing unnecessary surgery for money
25. The president’s hyper-partisan approach to governing including “I won, you lost” in 2009 and the assault on Paul Ryan with Paul Ryan as an invited guest in the president’s April 2011 “deficit speech.”
26. Bowing to the Saudi King and the Japanese emperor
27. Returning the bust of Churchill to Great Britain
28. Removing the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic
29. Backing the would-be dictator of Hondorus when that nation’s Supreme Court rightfully removed him from office
30. Failure to push for quick ratification of free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea
31. Indecision on Afghanistan surge coupled with announcement of eventual withdrawal.
32. Incoherence on Egypt, most obviously with the dispatch of Frank Wizner and then rejection of Wizner’s advice vis-a-vis Mubarak.
33. Appointment Craig Beck to NLRB via recess appointment
34. Appointment of FCC commissioners who are pursuing “net neutrality” without Congressional authorization
35. Failure to resume full water deliveries to California’s Central Valley because of the Delta Smelt
36. Attempt to close Guantanamo Bay
37. Attempt to try terrorists in New York City
38. Janet “The System Worked” Napolitano
39. Government takeover of the student loan program
40. Cancellation of “virtual border fence” project with no replacement or indeed concern for border security
41. The “Beer Summit” and the attack on the Cambridge Police Department
42. The Department of Justice’s attack on Arizona for that state’s exercise of its sovereign legislative authority on the issue of citizen identification rules
43. The attack on Scott Walker and Wisconsin for the governor’s and the state legislature’s exercise of their sovereign legislative authority on public employment issues
44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while the Middle East fell into chaos and the gas prices skyrocketed
45. Arguing that American exceptionalism was the same as any nation’s sense of exceptionalism
46. Implying that Minnesota bridge collapse was the result of lack of infrastructure funding
47. Inserting himself into campaign for the Olympics
48. Attack on D.C. voucher program
49. Van Jones and a long list of other appointees
50. Teleprompter dependency and the worst run of presidential rhetoric since Millard Fillmore combined with testiness in the few interviews he grants.
Jerry Bowyer, Contributor I explore the problems leaders face.
Dear President Obama: I’m Only My Brother’s Keeper If My Brother Is My Sheep
There are lots of things that people think are in the Bible, but really are not. For example, “God helps those who help themselves” is not there, nor is “Cleanliness is next to Godliness.” There are some things, however, which are in the Bible, but so terribly mangled as to distort their meaning almost completely; for example, “Money is the root of all evil” is a misquote of the much more sensible, “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.”
Sometimes quotes are mangled so badly as to be twisted into a complete opposite of their intentions. The We Are the World music video shows Bob Dylan singing that:
As God has shown us, by turning stone to bread
and so we all must lend a helping hand
Of course, God did not turn stones to bread, at least not in the Bible. The New Testament portrays God as pointedly refusing to turn stones into bread when tempted by Satan to do so.
President Obama’s frequent references to us being ‘our brother’s keeper’ are an example of the last kind of Bible misquote. Most recently he said it like this:
But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together. I’m not an island.
The Obama Administration has unconstitutionally re-legislated the Clinton 1996 Welfare Reform Law whose, “enormously successful” work requirement almost immediately resulted in “…cutting welfare rolls in half and pushing child poverty to historic lows. The work requirement can’t be waived …” but the Obama Administration apparently needs a dependent underclass that they can control, manipulate and use to stuff the ballot boxes.
To that end the Obama Administration has “quietly” perverted the intent of the Law by waiving its cornerstone “Work Requirement.”
“Lawmakers were already unhappy because in 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that several states were listing as work the following perverse work activities to meet the requirement:
MOTIVATIONAL BOOKS (Reading)
If you are becoming alarmed at this President’s Usurpation of Power, it’s time for you to take action before we either wind up as a functional Dictatorship or our institutions are so heavily damaged that we become a “Banana Republic”. Call your Senators and Representatives and DEMAND that hey take immediate action to estop this President from perpetrating and further destruction to the Laws of our Republic.