EVERYONE! DOWNLOAD AND SHARE THIS, EVERYWHERE!
This is prima facie evidence that Clinton, Soros, and Biden conspired in election collusion with the Ukrainian government.
https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon
Copy it and upload elsewhere too.
Over on facebook, a good friend of mine, who is also a Canadian and a staunch “Supporter of the American Constitution” as well as a “Right Winger” started a discussion on his page. Over the course of several days there were dozens of comments, many of them were Left Wing trolls attacking him.
At one point I was defending various things, and the following is what I wrote there. When I was finished, the only comment I received was from some guy saying “You need a girl friend”. I explained that “I have a wife and she wouldn’t like that”. His response was “Ask, you might be surprised.”
Is that seriously how Liberals think? It’s ok? I mean if they can’t attack you with name calling, they try to drag you to their lowest level.
Today, the Right “owns” the White House, the House and Senate. The Left “owns” the disaster of Barack Obama, and the near destruction of the American Economy. They can’t come to grips with that, but can continue to call Trump a “racist”, “rapist” and all the other things. Now that the “memo” is out, how many heads will roll? Probably none.
Anyway, the following is a copy of the comments I made through the discussion. It’s historical now.
—————————
Please allow me to educate some of the people here. This is what ” Progressivism” is about. They HATE that America was founded on it’s guiding principles. They HATE the Founding Fathers. They HATE the Constitution. They will use it only to gain benefit while usurping power from the People of the United States. They will use hate, name calling, mis-characterization, projection, dismissal, and denigration to gain their goal, which is the destruction of American Principles and the burning of the US Constitution. Progressives are the ENEMY of Americans, and America. They are NOT our friends. They walk hand-in-hand with Communists, Marxists and Socialists and hide among these people calling themselves “Social Democrats”. This is FACT. Not some of the BS they bandy about to convince others of their “good” to society.
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.
Some Progressives were prominent journalists such as Herbert Croly (co-founder of The New Republic), some were distinguished professors such as John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson (president of Princeton before he was President of the U.S.), and many were political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Progressives could be found in both political parties: Wilson was a Democrat, Roosevelt was a Republican.
The Progressives were united in their contempt for what they called the “individualism” of the Founding. Instead of a government that protects natural rights through limited, decentralized powers, they envisioned an expansive government, a “living” and evolving Constitution, and the rule of “experts” in nationally centralized administrative agencies.
Whereas the Founders believed the government had a well-defined and limited role to play in the lives of citizens—essentially leaving people alone to lead their lives—the Progressives favored a much more active role for the government in overseeing civil society, regulating the economy, and redistributing wealth.
These two fundamentally different understandings of the role of government grow out of two different understandings of freedom. For the Progressives, freedom is not secured when government protects natural rights and otherwise leaves citizens to rule themselves. True freedom, by this view, demands an active government that provides equal means to self-fulfillment for all. It is not enough to create the conditions that allow people to pursue their own happiness—equal opportunity—since some citizens start with more advantages than others. Government must set out to level the playing field and determine outcomes.
To ensure that all citizens possess all they need to attain happiness, government must create an environment in which all possess the same advantages, despite the fact that this requires government to interfere with the very natural rights the Founders sought to secure. Government must redistribute wealth and grant benefits in order to ensure that everyone has equal means to pursue happiness, and must provide economic and social resources to develop the social character of citizens.
This is why LIBERALS are also the enemy today: Liberalism can be understood in two very different ways. Liberalism, or what some call “classical liberalism,” is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government. Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning. The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities. Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.
Modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government. There are however certain significant differences between Progressivism and modern liberalism.
Whereas modern liberalism exalts freedom of self-expression, especially sexual liberation, most Progressives embraced traditional morals. Liberals are also obsessed with equality of outcomes in ways that the Progressives were not. Today, liberalism has lost the faith in progress that characterized Progressivism, mostly because of a loss of confidence in the inevitability of progress and the creeping effects of having embraced relativism from the start of the Progressive movement.
The administrative state is the conglomeration of federal administrative agencies—whether executive agencies, executive departments, or independent regulatory commissions—that have become a “fourth branch” of government. Power has in effect been transferred from the representative, constitutional institutions—Congress, the President, and the courts—to administrative agencies and bureaucrats.
The administrative state is the conglomeration of federal administrative agencies—whether executive agencies, executive departments, or independent regulatory commissions—that have become a “fourth branch” of government. Power has in effect been transferred from the representative, constitutional institutions—Congress, the President, and the courts—to administrative agencies and bureaucrats.
Although our civics textbooks still describe a government where Congress makes laws, the President executes laws, and courts adjudicate disputes, this is not the way our government actually works. Today, bureaucrats make law, execute law, and adjudicate. Although the laws made by agencies are called rules, they carry the force of law.
The administrative state is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states that all legislative powers shall be vested in Congress, yet Congress has transferred its powers to these agencies.
Furthermore, the Constitution clearly requires the separation of powers, yet powers are combined in administrative agencies. Finally, many agency personnel are un-elected and unaccountable, despite the republican principles on which the Constitution is based.
There are lots of people out there who think Barack Obama was a great president. OK, fine. Whatever. Answer me this though…
We have money for the following:
Syrian and Middle Eastern unvetted ‘refugees’
Illegal Immigrants
Vacations for the President
We do NOT have money for:
Military Pay Raises
Military equipment that is needed just to SUSTAIN the force
Veterans Medical Care
Veterans Retirement
The Marine Corps is the most relied on Military Force outside of US Special Operations Command. They are the most overused forces of the most overused Military in the WORLD.
So, please explain something to me:
How do we have funds for illegals and potentional Terrorists, but not to upgrade the Marine Corps from Vietnam Era helicopters to the SAME MODERN helicopters THE REST OF THE MILITARY IS USING?
How do we have funds for endless Obamas’ vacations, but we cant find enough $$$$$$ for parts to keep more than 1/3 of Marine Corps Fighter Jets DEPLOYED TO WARZONES flying?????
We have money for Social Justice Crap, But we Have VETERANS BEING LEFT TO DIE BY THE VA, and NO ONE at the VA being held accountable?????
It’s time to Make America Great Again.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I admit, I wasn’t really “keeping up” with the news the last few months as this “memo” thing began, nor did I pay much attention to the “Russian Collusion” story based solely on the fact I have no television and rarely see much news.
I read things on FB or the Internet and get interested and start digging. It’s how I get all my news. By getting interested in a story and then reading all side of the coin, not just one news agency, ALL OF THEM. Right, Left, Middle, Russian, German, French, makes no difference to me. I READ IT ALL.
After poring over that memo release and all the various news sources associated with it, I have come to a rather scary conclusion. Following are my thoughts only:
1) The memo details a lot of corruption. But, it’s only the surface. There is more to come, a LOT more. Names will get named, and connections will be made.
2) The corruption went all the way up the chain of command back to Obama himself, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, James Comey and many others.
3) This makes Watergate look like a “speeding ticket”.
4) The Democratic Party is in absolute MELTDOWN right now and you can judge that for yourselves by simply reading the screeching going on just on Facebook. They are self-destructing, and the lies keep coming, in droves.
5) I predict – and I rarely do this because I’m usually wrong – that there will be major protests in the next few weeks over this as more details are revealed. They will turn violent, to the point of destruction, turning over cars, “Antifa” will suddenly reappear, as will the “New Black Panthers” and other “Democrat support groups”… and the violence will get very, very large in major cities.
6) The Civil War is ON. This is no joke any more. It has been on-going now since before the elections (See a previous article I posted about How Civil War Happens) and understand that the violence will be directed at the cities at first, then at Right Wingers, Conservatives, White men and women, and children because they wil use Alinsky tactics to “pick a target, freeze it and attack it”. Mark my works on this.
7) The violence will get worse as the Spring and Summer drag on.
Be prepared. Keep your powder dry. Stock up on food and water and be ready for anything – or nothing at all. But always be Prepared for the worst. If you are a conceal carry license hold (and I don’t care if you are) don’t go OUT without your weapons any more and be trained and prepared to defend yourself. No one else is going to do it for you.
Before long, I’m afraid, we’re going to have to remove the Communists from America and take it back from them. They’ve had a grip for too long. It’s time to clean house.
Alright, today in the news a security contractor was fired at the CDC…
He was on an elevator with Obama, taking pictures of the President.
The Secret Service detained him. For taking pictures.
The company fired him pretty much on the spot.
He then turned over his gun and badge and the Secret Service freaked out.
Aright, why call BS on them?
Personal Experience with President Reagan and President Bush. Personal experience with the Secret Service, White House Staff etc.
I was there. I’ve seen it. I know their policies and procedures. I know what happens before and after a Presidential Visit.
Prior to a visit, especially to a different city like Atlanta, a Secret Service Advance team goes in to make contact, work out motorcade routes, helicopter landing sites, and to talk to the people who are being visited. WH Staff members and White House Communications Agency (at least in my time) sent advance teams as well. The jobs overlapped, and the three teams worked together. Occasionally a Military Aide would appear and coordinate things like HMX-1 (the Marine helicopter).
In ALL of that coordination, a determination of who was going to be on site the day of the visit was made and background checks performed. Any personnel at the site being visited who didn’t pass muster would be asked to not be at work that day.
Now – here’s why I call BS.
WHY was this man DETAINED for taking a picture?
Instead of determining the guy had a felony arrest record (which goes back to the contractor serving the CDC, NOT the secret service) and denying him a job in the first place, he was given a job, given a badge, given a gun and asked to protect the facility.
When he made the mistake of taking a picture of the President, he is detained. He is checked out. He is fired. Then and ONLY then does this REASONABLE man say, “Ok, well, if I’m fired, here’s my gun.”
WHAT?!?!?!
Where were the metal detectors?
Where was the pre-checking needed to protect the President?
Where were the company bosses who allowed this man to have his job in the first place?
Why did the USSS DETAIN a man for TAKING A PICTURE?
President Barack Obama walks on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, July 30, 2014.AP
DEVELOPING …
Emergency legislation meant to address the border crisis abruptly was abandoned Thursday afternoon in the House, after Republican leaders were unable to round up enough support to pass it.
Fox News is told lawmakers plan to leave for the August recess without voting on the measure. Sources said GOP leaders were “way short” of the votes they needed, with conservative lawmakers joining Democrats in refusing to back the package.
The Senate still has a border bill on its plate, but without action in the House it appears Congress will not vote on any border legislation at least until after the five-week recess.
A joint statement from House Republican leaders said the “situation shows the intense concern within our conference — and among the American people — about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president’s refusal to faithfully execute our laws.”
In the absence of legislation, Republicans urged Obama to act on his own to secure the borders and safely deport illegal immigrant children safely.
“We will continue to work on solutions to the border crisis and other challenges facing our country,” they said.
Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.
ORIGINAL STORY …
House Republicans, already locked in an 11th-hour battle with Senate Democrats over border security funding, are making a last-ditch effort to prevent President Obama from wielding his executive pen to let millions more illegal immigrants stay in the country.
The House plans to vote on a bill Thursday afternoon that would prohibit Obama from expanding a policy that lets some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children stay. Amid reports that the administration is considering such an expansion, the bill by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., would specifically bar the president from broadening the 2012 policy.
“Such action would create an even greater incentive for more illegal crossings and make the crisis on our border even worse, and that would be a grave mistake,” House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday.
The vote was scheduled by Republican leaders as part of an effort to win conservative support for a separate, scaled-down package giving the Department of Homeland Security an immediate $659 million to address the border crisis and making other policy changes.
Both the funding bill and the executive action bill face dim chances in the Senate. But the latter reflects heightened concerns in the Republican caucus that the president will take unilateral action either during the August recess or shortly afterward to ease deportations.
The move comes a day after the House voted — mostly along party lines — to sue the president over his alleged abuse of executive actions.
Republicans say another illegal immigrant reprieve by the president would only exacerbate the surge of illegal immigrant children trekking to the U.S.-Mexico border from Central America.
“We as policy makers must face the reality that the president is openly planning to use executive actions to provide amnesty and work permits to millions without any lawful authority,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday.
Sessions, though, voiced opposition to both the House and Senate proposals, arguing that the Senate would never take up the executive action bill being considered in the House. Sessions wants any bill addressing the president’s funding request to also address the executive action issue.
The House nevertheless plans to consider both measures Thursday afternoon – at which point the Senate will have to decide whether to proceed with its own bill, consider the House legislation or do nothing.
Democrats have accused Republicans of playing games, with their latest strategy.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “It is extraordinary that the House of Representatives, after failing for more than a year to reform our broken immigration reform system, would vote to restrict a law enforcement tool that the Department of Homeland Security uses to focus resources on key enforcement priorities like public safety and border security, and provide temporary relief from deportation for people who are low priorities for removal.”
The tensions have only reduced the likelihood that the House and Senate can agree on any border bill before leaving for the five-week summer recess.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate package would authorize $2.7 billion with no policy riders.
While 11 Republican senators helped the Senate bill meet a key procedural hurdle, enough of them — including at least one Democrat — said they would filibuster final passage if the measure is not amended. Like their House colleagues, they want changes to a 2008 law that would require the government to treat illegal immigrants apprehended at the border the same, regardless of country of origin.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks about her new book “Hard Choices” on Friday, June 20, 2014, in Austin, Texas.AP
Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”
Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.
But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian:
“America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?
“‘But they don’t see me as part of the problem,’ she protests, ‘because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,’ she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.”
Fox News Channel is breaking this story this very moment.
Edit – Addition: Fox News:
From right to left, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Three leading Republican senators are calling on the Obama administration to identify who briefed former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her Sunday show appearances where she blamed a video for the Benghazi attack.
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and John McCain, R-Ariz., wrote to leaders on the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees asking them to compel the administration to explain the “taking points.”
In the letter first obtained by Fox News, the senators cite the recent testimony of former CIA acting and deputy director Michael Morell before the House Intelligence Committee, where he said it was Rice, not the CIA, who connected the obscure Internet video to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attack.
“How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a casual factor and made no reference to the video in any of the multiple versions of the talking points?” the senators wrote.
Given the CIA was not the source of the video explanation, according to Morell, lawmakers want to know whether State Department or White House personnel were involved in the Rice briefings in advance of the 2012 talk shows.
Rice is now the president’s national security adviser. Some lawmakers believe it would be difficult for Rice to now assert executive privilege because her previous job as U.N. ambassador required Senate confirmation.
In the letter, the lawmakers also questioned Rice’s statements about security at the Benghazi compound that were “clearly misrepresentations of the facts.”
“Ambassador Rice also falsely asserted that Al Qaeda was decimated. Who briefed her about Al Qaeda’s activities in Libya?” the lawmakers wrote.
“If we are to avoid future terrorist attacks like the one in Benghazi, we must answer these and many other unanswered questions,” the senators added.
This man is screwing Israel behind their backs, and Americans in front of their faces. WHY is this MAN still in the office of the President?????
(Netanya, Israel) — I landed in Israel on Friday afternoon amidst a rapidly intensifying crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
The Obama administration is preparing to cut a disastrously bad nuclear bargain with Iran that relieves enormous economic pressure on Tehran without requiring the mullahs to dismantle a single centrifuge. The Israelis are stunned. Top officials feel betrayed by the White House, including by reports that the White House has secretly been easing sanctions for months.
There have long been tensions between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. There have been times I have feared a “train wreck” between the two. Hopefully, the dynamic will change for the better, and quickly. But at the moment things are going from bad to worse in a hurry here.
Please pray that the terrible deal with Iran would be derailed for a real deal that ends Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Please pray that the White House changes direction and that the Lord changes the heart of the President. Pray that the leaders of Israel would be like the sons of Issachar, “men who understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” (I Chronicles 12:32) Please pray that the leaders of all nations involved would turn to Bible and read the Scriptures for wisdom. And please pray for the peace of Jerusalem at this critical hour.
“Netanyahu is in a state of shocked disbelief” at the deal and feels “misled” by the U.S. over specifics of the deal, reports Israel TV 10.
“If there were a synoptic map for diplomatic storms, the National Weather Service would be putting out a hurricane warning right now,” noted a leading Israeli commentator in Haaretz. “The winds are blowing cold, tensions are on the rise and tempers are beginning to flare in the Bermuda triangle of relations between Israel, the US and the American Jewish community.
And given that the turbulence is being caused by an issue long deemed to be critical to Israel’s very existence, we may actually be facing a rare Category 5 flare up, a ‘superstorm’ of US-Israeli relations.”
Another Israeli newspaper called the White House approach to Iran “shameless appeasement.”
What will Netanyahu and his government do now? This remains to be seen. But consider the Prime Minister’s blunt language.“Israel utterly rejects [the deal] and what I am saying is shared by many in the region, whether or not they express that publicly. Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people.”
“These critical days in November will be remembered for years to come,” said Naftali Bennett, a top Israeli Cabinet official.“The Free World stands before a fork in the road with a clear choice: Either stand strong and insist Iran dismantles its nuclear-weapons program, or surrender, cave in and allow Iran to retain its 18,500 centrifuges. Years from now, when an Islamic terrorist blows up a suitcase in New York, or when Iran launches a nuclear missile at Rome or Tel Aviv, it will have happened only because a Bad Deal was made during these defining moments. Like in a boxing match, Iran’s regime is currently on the floor. The count is just seconds away from 10. Now is the time to step up the pressure and force Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Not to let it up. It would be dangerous to lift the sanctions and accept a deal which allows Iran to retain its entire uranium-production line. It would be dangerous because Iran would, a year, two or three from now, just turn everything back on and obtain a nuclear weapon before the world can do anything to stop it. It is not enough to shut off the centrifuges. They need to be completely dismantled. We call upon the West to avoid signing a Bad Deal. Israel’s responsibility is to ensure the security of its citizens and that is exactly what we will do. We will never outsource our security.
Notes Mideast expert Daniel Pipes: “I wrote before the last presidential election that ‘Israel’s troubles will really begin’ should Obama win second term. At Obama’s second inauguration, I predicted that he, ‘freed from re-election constraints, can finally express his early anti-Zionist views after a decade of political positioning. Watch for a markedly worse tone from the second Obama administration toward the third Netanyahu government.’ That moment is now upon us.”
Netanyahu, the reports on Israel’s Channel 10 and Channel 2 news said, had “an unprecedented confrontation” with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Tel Aviv on Friday morning over the possible deal, which he publicly described as “a very, very bad deal” and which he implored Kerry “not to rush to sign” and to “reconsider.”
- The Netanyahu government is “in a crisis of faith” with the Obama administration over the possible deal, Israel’s Channel 1 News further reported, in part because it apparently differs in content from the terms that Kerry had previously described to Netanyahu. Other Israeli reports said Netanyahu felt he had been “misled” by the US over the terms of the deal.
- “Netanyahu is in a state of shocked disbelief” at the imminent deal, Channel 10 news reported. It said the prime minister had not believed that a significant easing of sanctions was on the table in Geneva, but now was horrified to see that the emerging deal provided for a dramatic easing of sanctions against a mere Iranian promise to restrict uranium enrichment to 3.5%. In his public comments Friday, a clearly agitated Netanyahu said that, under the deal, “Iran gets everything it wanted at this stage and pays nothing.” Netanyahu — who in a clear sign of the Israel-US crisis, delivered the remarks alone, rather than at a traditional joint appearance with the visiting Kerry — added: “I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider.”
The Israelis are learning the hard way Obama is a treacherous back-stabber who can’t be trusted under any circumstances.
Via Weekly Standard:
So the Obama administration is, after all, capable of tough, bull-necked diplomacy. These guys go for the jugular—for them diplomacy is a blood sport where anything is licit so long as victory is the endgame. Too bad the White House deploys those skills not against U.S. adversaries but against allies like Israel and France.
Haaretz reports that the administration misled Israel regarding the terms of the proposed interim agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. One senior Israeli official explained that on Wednesday Israel had seen an outline that the Israelis “didn’t love but could live with.” Thursday morning French and British officials, and not the White House, told the Israelis that the terms had changed and were much more favorable than what they’d been shown previously. “Suddenly it changed to something much worse that included a much more significant lifting of sanctions,” said the Israeli official. “The feeling was that the Americans are much more eager to reach an agreement than the Iranians.”
When Kerry landed in Geneva Friday, only a few small details were left to sort out before striking an agreement. But the problem wasn’t the Iranian side, rather it was France that wouldn’t sign off on the “bracketed text” in the draft document. In other words, after misleading the Israelis, the administration had hoped to present the deal as a fait accompli. In scuttling the agreement, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius saved the day—for the time being.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-still-wants-deal-iran_766567.html
NO ONE fired for Benghazi, Obamacare, the deaths of Seal Team Six. No ONE fired for “Fast and Furious”. NO ONE fired for the rest of the White House Scandals….
President Obama’s staff has unmasked and fired a national security official who tweeted critical comments under a pseudonym.
Jofi Joseph, tweeting under the handle @natsecwonk, once wrote: “I’m a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me.”
A federal law enforcement official, who was not authorized to commeny on the matter, told USA TODAY that Joseph is not under investigation, as has been reported
Other Obama staff members and officials — including Secretary of State John Kerry and former National Security adviser Tom Donilon — had also been targeted by @natsecwonk, which was shut down last week.
The secret Twitter feed also raised questions about the administration’s handling of the 2012 attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya.
The Daily Beast, which broke the story, reported that Joseph, who is well known in national security circles, “has also worked at the State Department and on Capitol Hill for Senators Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and (Vice President) Joe Biden. Until recently, he was part of the administration’s team working on negotiations with Iran.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/10/23/obama-white-house-twitter-jofi-joseph/3168757/
Good morning all.
I’m sitting at a military installation. For the record it is being passed on the news that literally several thousand at the various bases in my region have been furloughed.
Now – looking around me, I can tell you this is kind of bullshit. A whole lot of government people are at work.
This morning NOAA shut down their web sites. Web sites don’t require a hell of a lot of work – except updating the data on them, so why shut it down? A large portion of the people working for ALL government agencies are Contractors.
In our case, I’m a contractor, money has been allocated already (for awhile, we could be furloughed soon too though).
In the case of NOAA most of the weather people doing updates are contractors.
So shutting down sites is a childish thing the President has ordered.
Yesterday monuments in DC were closed. Today a lot of parks are closed… even if they have roads passing through, the ROADS ARE CLOSED. Childish.
The White House hasn’t been reopened since sequestration… childish.
Do I care if the government “shuts down”? Not really.
All those “economic problems” because “caused” by this are more bullshit problems. They aren’t getting their check on payday – but you can bet your ass they will get their back pay. No one is going to stop spending money because the government has shut down.
Funny…. though, Obamacare hasn’t shut down. It launches the day the government shuts down and it’s being funded.
Childish.
There is a (slight) possibility that if this continues for weeks there will be some “crashes”. EBT cards won’t get funded soon enough and a lot of government agencies will simply stop working. This means that there will be some ripples, but how bad those ripples becomes is anyone’s guess right now.
I honestly see the GOP caving in shortly because they are getting the majority of the blame, even though it is Harry Reid and the Senate really stopping this.
Yesterday they funded the military, but refused to fund the VA. Congress will get paid no matter what, because it’s written into the constitution they will get paid.
Basically this is a “Fund my stuff, but not your stuff” kind of fight. The country as a whole doesn’t want Obamacare. A few people want it. Liberals assholes who want others to pay for their problems.
I have a job, I have health care – I’m expecting it to increase drastically to the point I will tell them “I don’t want it”. And I’ll take the “fine” and I won’t pay that either. Pretty soon, I will have ZERO INCOME and how cool will that be? I can’t really be fined if I have no money right? Whatever.
To hell with the government, Obama, the Democrats, the GOP – all of them. They are a bunch of lying assholes who want to control every aspect of our lives in America. They want most of our money we make (so they can waste it), they want to control where we can go, when we can go, how much we can save or not save, they want to control OUR HEALTH, they want to control what we eat, read, drink, own, where we live, how we live and whether we live or die.
Not only is it TIME to shut this government down, it’s time to remove these assholes from office.
GET OUT OF OUR LIVES PRESIDENT OBAMA AND CONGRESS!
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Thursday he is shifting his focus to domestic priorities from a tense period during which he sought congressional approval to use military force against Syria for its suspected use of chemical weapons.
“Even as we have been spending a lot of time on the Syria issue and making sure that international attention is focused on the horrible tragedy that occurred there, it is still important to recognize that we’ve got a lot more stuff to do here in this government,” the president said before a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.
The president said he hopes meetings between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will result in action to eliminate Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons again.
Obama has asked Congress to authorize military strikes against Syria in response to what the United States says was a chemical weapons attack by the government that killed more than 1,400 people on August 21. The issue is on hold pending diplomatic efforts to disarm Syria of chemical weapons.
“I am hopeful that the discussions that Secretary Kerry had with Foreign Minister Lavrov as well as some of the other players in this can yield a concrete result,” Obama said.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were to hold talks on Syria in Geneva.
The president cited the budget, immigration, and implementation of his signature healthcare legislation as concerns he is turning to.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-obama-syria-idUSBRE98B0RF20130912
Wishful thinking on USA Today’s part?
WASHINGTON — President Obama will address the nation Tuesday night on chemical weapons in Syria, as he and aides pursue a diplomatic proposal at the United Nations that has put military and congressional action on hold.
Obama spoke Tuesday with the leaders of France and the United Kingdom, and agreed to explore whether a Russian proposal to put Syria’s weapons under international weapons is workable, senior White House officials said.
The U.S. and allies discussed the proposal Tuesday at the United Nations, said officials who requested anonymity because negotiations are ongoing.
Russia — ally of Syria and opponent of U.S. military strikes — said Monday it would ask Bashar Assad’s government to put chemical weapons under international control and have them dismantled; Syria announced Tuesday it would accept Russia’s offer.
September 3, 2013 RSS Feed Print
President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisors to discuss strategy in Syria. Several top advisors will make the case for intervention to Congress Tuesday afternoon.
Top Obama administration officials heading to Capitol Hill Tuesday are likely to make the case for a military strike in Syria by playing up the importance of U.S. credibility, now that President Barack Obama has called for action.
Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are tasked with making the case for the unpopular mission following a chemical weapons attack against citizens by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They are scheduled to meet with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday afternoon and the House counterpart Wednesday.
Obama himself continued to press for support in remarks Tuesday morning before meeting with House and Senate leaders at the White House.
“I’ve made a decision that America should take action, but I also believe that we will be much more effective, we will be stronger, if we take action together as one nation,” Obama said.
The president emphasized, as he did all last week, that he does not want to send troops into Syria, but rather pursue a more targeted approach.
“The key point that I want to emphasize to the American people [is] the military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs – and that I believe is appropriate – is proportional; it is limited; it does not involve boots on the ground,” Obama said. “This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.”
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, says Obama’s best hope for winning congressional approval is to continue to emphasize he intends a limited approach.
“I would assume that there would be some division of duties there. That the larger foreign policy context, that’s what you expect from secretary of state and the more practical, what sorts of things do we want to hit and the potential implications, I would expect that more from Hagel,” he says.
Bandow adds that the administration also needs to lean on Congress to support the president so as not to show weakness in the international community.
“The only pitch that works well is American credibility,” he says
Obama scored nominal support for action from House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Tuesday, as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
“I believe that my colleagues should support this call for action,” Boehner said after leaving the briefing with Obama at the White House.
US State Department on Syria: We believe a military response is appropriate, and we’ll continue working with Congress, international partners toward that – @HannahAllam
National security adviser Rice says US intends to renew push for UN-sponsored Geneva peace process in Syria following any limited military strikes – @Reuters
State Department: US to take ‘hard look’ at Russian proposal for Syria to turn over chemical weapons – @AP
29 secs ago by editorNational security adviser Susan Rice says any US military action against Syria ‘would not be another war’ – @AP
2 mins ago from bigstory.ap.org by editor
jim sciutto @jimsciuttoCNN 35s
US official says “no one in admin taking Syria proposal seriously.”Agence France-Presse @AFP 1m
BREAKING: US to ‘follow up’ with Russia on Syria weapons plan: senior official
And finally, here is the admission after all. As expected, the whole point of this entire frace was to topple Assad and replace him with a pro-Syria, pro-Qatar, anti-Russia regime:
White House Live ✔ @WHLive
Rice: “Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power” #Syria
2:27 PM – 9 Sep 2013
Yeah, she’s talking about it. Yeah, she’s advising an “intense diplomatic effort” but is certainly NOT setting aside military action.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, during an interview that aired Monday morning, threatened “repercussions” from any American attack on Syria.
The Syrian leader, speaking with CBS News, said the U.S. can expect “every action” if America strikes. He suggested retaliation could come from the opposition, as well as his own government and its allies.
“You should expect everything,” Assad said. Asked to elaborate, he added: “You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government. … You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideology.”
Asked specifically if the attack could trigger more chemical warfare, Assad suggested the rebels would be the ones who would use them. He said that outcome depends on whether “terrorist” rebels possess those weapons, adding: “It could happen.”
Assad used the interview to challenge the Obama administration’s claims that his regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds on Aug. 21. He said his soldiers were “in another area” at the time of the attack.
It comes as President Obama prepares to deliver a national address on Tuesday making his case for a military strike on Syria. The matter is currently before Congress, which will begin a set of votes this week on a resolution authorizing the use of force.
Obama on Monday also planned to make his case, in a string of interviews, for punishing Assad.
Top administration officials are heading to Capitol Hill for more classified briefings. And White House national security adviser Susan Rice is scheduled for a speech at a Washington think tank timed to the public relations blitz aimed at ensuring people the administration isn’t contemplating another commitment like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In an exclusive interview NBC’s Brian Williams sits down with National Security Advisor Susan Rice to discuss what a possible strike in Syria entails.
National Security Advisor Susan Rice told NBC News on Tuesday the Obama administration has “no expectation of losing the vote in Congress” on whether to authorize U.S. military action against Syria.
In an exclusive interview with Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News, Rice said the White House is “quite confident” that Congress will approve Obama’s plan to launch punitive cruise missile strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.
“We think that the Congress of the United States and the American people understand that we have compelling national interests at stake here,” said Rice, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Rice touted crucial endorsements from “key leaders,” including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who announced Tuesday that he would back Obama’s call for military action against Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against his people Aug. 21 in a mass murder the administration says killed 1,426 people.
Obama also said Tuesday he feels assured that lawmakers will OK military strikes. He said he would be prepared to rewrite his draft resolution to Congress “so long as we are accomplishing what needs to be accomplished, which is to degrade Assad.”
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Tuesday endorsed President Barack Obama’s call for military action in Syria.
Following a meeting with President Obama and other key congressional leaders on Syria, Speaker John Boehner says, “I’m going to support the president’s call for action.”
The top elected Republican in Washington, Boehner said following a meeting at the White House that he intended to support Obama’s plan for limited strikes against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria.
“I am going to support the president’s call for action,” he told reporters. “I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”
Well, it’s been almost a year. Nothing has been done. No one brought to justice. No one has been arrested, not even in the White House.
Two weeks after the Obama administration announced charges against suspects in the Benghazi attack, a large portion of the U.S. team that hunted the suspects and trained Libyans to help capture or kill them is leaving Libya permanently.
Special operators in the region tell Fox News that while Benghazi targets have been identified for months, officials in Washington could “never pull the trigger.” In fact, one source insists that much of the information on Benghazi suspects had been passed along to the White House after being vetted by the Department of Defense and the State Department — and at least one recommendation for direct action on a Benghazi suspect was given to President Obama as recently as Aug. 7.
Meanwhile, months after video, photo and voice documentation on the Benghazi suspects was first presented to high-level military leaders, the State Department and ultimately the White House, prison breaks in the country have eroded security. U.S. special forces have now been relegated to a “villa,” a stopover for the operators before they’re shipped out of the country entirely.
“We put American special operations in harm’s way to develop a picture of these suspects and to seek justice and instead of acting, we stalled. We just let it slip and pass us by and now it’s going to be much more difficult,” one source said, citing 1,200 prisoners escaping two weeks ago. “It’s already blowing up. Daily assassinations, bi-weekly prison escapes, we waited way too long.”
The latest development raises questions about when the attackers will be brought to justice in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans last September.
The special operators are starting to get frustrated at the lack of action, and Fox News has been told by multiple sources that one special forces leader “literally yelled” at former Libyan Chief of Mission William Roebuck “and told him, ‘so you’re willing to let these guys get away with murder?'”
The outburst was “met with crickets,” the sources said.
Asked about what actions have been taken on the suspects, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment. However, a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the situation in Libya suggested there is always intelligence to be gained by simply watching and listening to the suspects.
In addition, Pentagon officials disputed what the operators in question are claiming, saying that group was not specifically tasked with finding the Libyan suspects responsible for the Benghazi attack. These officials said other forces out of Fort Bragg are tasked with that mission, and they are not leaving. Pentagon officials also say the trainers, which were authorized by Congress under part of the defense budget to facilitate training of Libyans for counterterrorism, were not there to track the Benghazi suspects. They insist congressional funding is very clear in its mission: for training locals in counterterrorism.
However, special operators in the region counter the claims and suggest the Pentagon and State Department are playing with words, saying those being pulled are in fact tasked with both training the Libyans and identifying Benghazi attack suspects. “The training is partly a cover and some of these guys … provided the information on suspects directly to U.S. military commanders and the U.S. State Department last November and again in January. They are there and trained to find, fix and finish,” one said.
Fox News reported earlier this year that American forces had identified suspects by the end of November 2012, and reported on their whereabouts to Roebuck last January, yet no action was taken. They returned again in January to identify and locate these same suspects after being requested to do so by military leaders. In the months since, the operators in the region have been sitting in de facto standby, despite the Justice Department charges being filed.
To make matters worse, the U.S. trainers have been sitting in their Libyan “villa” now for a number of days after a Libyan military leader kicked the Americans out of the camp where they had been standing-up a Libyan special forces team for nearly a year, backed by U.S. taxpayer dollars. The maneuver by the Libyan chief of defense has “left our guys high and dry,” and this same chief has locked down Tripoli as well, Fox News is told. The sources say U.S. leaders have now let the Libyan government occupy the special forces camp — and in turn undermine the effort to train a legitimate force capable of countering Al Qaeda, which was the initial assignment before the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi.
The men tell Fox News their mission was to capture or kill the suspects in question, and they briefed the acting U.S. ambassador in Libya and the senior CIA representative in the country. The men were told both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and an under secretary were briefed about their information and their ability to capture or kill those responsible. Still, they did not get approval from the Department of Defense or the White House.
Some of the individuals report seeing former AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham tell former Libya Chief of Mission Laurence Pope that he could easily submit a plan to kill or capture the suspects, but “politics and fallout kept us from acting. To do an operation we have to have (Chief of Mission) and state approval. We didn’t get it. … They sat on it.”
Multiple sources in Libya tell Fox News that the politics in the lack of response to the Benghazi attacks involves the U.S. State Department position in Libya. “No career diplomat wants to be responsible for giving the green light or supporting an operation that if goes wrong, another Somalia, Blackhawk Down, turns into a political fragmentation grenade that puts any group, party, or element in the public scrutiny spotlight … especially after the train wreck on September 11th.”
Sources told Fox News, though, that the Obama administration will be under pressure to produce some result from its investigation with the one-year anniversary of the attack looming.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/23/team-involved-in-tracking-benghazi-suspects-pulling-out-sources-say/?bcsi-ac-f883d00464788be6=20EC69A20000000218Fqb6Th7mVksls86K/YfnIAzF4lEgAAAgAAAPUoRACEAwAACQAAAJs3BAA=#ixzz2cp2u3Dxd
WASHINGTON — President Obama hosted top executives from Apple, AT&T, Google and other tech and civil liberties groups at the White House on Thursday to discuss government surveillance, a White House official confirmed.
The meeting, which was first reported by Politico, was not on the president’s public schedule.
“The meeting was part of the ongoing dialogue the president has called for on how to respect privacy while protecting national security in a digital era,” said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Thursday’s meeting, which included Apple CEO Tim Cook and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, followed another outreach effort earlier this week by White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. They met with a group of tech executives and civil liberty activists on Tuesday.
The president may have alluded to the meetings in his interview earlier this week with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, when he noted that he was “talking to Congress and civil libertarians and others” about the issue.
American Patriot Reality Check 