STOP the politicians, President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on US national security operations and secrets!
Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.
The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious — that for the first time ever — former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go ‘on the record’ in a special documentary titled “Dishonorable Disclosures.” Its goal is to educate America about serious breaches of security and prevent them from ever happening again.
Use of military ranks, titles & photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement of the Dept of the Army or the Department of Defense. All individuals are no longer in active service with any federal agency or military service.
This just drilled holes in all of Obamas lifeboats
THEN DO YOUR DUTY AND STOP ANY AND ALL ENEMIES DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN AT ALL COSTS! Anything less is complicit to treason! Obama and thee entire Admin belong behind bars. They flaunt their transgressions daily in plain view open to all eyes, their guilt is sure. The only question is who will do their duty? who will arrest them? I wish I had their opportunity!
Arizona’s Eighth Congressional district’s special primary race taking place. Tuesday’s primary is to determine who the Republican candidate will be for the final congressional race in June to fill the seat formerly served by Congresswoman Gabielle Giffords
A short piece of legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature makes a big statement.
HB2434 affirms the sheriffs of Arizona as the supreme constitutional law enforcement officers in their counties and serves notice to the federal government that it must work through them to exercise their limited powers.
The bill simply states that:
A. Before taking any official law enforcement action in a county in this state, a federal law enforcement officer shall notify the sheriff of the county, unless the notification would impede the federal officer’s duties.
B. If a federal law enforcement officer does not notify the sheriff pursuant to subsection A. of this section, the federal law enforcement officer shall notify the sheriff of the county as soon as practicable after taking the action.
UPDATE 04-12-12– Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed this bill
Saying the proposal made no sense, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed legislation Wednesday designed to let local law enforcement keep tabs on their federal counterparts.
Contact your representatives and senators and let them know you want them to override this veto and stand up for the Constitution
Senator Russell Pearce: “I also am disappointed. This bill was a strong statement for states rights and recognizing and protecting our only Constitutionally elected law enforcement officers. This bill to me was a critical message to the feds about the sovereignty of our states. We know how dangerous the feds have become and their efforts to stop the states. In so much that they are suing the states (SB1070, EMPLOYER SANCTIONS, ID AT THE POLLS, ETC). Enough is enough. We must return to our Founding principles and stand up against the feds power grab and UN-Constitutional encroachment on states rights and our liberties. These are dangerous times and we must not retreat. Send this bill and others that protect states sovereignty and our citizens liberties back to the Governor.”
White House says president believes he should pay more tax as returns show he and Michelle paid 20.5% on $789,674
The White House has said the president believes he should pay more tax as the release of Barack Obama‘s returns showed he was taxed at a higher rate than his Republican presidential rival, Mitt Romney, last year but below many ordinary Americans.
The Obamas’ earnings fell by nearly $1m on the previous year as sales of the president’s bestselling books declined. The first couple paid $162,074 in income tax. They also donated a similar amount to 39 charities.
The vice-president, Joe Biden, and his wife, Jill, paid tax at 23% on income of $379,035.
The release of the returns was politically charged because the president has built part of his re-election campaign around accusing the Republicans of giving millionaires tax breaks paid for by cutting services to the less well off.
The White House has also targeted Romney, who paid tax at less than 15% over the past two years on his multimillion-dollar income from a vast fortune.
Obama has been campaigning for the imposition of the “Buffett rule” that would see those earning more than $1m a year, whether from salary or investments, pay tax at a rate of at least 30%. The rule is named after the business magnate, Warren Buffet, who called for the rich to pay more to the treasury because he said it is wrong that he should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.
The White House acknowledged that the president believes he should pay more tax.
“Under the president’s own tax proposals, including the expiration of the high-income tax cuts and limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it,” it said.
The president’s tax policy is aimed at the Republicans in general and directly at Romney, his likely rival in the presidential election, who has an estimated fortune of $220m yet paid tax at a rate of less than 15% on income of $45m over the past two years. Most of the income, which places Romney in the top 1% of earners in the US, was derived from investments, which are subject to a lower tax rate.
Romney has refused to release his tax returns for before 2010.
Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, on Friday used the release of the president’s returns to accuse Romney of continuing to hide his own declarations from the time he made most of his fortune.
“Governor Romney has yet to provide tax returns from the period in which he made hundreds of millions as a corporate buyout specialist, or as governor of Massachusetts, the experience he says qualifies him to be president,” he said.
A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.
By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN Editor: Penbrook Johannson
Thursday, April 12, 2012
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.
At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.
Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens. Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”
Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.
Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.
“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”
Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”
“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”
Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.
Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.
“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”
He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.
“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”
Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.
The decision comes shortly after the House Ethics Committee recommended the full House remove Patterson from office. The full House was expected to vote on expulsion this afternoon.
Patterson had tweeted earlier in the day that the “fix was in.”
The bipartisan committee had made the recommendation after they questioned Patterson for two hours. The ethics allegations included intimidating other lawmakers, angry outbursts and domestic violence.
Patterson has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He left the committee hearing before the unanimous vote was cast and without making any final comments.
During the questioning, Patterson admitted he has made mistakes that he regrets but said they did not merit removal from the House.
“Nothing I have done warrants my resignation or removal from the House,” he said, adding that he already has suffered a loss of his office, legislative assistant and reputation. “Certainly there are some things that have happened at the House where if I could do it over, I would handle things differently.”
In his resignation letter, however, Patterson said he was “reluctantly” resigning “under strong protest.”
“I have been forced to resign due to the fact that the House has become a very hostile work environment,” Patterson wrote. “Due to this, I am no longer able to serve my constituents in the way they deserve.”
Patterson criticized the investigative report an independent team of attorneys produced. The report included numerous allegations made by anonymous staff members and lobbyists. He said in addition to including unverified allegations, it went far beyond the scope of the original ethics complaint.
Patterson also repeatedly asked for a full hearing in which he could question those who made allegations against him.
“I should have a full opportunity to talk with these people directly,” he said.
Committee members agreed that some of the allegations were unverified. But they said there was enough concern just based on the complaints from named lawmakers.
“Even if we strip away what is anonymous sourcing … there is still a core of members, duly elected members that signed declarations that show a disturbing pattern of behavior,” Rep. Ted Vogt, R-Tucson, the committee chairman, said. “There is a fundamental gap between how you perceive yourself and your actions and how others perceive you and your actions.”
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton’s first State of the City address laid out ambitious policy plans that suggest his leadership won’t be contained within city limits.
In his speech Wednesday, Stanton outlined policy priorities that spanned across national, global, regional and city initiatives that aim to do more than shape just the future of Phoenix but promote a better-educated region with high-wage jobs and a booming green economy.
Stanton announced he would lead a national task force of mayors that will work to prevent cuts in military spending that could hurt Arizona jobs.
Stanton said he is working with U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on the effort.
“Arizona’s economy and our nation’s security face a serious threat from the federal government’s failure to deal with looming, indiscriminate cuts to Pentagon programs,” said Stanton, who marked his 100th day in office Wednesday.
“But bearing the biggest brunt of these cuts will be our defense companies and the Arizonans they employ.”
Stanton said Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are just a few of the major Arizona defense companies that create thousands of high-wage jobs in the state.
He said Arizona companies have the fifth-largest number of defense contracts in the country.
“But because of partisan politics in Washington, those great jobs are at risk,” Stanton said, in reference to potential defense-spending cutbacks.
Earlier this week, General Dynamics announced it was laying off 58 workers from its Scottsdale facility.
Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry president and CEO, said Stanton was “right on the mark” for making it a priority to protect the defense economy in Arizona.
Hamer said about 21 percent of the state’s manufacturing sector is tied to defense and aerospace.
GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Tuesday he is suspending his campaign.
He made the announcement at the Gettysburg Hotel in Gettysburg, Pa., talking about his young daughter’s illness and reflecting on the campaign.
His 3-year-old daughter Bella was taken to a Virginia hospital Friday with pneumonia. Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, left the campaign trail until this afternoon. The child has a life-threatening genetic disorder known as Trisomy 18.
“She’s a fighter,” said Santorum, standing beside his wife and children. “She’s doing exceptionally well.”
Santorum also faces an uphill battle against front-runner Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Five states, including Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania, hold primaries April 24.
Romney is spending $2.9 million in TV ads in Pennsylvania. Romney is far ahead of Santorum in the race for delegates to the Republican National Convention and is the party’s likely nominee.
Romney said after Santorum concluded his speech at about 2:45 p.m: “Senator Santorum is an able and worthy competitor, and I congratulate him on the campaign he ran. He has proven himself to be an important voice in our party and in the nation. We both recognize that what is most important is putting the failures of the last three years behind us and setting America back on the path to prosperity.”
Shaul Mofaz, the new head of Israel’s opposition and the Knesset’s largest party, Kadima, laid out his political platform for the New York Times on Friday, and it leans a bit more to the left than many Israelis expected.
Mofaz told the American newspaper that he agrees with the assessment held by his predecessors, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, that Israel must permit the creation of a Palestinian Arab state in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel.
While Mofaz would still be expected to be less reckless with the implementation of such an outcome than Livni, he seemed to espouse policy positions typically associated with the farther reaches of the left wing.
For instance, Mofaz said that he would give the Arabs 100 percent of their territorial demands, though land swaps would be necessary since some Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria are simply too large to uproot. Others, he said, would be encouraged to move with economic incentives, or face forced expulsion.
Of course, such an approach has been tried before, most notably by current Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a man who like Mofaz was a former army chief with impeccable security credentials. Barak’s attempt to hand Yasser Arafat nearly all of what he asked for blew up in Israel’s face, literally, with the start of the Second Intifada, or “Oslo War.”
And Mofaz would likely be offering even less than Barak, since it is now clear that the vast majority of Israelis oppose the division of Jerusalem. Without Jerusalem, or the cleansing of all Jews from Judea and Samaria, or the “right” to flood Israel with “Palestinian refugees,” there will never be a final status peace agreement, regardless of who is Israel’s prime minister. And so, while the New York Times may be getting excited over proposals it somehow fails to recognize as nothing new, most Israelis realize that, in fact, Mofaz is offering nothing new.
And the polls reflect that. If elections were held today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would crush Mofaz.
Where Mofaz may be able to make political headway, however, is in the social arena. Netanyahu is typically associated with the capitalist movement in Israel, while last summer’s huge Tel Aviv protests showed that most Israelis still identify with a more socialist approach as they struggle with a high cost of living.
Mofaz is doing his best to identify with disillusioned young Israelis whose rent, utilities and other standard living costs often exceed their incomes.
But, again, Israel’s more socialist parties – Kadima and Labor – were in power much of the past two decades, and did little if nothing to right the ship. So, as with security and the peace process, many Israelis have been there and done that, and are no longer convinced that jumping back to the other side of the aisle is the solution to the country’s problems.
Either way, Israel’s next general election, scheduled for 2013, is shaping up to be an interesting battle upon which the events of the next year – from security to Iran to the peace process to renewed social justice demonstrations – will have a major impact.
”We do have some sheriffs with the courage to tell the federal government to stay out of their counties and not enter unless they clear with the sheriff first. The sheriff is not a part of the federal judicial system. He holds executive powers.”
Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher
By Pat Shannan
Sheriff Jeff Christopher of Sussex County, Delaware, when he was elected to the office in 2010, thought he was handpicked by the people to represent them as the highest-ranking law officer in the county. Instead, he has found himself in the middle of a fight for the future of American law enforcement as a result of a nationwide effort to abolish the sheriff’s office altogether.
It is one more example of federal and state governments ignoring the will of the people as well state laws. In the case of Delaware, the state’s own constitution stipulates that the office of the sheriff is a constitutionally created position just like the secretary of state and the attorney general. Delaware’s Constitution states: “The sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside.”
This time it is Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, sending out mandates to commissioners informing them that their sheriffs no longer have arrest powers. In an opinion released Feb. 24, State Solicitor L.W. Lewis said that neither the state nor the common law grants arrest powers to the county sheriffs.
It would appear that Lewis is a little confused. The office of sheriff was created more than a century before the official founding of the United States. Delaware’s first sheriff took office in 1669.
“Now my deputies and I have been relieved of all arrest powers and can’t even make a traffic stop,” he said. “Delaware has only three counties. . . The other two sheriffs . . . will not stand up with me” to prevent the elimination of county law enforcement, he said.
Beau Biden’s questionable ruling against the longtime tradition of the sheriff being the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the county because of election by the people means the state’s usurpation of the office appears to be a forthcoming fact.
County spokesman Chip Guy announced, “The opinion from the attorney general’s office reinforces what has long been the position of the county [that] Delaware sheriffs and their deputies do not have arrest powers and are not in the same vein as state police or municipal officers.”
“He loved being Mike Wallace. He loved the fact that if he showed up for an interview, it made people nervous. … He knew, and he knew that everybody else knew, that he was going to get to the truth. And that’s what motivated him.” – CBS News chairman and “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager.
“His extraordinary contribution as a broadcaster is immeasurable and he has been a force within the television industry throughout its existence. His loss will be felt by all of us at CBS.” - CBS Corp. President and CEO Leslie Moonves
“Mike was a great friend and a mentor to me. He even gave me a compliment once, and he was one of the real pioneers in television journalism.” - “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer.
Thomas Kinkade, the “Painter of Light” and one of the most popular artists in America, died suddenly Friday at his Los Gatos home. He was 54.
His family said in a statement that his death appeared to be from natural causes.
“Thom provided a wonderful life for his family,” his wife, Nanette, said in a statement. “We are shocked and saddened by his death.”
His paintings are hanging in an estimated one of every 20 homes in the United States. Fans cite the warm, familiar feeling of his mass-produced works of art, while it has become fashionable for art critics to dismiss his pieces as tacky. In any event, his prints of idyllic cottages and bucolic garden gates helped establish a brand — famed for their painted highlights — not commonly seen in the art world.
“I’m a warrior for light,” Kinkade told the Mercury News in 2002, alluding not just to his technical skill at creating light on canvas but to the medieval practice of using light to symbolize the divine. “With whatever talent and resources I have, I’m trying to bring light to penetrate the darkness many people feel.”
His Media Arts Group company surged to success, taking in $32 million per quarter from 4,500 dealers across the country 10 years ago, before it went private in the middle of the past decade. The cost of his paintings range from hundreds of dollars to more than $10,000.
The Placerville native, who also leaves behind a brother and sister, was known to dress up like Santa Claus on Christmas, ride a Harley-Davidson and go on painting trips around the world. He would visit studio executives but also got to know all the homeless people in Los Gatos. He read classic books but also enjoyed shooting and blowing up things on his ranch.
The father of four girls and a devoted Christian, his artistic philosophy was not to express himself through his paintings like many artists, but rather to give the masses what they wanted: warm, positive images, said Ken Raasch, a longtime friend who co-founded Kinkade’s company with him.
“I’d see a tree as being green, and he would see it as 47 different shades of green,” Raasch said. “He just saw the world in a much more detailed way than anyone I’ve ever seen.”
In the 25 years since graduating from UC Berkeley, his official biography says he has printed 1,000 paintings of “cabin and nature scenes, beautiful gardens, classic cottages, sports, inspirational content, lighthouses and powerful seascapes, impressionists, and classic Americana.”
Great Job Patriots! I know many patriots contacted the school! We can make a difference daily in fighting the continuous assault on our country! One battle at a time! Great news for Good Friday!
HERE IS THE UPDATE:
‘Political correctness’ backfires
District Superintendent Edward L. Fleury acknowledged in a statement that “political correctness” was the motivation behind a proposed change, but the school ultimately decided against booting “God” from the song.
“Students will be allowed to sing or not sing ‘God Bless the USA.’ … No other words will be substituted,” he said. “We believe the use of the word ‘God’ is acceptable in patriotic songs. The district has no intent to censor any patriotic songs. We are certainly sorry if this approach was perhaps considered as disrespectful. That was never the intent.”
The incident, while seemingly minor, touched a nerve in the debate over the place of religion and references to God in public schools.
Massachusetts elementary school replaces ‘God bless the USA’ with ‘we love the USA’ in popular Lee Greenwood song. This is why our country is falling apart. We have taken God out off everything, next we will be taking God out of Church, Oh wait!! we have done that too. It’s no surprise that another stupid school has made another stupid step towards an atheist or should I say Muslim nation.
Lee Greenwood was quoted as saying,
The most important word in the whole piece is the word GOD, which is also in the title “God Bless the USA”. We can’t take God out of the song, we can’t take GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance, we can’t take GOD out of the American currency.
This really get’s under my skin because America has bent, compromised, accommodated every other nationality as to not offend anyone, but I refuse to remove God from my country, YES! that’s right my country, God is what we were founded on, God is what we believe on, God is what we stand on, God is what we sing about, God is who blesses this country, God is who can only save this country, so darn right I want God in everything in this country. I don’t want change I want people to come to God and let him make the change. I don’t want people from other countries to come to our country and change it, I don’t want other religions Changing what this country was founded on.America We Have A Voice And It’s Sings GOD BLESS AMERICA.
On Monday Obama utilized a famous propaganda technique known as “The Big Lie.” The idea behind the Big Lie is that if your lie is shockingly far from the truth people will assume that it must be true because no reasonable person would say something so shocking if it weren’t true. On Monday Obama publicly disavowed the judicial branch’s authority to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Obama said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He added that it would be an example of “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
Obama’s statement is a Big Lie. There are more than 150 cases in which the Supreme Court had overturned an act of Congress.Since Obama was a professor of law and taught Constitutional law, he knows that his statement is a Big Lie.
Obama also knows that most Americans have not taken a Constitutional law course at a law school. He obviously hoped that his Big Lie would be heard by enough Americans that would adopt the lie and assume that the Supreme Court is overstepping its Constitutional authority.
Users of propaganda also know that the Big Lie has another advantage: When someone points out the absurdity of your lie you can claim that you were misunderstood. After all, no one would say something so absurd on purpose, right? It’s much easier to believe that the Big Liar was misunderstood.
On Tuesday Obama changed his story, saying that he meant that the Supreme Court hadn’t overturned a law that involved the Commerce Clause, as the healthcare law does, in the last 80 years — since the New Deal. This statement is also incorrect, but this later statement is much closer to the truth. Rather than being distracted by an argument about the truthfulness of this later statement, we will simply reiterate that “clarifying” the earlier Big Lie effectively makes the Liar seem to be the victim of a “misunderstanding.”
The most important point here is that Obama intentionally and publicly challenged the authority of the judicial branch of government. This is a very dangerous development because it reflects shocking boldness on the road to total dictatorship.
We at Liberty Legal Foundation are not the only ones deeply disturbed by Obama’s latest public challenge to our Constitutional form of government. On Tuesday judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a Department of Justice lawyer to deliver a letter from the Department of Justice confirming that the DOJ recognizes the authority of the judicial branch to strike down unconstitutional laws. The 5th Circuit judges are hearing a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals. The Judges gave the DOJ until noon today to deliver the letter. As I write this message we are waiting to hear whether the DOJ complies, and if so, exactly what the letter says.
Liberty Legal Foundation has repeatedly warned that several of the Obama administration’s actions have challenged the separation of powers between the three branches of government. The administration has repeatedly broken federal law and blatantly ignored the Constitution. This latest Big Lie, however, represents a huge leap forward in the administration’s assault on the other two branches. The administration is now trying to influence the public by misinforming the public about the historic roles of the three branches of government.
We will have further updates on this issue over the next several days. For now, please forward this message to everyone you can.
(Republished from 2010 for the anniversary of Obamacare)
As millions of my fellow Americans, I am extremely angry, outraged, and devastated by the Democrats’ unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming “no” from the rooftops, they forced ObamaCare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. “Don’t urinate on me and tell me it’s raining.”
Democrats say that their mission is to give all Americans health care. The Democrats are lying. Signing ObamaCare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.
I keep asking myself: How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.
Ironically, proving that America is completely the opposite of the evil, racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America’s goodness, guilt, and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern-day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted, golden, shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African-American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said that Obama uses a black dialect only when he wants to.
White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man, naïvely believing that they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America’s sins of the past.
Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, “I’m votin’ for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me.”
Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressives’ young, handsome, articulate, and so-called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusations of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.
Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of Democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious, bloody slaughter of every value, freedom, and institution we Americans hold dear, launching the end of America as we know it.
Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of backdoor deals, the Democrats landed a severe blow to America and individual rights by passing ObamaCare.
The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black Tea Party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question: “Why are you siding with these white racists against America’s first African-American president?” I defend my fellow patriots who are white, stating, “These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama’s skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama’s race is not an issue.”
Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama’s race not being an issue. In reality, Obama’s presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator’s virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into ObamaCare. Obama’s race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate, and most recently, even the Constitution of the United States. ObamaCare forces all Americans to purchase health care, which is clearly unconstitutional.
No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said “no” to both presidents’ proposals, and that was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer: He is black.
The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution, and planned, destructive pieces of legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.
My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be “played” and intimidated by Obama’s race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, then Obama’s progressive agenda must be stopped.
Shocking details revealed here Fast, Furiously, Exclusively and First , TODAY ONLY!
Last Monday through Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of ObamaCare and what to do if parts of it are unconstitutional. I tried to provide an instant analysis here, cautioning that we won’t know the final results until after the texts of the majority opinion and several concurring and dissenting opinions are released, possibly by the end of June. The Justices met in closed session on Friday, March 30th, to try to figure out who wants what and how to start writing it up.
We need wait no longer. Fortunately, I know the cousin of a highly reliable and well placed informant deeply embedded at the Supreme Court. For obvious reasons he, she or it must remain anonymous and will, for purposes of this article, be referred to only as “Bowels of the Court” (BC). BC’s cousin delivered a message written by BC very early this morning, April 1st. After reading the message, I gave BC’s cousin an appropriate honorarium that BC seemed likely to enjoy, along with my thanks, and asked that he deliver both for me. The situation is highly fluid and I feel under great pressure to share the news here immediately while it still remains exclusive to my blog.
Message from BC with only major spelling and grammar errors corrected to make it comprehensible; towards the end, the difficulty in making such corrections increased substantially.
I have long been employed at the Supreme Court as one of many sanitary engineers, toxic waste disposal specialists and other highly skilled janitors.
You couldn’t believe what a pigsty the secret cave where the Justices discuss court stuff gets to be while they work there. I have to hand it to them though, they are a really dignified bunch of old folks and I’ve never noticed any major bloodstains. Not even once. At least I don’t remember ever seeing any and my memory is real good.
On Friday, March 30th, it wasn’t my job to clean up the mess the Justices had left in their cave. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. I had lots of other important hard work to do that day, like I nearly always do. I hardly ever get a chance to take a decent nap.
While rummaging through a trash dumpster in the Supreme Court basement late on Friday afternoon, hoping to find a bottle with a little good booze left in it, I found about a dozen quart size bottles. Every last one was the very best brand and every last one was empty! Not even a drop was left for me! There were just a few small chewed broccoli parts and some papers, lots of papers. Damn!
At first, I just glanced at the damn papers with hardly any interest, hoping that maybe I could at least find some jokes or other funny stuff. I’ve found old comic books there before but not this time. I did see something called Constitution of South Africa and it looked like someone had been scribbling on it furiously. I couldn’t read the scribbling or figure out whose it was so I didn’t pay any more attention to it. Besides that, there was mainly just lots of other scribblings and a bunch of it looked pretty strange.
I kept on digging and, to be as honest as always, looking for at least a little taste of booze. They done drunk it all, but down at the bottom of that dumpster I saw some crumpled pieces of yellow paper (I think they call them legal pads or something) with scribbles that looked sort of like the Chief Justice’s handwriting. I seen his handwriting once or twice before and sure do know what it looks like when I see it! It turned out to be a list of all them Justices with comments under each name. Some of the comments weren’t important — like “Grow up, stupid,” “Idiot,” “incompetent JERK,” [redacted by publisher] and that sort of stuff. I sure seen a heck of a lot of that there stuff before, let me tell you, and it doesn’t mean hardly nothing.
Unexpectedly, I found the final tallies their two, in four labeled columns. I jus added up the numbers in the “Constitutional,” “Unconstitutional,” “Salvage what we can” and “Off with it’s head” columns. I couldn’t find nothing to write with, so I just used my head for that. There was lots of scratch – throughs, but here is the final results as best I could figure then and can remember now. Honestly, I had a little small drop of cheap booze before I wrote the numbers down and added them up late Friday night. But don’t worry none, I wasn’t hardly drunk or nothin an I’m real good at rithmetic and think I’m probably about right.
Constitutional —————-4 Unconstitutional ————-5 Salvage what we can ——–7 Off with it’s head ————-2
From what I remembers, it looks like Justice Thomas will get to write a majority opinion, Justice Kagan will rite a dissentin opinion and everybody else gona write concurring, dissenting, sorta dissenting, maybe sorta concurring opinions and whatever. At least that’s what I thinks.
Let me tell you rite now, I’m gonna take time off when they Justices finally gets back together to fight about them draft opinions! There cave will be a real heck of a mess before them finish and the chanses of findin any bottles with even a drops of decent booze left will be Zero!
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. Not even the National Enquirer has published this deeply sourced, highly reliable and utterly shocking new information yet.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming revealing more exclusive and shocking details about the incredible circumstances surrounding Trevor Martin’s killing, medical advances in curing ingrown toenails and cancer and all the other breaking news that fits in print.
Last minute update and legal notice. This was demanded by my highly respected attorney/lawn care specialist:
Be advised that none of the facts herein asserted by an anonymous source have been independently verified by the author of this article or by anyone else. Accordingly, the statement of the anonymous source, known only as BC, may contain misstatements of fact and or opinion, probably well intentioned but possibly misguided nonetheless. Therefore, reasonable care must, as always, be exercised in repeating such statements to others or in any way relying upon their absolute veracity.
I do not think that any disclaimer of that sort is needed, but since I rely completely on him to deal with legal matters while taking care of my lawn I decided to include it.
PHOENIX — Former Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris and two Arizona police officials have joined other colleagues from across the country in filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court expressing their opposition to the state’s immigration enforcement law.
The brief filed on behalf of Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and Harris centers on the law’s requirement that officers — while enforcing other laws — question the immigration status of those they suspect of being in the country illegally.
The police bosses say the requirement would jeopardize community cooperation in investigating crimes.
Gov. Jan Brewer has appealed a federal judge’s decision to block enforcement of the immigration-check requirement and other controversial sections of the law.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Brewer’s appeal on April 25.
For nearly a year now, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have been building their liberal cable news channel, Current TV, with the mercurial television anchorman Keith Olbermann at its center.
This week, the center collapsed.
Current said on Friday afternoon that it had fired Mr. Olbermann — one of the nation’s most prominent progressive speakers — just a year into his five-year, $50 million contract. It was the culmination of months of murky disputes between Mr. Olbermann and the channel that he was supposed to save from the throes of ratings oblivion.
Yet as inevitable as it might have seemed to some in the television business who know the long history of antipathy between Mr. Olbermann and his employers, it was nonetheless shocking to his fans, to his detractors and to staff members at Current when the announcement was made.
Forty-five minutes afterward, in a stream of Twitter messages, Mr. Olbermann threatened to take legal action against the channel and said its claims about him were untrue. In part because of the prospect of litigation, executives at Current declined to comment on the firing on Friday. But they immediately named as his replacement Eliot L. Spitzer, the former governor of New York, who took over Mr. Olbermann’s 8 p.m. time slot on Friday night. It represents Mr. Spitzer’s second shot at an 8 p.m. talk show; in 2010, two years after he resigned the governorship after he admitted having patronized a prostitution ring, he led a short-lived show on CNN. It was canceled in mid-2011.
In a letter posted on Current’s Web site, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt wrote, “We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.”
With those words — “on a daily basis” — the founders of Current hinted at one of the reasons for Mr. Olbermann’s termination.
He clashed early and often with Mr. Hyatt, and especially with David Bohrman, a former CNN executive who was installed as president of Current last summer. The clashes became visible when Mr. Olbermann started anchoring his program, “Countdown,” in front of a funereal black backdrop, apparently out of frustration about technical difficulties. He also declined Current’s requests to host special hours of primary election coverage in January, causing lawyers from both sides to intercede. Eventually an election coverage plan was cobbled together, but in January and February, Mr. Olbermann continued to miss many days of work, as he himself acknowledged on his Twitter page. He attributed some of his absences to throat problems.
In public, Current remained supportive of Mr. Olbermann, whom Mr. Hyatt called “the big gun in our lineup” during an interview on March 5 to promote new political programming on weekday mornings.
“It’s all on top of his shoulders,” Mr. Hyatt said, even as he added new programs, in part as a hedge against the possibility of Mr. Olbermann’s departure.
Behind the scenes, tensions were mounting. That same day, the eve of the Super Tuesday Republican primaries, Mr. Olbermann decided to take a vacation day despite a warning from Current that it would constitute a breach of contract, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, who insisted on anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak on the record.
In a termination letter on Thursday morning, Current cited “unauthorized absences” as one of the reasons. It also cited a failure to promote the channel and disparagement of the channel’s executives.
Mr. Olbermann, however, has said he has been very careful to fulfill the terms of his contract. On Twitter on Friday afternoon, he apologized to his fans for joining Current at all, calling it “a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one.”
He encouraged people to “read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee,” and linked to a New York Times article from 1990 that reported on a ruling against Mr. Hyatt’s firm that found that it had illegally removed the head of its Philadelphia office, Clarence B. Cain, after learning he had AIDS.
To many in the television business, the separation was not a question of if, but when. Mr. Olbermann has a history of abruptly and angrily leaving jobs, dating back at least to his days at ESPN, where he was a co-anchor of “SportsCenter” in the 1990s.
Fourteen months ago, Mr. Olbermann abruptly left MSNBC, where he had worked for eight years. There, he nearly single-handedly gave the channel an identity as a liberal counterweight to Fox News — just as Current hoped he would do for it — but he also alienated staff members.
He is out of touch, out of date and unelectable. But President Obama is like a Red Red Rose.
Oh my luve is like a red, red rose, That’s newly sprung in June: Oh my luve is like the melodie, That’s sweetly play’d in tune.
As fair art thou, my bonie lass, So deep in luve am I; And I will luve thee still, my dear, Till a’ the seas gang dry.
by Robert Burns (but not then dedicated to President Obama)
Here is an article from Pravda hinting, with great civility and no hyperbole, that Governor Romney might not be its ideal “red, red rose” candidate and that therefore, unlike President Obama, he might not be a really good President of the United States.
Electing Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States of America would be like appointing a serial paedophile as a kindergarten teacher, a rapist as a janitor at a girls’ dormitory or a psychopath with a fixation on knives as a kitchen hand. His comments on Russia are a puerile attempt at making the grand stage and boy, did he blow it…
Somewhat like Condoleezza Rice did before the Bush regime was er…”elected” …, Mitt Romney takes the chance to mouth off about Russia, calling her “our number one geopolitical foe” which fights “every cause for the world’s worst actors”. Unfortunately, such vapid stupidity has become commonplace among senior US politicians, providing the rest of the world with a telling insight as to the real nature of the political class in that country – out of touch, out of date and dangerously jingoistic. In short, overgrown self-opinionated schoolboys with super-egos but nothing whatsoever to back it up with.
. . . .
Exactly at a time when Russia and the USA are finding that they have far more in common than differences, exactly when they see that they are much more friends than foes, when they see that there is so much to be gained through collaboration, a foul-mouthed, big-headed oaf like Romney with more money than sense makes a comment that reveals who he really is to the world: a pea-brained, pith-headed simpleton with too much testosterone and too little common sense, with zero tact, no diplomacy and a paramount grasp on the intricacies of world politics. A prize, good-for-nothing ignoramus
At a time when Russia and the United States of America are working together in space, at a time when the scientific communities and Universities are ever more intricately linked, when the security networks share information more freely on terrorists, on crime, combating drugs trafficking, at a time when the two countries are working together on trade and commerce and forging common links on intellectual property rights, up comes stick-in-the-mud wannabe Presidential candidate Mitt Romney blurting out outdated Cold War drivel like some redneck nearing an alcoholic coma.
With as much credibility. In fact, one has seen more intelligent things scrawled in excrement on the walls of public latrines.
Despite diligent research, I have found no support for any rumor that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Nation Committee Chairwoman, ghost wrote the Pravda article.
I'm cool TOO!
Moreover, the Pravda article is fair and balanced if you like incoming President Putin and approve of this refreshingly transparent and candid “open-mic”whoops discussion:
Obama pleaded with outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and, by implication, Vladimir Putin — soon to be inaugurated again in Moscow — to give him “space” until after the November U.S. election, at which point Obama could be more “flexible.”
While the context of the discussion was the possibility of even more gratuitous U.S. concessions on missile defense, Obama himself made it clear to Medvedev that the range of issues where he was signaling further retreat was far broader.
Medvedev wasted no time creating “space” for Obama by criticizing Mitt Romney, the almost-certain Republican presidential nominee.
According to Ambassador Bolton, the discussion between President Obama and outgoing President Medvedev
obviously express Medvedev’s — and Putin’s — preference for dealing with Obama, and his concern that a President Romney would not be as pliable as the current incumbent.
Although the White House tried to downplay the significance of the Obama-Medvedev exchange, they have not succeeded, and should not.
Obama was candidly admitting to a foreign ruler that his vision of dramatically reduced U.S. global strength could not withstand the red-hot scrutiny of a U.S. political campaign.
It should be obvious that we have no reason to be concerned about a post-election President Obama unleashed to do as he and his people think best to promote whatever agendas they wish; that there will be few political consequences to restrain them is of no consequence. Even thinking such nonsense is paranoid, and paranoia (unlike the Pravda article) is utterly childish. President Obama’s administration is the most transparent in history, as he has told us — even though he does not yet control all branches of government.
I have no idea whether Russia is, or under President Putin will become, “our number one geopolitical foe.” There are many actual and potential “number one geopolitical” foes, and their numbers seem to be growing despite because of President Obama’s insightful penchant for apologizing to the Free Peoples of the Earth for the bad things he claims that the United States (some in the military, perhaps, but certainly not in his administration) have done over the years. True, Russia and the United States under President Obama have had brotherly (but only minor) disagreements about goings on in Syria, Iran and other insignificant countries. However, Russia has not nuked us yet; North Korea and Iran presently seem more likely eventually to try to do that than is Russia.
The tangible results of the visit of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to Latin America were, in a word, massive, the first concrete step in laying the cornerstone of a new geopolitical order based on multilateral values, a New World Order which spells a clear message to the USA: either you are with us, or against us.
The much-heralded visit of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to Venezuela this weekend was far more than a continuation of the excellent ties between the socially progressive Latin American growing giant of Hugo Chavez and the Russian Federation – Bolivia’s President Evo Morales was also present.
. . . .
The United States of America’s self-imposed blockade of Venezuela damages Washington and those states which agree to pander to Washington’s dictates, namely Brazil, whose President Lula told Hugo Chavez that the Supertucano contract with Embraer was off, due to pressure from the USA. As Vladimir Putin stated (causing Hugo Chavez to laugh) “It is good that the USA does not wish to sell”.
The last four Mi-17 helicopters have been delivered, completing the deal signed in 2006 for 38 aircraft, part of a deal which began in 2004, namely for 24 Sukhoi-30 fighters, 53 transport helicopters and 100,000 AK 103 guns.
Russia has granted Venezuela a loan of 2.2 billion USD, part of which could be used to purchase 90 T-72 tanks, Smerch multiple rocket launchers, S-300 anti-aircraft systems and submarines.
I am bigger than any constitution!
Why can’t the backwards United States be just like Venezuela under the “socially progressive Latin American growing giant of Hugo Chavez?” We had better get there, fast, because otherwise we will be against all that Russia, Venezuela and other free and peace loving nations hold dear.
Afghanistan, Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood and the United Nations may also be candidates for the honor of becoming our “number one geopolitical foe.” China? Maybe — Hu knows? An argument could probably be made that the United States has in recent years become, or is well on her way to becoming, her own “number one geopolitical foe.”
End of snark and satire:
President Obama’s request to postpone matters of substance until after the election so that he can have more flexibility should be taken seriously. Both its domestic and international ramifications need to be considered. If we don’t take them seriously, another four years under President Obama may well cause Governor Romney to demote Russia from her exalted station as our number one geopolitical foe; that will certainly help to push the reset button.
Two reports today about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks.
The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous American officials saying that Israel has been given access to airbases by Iran’s northern neighbor Azerbaijan from which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and search and rescue aircraft.
The second report from Bloomberg, based on a leaked congressional report, said that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so dispersed that it is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be…” A strike could delay Iran as little as six months, a former official told the researchers.
“It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking,” analyst Yoel Guzansky at the Institute for National Security Studies told ABC News. “I think the [Obama] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They’re trying hard to prevent it in so many ways.”
The Foreign Policy report by Mark Perry quotes an intelligence officer saying, “We’re watching what Iran does closely…But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”
If true, the deal with Azerbaijan “totally changes the whole picture,” says Guzansky, making it far easier for Israel to strike faster and harder, rather than having to fly 2,200 miles to Iran and back over Iraqi airspace.
Thursday’s reports come a week after the results of a classified war game was leaked to the New York Times which predicted that an Israeli strike could lead to a wider regional war and result in hundreds of American deaths. In a column this afternoon titled “Obama Betraying Israel?” longtime defense commentator Ron Ben-Yishai at Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper angrily denounced the leaks as a “targeted assassination campaign.”
“In recent weeks the administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran,” Ben-Yishai writes. “The campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.”
By: By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer
Posted: March 28th, 2012
In the Supreme Court’s final day of arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, the justices wrestled Wednesday with what happens to the law if they strike down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance.
“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.
Rick Newton announced today the support of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “Mr. Rumsfeld, a resident of El Prado, NM, is one of our country’s more consequential leaders in modern U.S. history, I am proud to have his support.”
Newton continued, “Secretary Rumsfeld has enjoyed an impressive career as documented in his bestselling memoir, Known and Unknown. Elected to the U.S. Congress for four terms, he later served in the cabinets of three presidents, as White House chief of staff, and as the U.S. secretary of defense twice. He also served as U.S. ambassador to NATO, special envoy to the Middle East and has over 20 years of experience in business as the chief executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies and as chairman of the board of directors of a third. Mr. Rumsfeld and his wife, Joyce, also chair a foundation that supports microfinance development projects, fellowships for graduate students interested in public service, exchange programs for young leaders from nations in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and that funds charitable causes that benefit the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families.”
Rick Newton sought the former Secretary’s counsel on issues important to the residents of New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District including job creation, which tops the list, and federal over-regulation which is on the minds of many who work in oil and gas, mining, ranching and farming, and education.
“Our discussions covered a variety of topics, from national security to jobs in New Mexico.” Newton said. “We also discussed our concerns about the current reduction in force at the Los Alamos National Lab and the Obama administration’s likely delay in replacing the Chemistry Metallurgy Research Replacement facility.”
TeaPartyWire.com is free website for patriot groups and bloggers. If you have any comments or questions, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you want to stop receiving emails and be removed from the TeaPartyWire.com, please send an email to email@example.com with the subject line, "UNSUBSCRIBE".