Newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry went under the radar to meet with the Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia today March 4th, 2013, and in addition, met with the president of the Palestinians, Mahmud Abbas, who arrived in Riyadh unannounced. Let’s remember that March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the Assad regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me” and “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” Now Syria threatens Israel and are encouraging US involvement in that threat.
It appears, at least by perusing events scheduled on the US Presidential Calendar, that Obama’s priorities are more to rub elbows with Hollywood’s elite such as 1600 Penn co-screenwriters who were both former and soon-to-be former Obama speechwriters. The POTUS had invited the team and the actors of the 1600 Penn show to the White House this past January 9th, 2013. Notably absent on recent White House invitee lists are leaders of our nation’s allies, such as Britain’s Queen Elizabeth and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who might choose to discuss more substantial and relevant topics such as how to combat the Global War on Terror. Perhaps popcorn trumps politics, as does the government of Islam versus our US Constitutional guaranteed Freedoms. The POTUS is too busy currying special favors from the 6th Islamic Saudi King and cozying up to the President of the Palestinians to worry about problems on the US front apparently. Some trivial topics may include the memory of Beyonce singing The National Anthem at Obama’s second Presidential Inauguration only to find out later that Beyonce’s performance was a “canned” pre-recorded version. Even our United States Marines weren’t allowed to perform live for the event and were forced to “fake it” by pantomiming performing on their instruments during the playing of the recording of our United States National Anthem.
USA and all of Western Civilization – ask yourself this question. What Christian or Jew would go into a Catholic church or any church or temple and cover a Cross or any Christian or Jewish symbol? None that we know of. But Obama has done such despicable things.
Because he is indeed very much not a Christian. Barak Hussein Obama was raised to be Muslim and as such believes what the Koran states: That all Christians/Catholics/Jews and Non-Muslims are “Infidels” = “Worse than Unbelievers.” – Obama is practicing “Taqiyya” which means “to deceive with approval for the purposes of furthering Islam”. He is fluent in Arabic, reciting Muslim Prayers, and in deciphering the Koran due to his Indonesian & devout Muslim upbringing. Obama reveres the Koran, unlike the Bible, which he seems to abhor (revealed by his order to cover the Christ symbol at Georgetown University in a speech dated April 14th, 2009) See bottom of article for proof and link.
For the record, the Bible was written over 600 years before Mohammad plagiarized the Koran. There is sufficient evidence that the Koran borrowed scripture, which is a crime of forgery, and twisted it by adding the recitations/writings of Muhammad through an alleged vision/trance by a visitation of the “Angel Gabriel”. “Satan comes as an angel of light…” Do not be deceived. “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” – 2 John 1:7. The true Angel Gabriel’s visitation already announced the True Messiah through the Virgin Mary, the Holy Mother of Jesus born not of man’s will but by God the Father’s through the miraculous overshadowing of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin Mary’s womb. Jesus, “Emmanuel” means God with Us.
If you’re hungry to read more of the word click here.
Obama, and his profoundly Anti Semitic, Anti-Christian and Anti-Western Civilization Islamic allies within his Administration and elsewhere, have been silently, effectively, aiding and abetting Islamic Terrorists on US Soil and abroad on US Embassy turf. The ongoing cover up of Obama’s lack of leadership in all things Military is transparently clear when using terms like “speed bumps” to expound upon the terror brought to the families of the Benghazi Four. US Citizens died in Benghazi Libya at the Special Diplomatic Mission because of a covert US/Syria Arms deal. We will not stand idly by and watch history attempt to be re-written as it unfolds so that Political Correctness will run rampant with its twisted versions of the “truth”. -PBN
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a militant, pro-sharia law organization that has used both violent and non-violent means to achieve its ultimate goal of restoring the Muslim caliphate and the glory of the Islamic empire. The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned dozens and dozens of organizations across the globe, including the terrorist organizations al Qaeda and Hamas. Today, numerous Muslim organizations in America are either actively connected to the Muslim Brotherhood or owe their existence to the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2004, federal investigators discovered a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum during a search of a northern Virginia home. The memorandum, written by Mohamed Akram for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council, described a “civilization jihad” aimed at North America. It stated: “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Gods religion is made victorious over all other religions.” This explanatory memorandum also included a list of 29 Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations in the U.S. The memorandum was entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007-2008. Entire Article Here.
Obama is so very Anti Christian that he had instructed White House personnel to have Georgetown University cover all Christian symbols prior to his arrival and his speech there on April 14th, 2009. -PBN
Related Article Here:
Imagine the worst-case scenario if the sequester goes through. The market nosedives. The economy implodes. Empty shelves. Riots. The feds hit the streets in force to restore order in a “national emergency.”
The former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee believes the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
Palin says the feds are afraid of what might happen if the sequester goes into effect.
She writes on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
The sequester will trigger $85 billion in immediate cuts to federal funding and $1.2 trillion over 10 years unless lawmakers reach a deal by Friday.
The prospect of civil unrest puts a chilling spin on an off-teleprompter remark then-candidate Barack Obama made in a Colorado campaign speech in July, 2008.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” said candidate Obama.
Palin’s warning echoes a WND report Feb. 17 citing radio host Mark Levin’s point that federal non-military agencies have purchased enough ammunition recently not only to shoot every American five times but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.
Why do federal agencies need all that ammunition?
The government’s official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”
The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection by Americans.
“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [DHS] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!
“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin offered. “I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.
“I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared,” Levin said. “I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”
As WND reported last August, news that the Social Security Administration was set to purchase 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for 41 locations across the country followed word of major ammo buys by the DHS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
A solicitation posted by the SSA on the FedBizOpps website asked for contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point pistol ammunition.
An online ammunition retailer described the bullets as suitable “for peak performance rivaling and sometimes surpassing handloads in many guns,” noting that the ammo is “a great personal defense bullet.”
WND has been at the forefront of reporting growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.
- In 1997, WND blew the lid off 60,000 federal agents enforcing over 3,000 criminal laws, a report that prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark, “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”
- Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported on the armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program that had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.
- WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of … paperwork.
- WND further reported on a plan by then Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen into dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.
- In 1999, WND CEO Joseph Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had
nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.
- Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.
- In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the
federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”
- A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.
- In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”
- Most recently, WND reported that while local police have found themselves short of necessary ammunition, the federal government has been stockpiling billions of rounds for its non-military, non-FBI law enforcement officers.
Recently, other media outlets have begun to take notice of the alarming trend.
Andrew Malcolm wrote Feb. 8 for Investors.com: “In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.
“Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.”
Another recent report questions the motives of the DHS.
On Jan. 4, Ryan Keller wrote at Examiner.com: “DHS has stockpiled nearly 2 billion rounds of ammo. This is an unusually large amount for a federal agency to be stockpiling. The agency has refused to give an explanation for these purchases, going so far as to black out information on another solicitation, which is illegal without Congressional authorization or in response to national security issues.
“The typical response from the media has been that the rounds are for target practice; however, hollow points are not used for target shooting. Hollow points are too expensive and not designed for target practice; instead, full metal jacket rounds are used for training.”
By Garth Kant
Many refer to the President of the United States, leader of the sole superpower in the world, as the most powerful person on the face of the Earth. It follows then that Barack Hussein Obama, as President, would be considered this person.
But that would be an incorrect conclusion. Even Obama with his “we can’t wait for Congress to act” meme, spurning the legislative branch, spurning the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put in place—even with Obama spurning the Courts in the recent NLRB ruling deeming his “recess” appointments unconstitutional, there is one man who wields more power than Obama: CIA appointee John Brennan.
How can that be? Brennan is man who is actually relatively low in the White House food chain, who is nothing more than an adviser to the President, with the title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Yet this man has a virtually unchecked amount of power—no, let us call it for what it is—unchecked power. Congress, the Courts, the CIA, even the Pentagon have no reign over this man as we shall see in a moment.
It was recently discovered that Brennan, running something akin to a fiefdom with his drone assassination program, has the power to decide who lives and who dies and doesn’t have to provide evidence to any entity that the “target” presents any threat to America—even if they are an American—even if the American is living in the United States!
Investigative Reporter Michael Isikoff uncovered a secret memo, entitled:
“Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”
The memo gives the Obama Administration—in effect Brennan—the authority to kill any American citizen at anytime for any reason without proof, without due process, and with absolutely no oversight.
The key passage in the sixteen page memo is the following:
The condition that an operational leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.
This was the basis for the drone strike against American-born al-Qaeda-linked terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki in September of 2011 in Yemen. And this was the basis of the murder of al-Awlaki’s sixteen-year-old son Abdulrahman, along with several other teenagers who were engaged in an outdoor barbecue. While it is debatable whether al-Awlaki as an American citizen should have received due process, it is doubtful that his son, murdered two weeks after al-Awlaki, had any connection to al-Qaeda.
But this unchecked power exercised by John Brennan is mild compared to what we learned with the recent release of an extensive book on the Benghazi consulate attack on September 11, 2012.
The book, Benghazi: The Definitive Report, released on February 12 makes the shocking claim that Obama’s chief counter terrorism officer, John Brennan, aside from having the authority to murder American citizens, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against Al Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-linked groups. How secret? So secret that he and his minions at JSOC, Joint Special Operations Command, operated not only outside the purview of Congress but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!
According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent,” but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the Libya-based terrorist group, Ansar al-Sharia. This was the group that we learned had taken responsibility within two hours of the attack, of which information was emailed directly to the White House Situation Room. After said information was uncovered, the Obama administration denied was true.
It turns out that, per the book, the West, particularly the United States, leading up to the 2011 Libyan civil war had been flooding Libya with literally millions of weapons. After the West—NATO, with Obama at the helm—decided to topple Gaddafi, these millions of weapons then fell into Al-Qaeda and associated groups’ hands. And what Team Obama wasn’t funneling to the Syrian rebels (what Benghazi: The Definitive Report calls an “open secret”)—they wanted to get back from groups such as Ansar al-Sharia. Brennan, throughout North Africa, had been conducting his secret JSOC wars against al-Qaeda and associated groups; and lo and behold, yes, Mr. Brennan, there was retaliation. And that retaliation resulted in the deaths of four Americans at the consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.
The whole Obama Benghazi cover-up was only partially about hiding the illegal funneling of Libyan weapons to Syria and was mainly about the real—but illegal—Commander-in-Chief John Brennan conducting secret wars in Libya—without approval from Congress, without approval from the Pentagon, and hidden even from the CIA, with only a behind-doors approval by Barack Hussein Obama.
How can the “adviser” to Obama—John Brennan—have the authority to make war on any country in the world?
The answer is he doesn’t have the authority.
Brennan should be arrested, not appointed to lead the CIA. And the man who is doing the appointing—Barack Hussein Obama—should be immediately impeached.
After he is impeached?
Prison will come in due time.
As a postscript, for the record, Benghazi: The Definitive Report makes it clear that when the Benghazi consulate was attacked and requested help, the CIA annex was told to stand down. They were ordered to stand idly by while Americans were slaughtered. They refused. According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report:
[Tyrone Woods’] leadership that day, and his refusal to sit by and all his fellow Americans to be overrun, is a testament to his character. His willingness to stand up to his CIA boss and do what was right is an example of true American heroism. Glen Doherty ran toward the sound of gunfire…
Obama has a knack for betraying those closest to him. But when dissenters or military are in his path, he will do all he can to destroy them. Truly, the only way to be on a the side of those against the USA is to take a stance against the USA. Obama and his cabinet are an enemy within our country, they are practicing taqiyya and the only way to rid ourselves of these parasites is by sharing the truth and doing your part at every opportunity.
The heroine police sergeant who helped stop the Fort Hood killing spree and went on to sit with the First Lady at President Obama’s State of the Union speech three years ago has been laid off and says she and other victims of the shootings have been “betrayed” by the commander-in-chief.
“Betrayed is a good word,” former Sgt. Kimberly Munley told ABC News in an interview Tuesday. “Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of. In fact, they’ve been neglected.”
Maj. Nidal Hasan is accused of the November 2009 spree, which left 13 dead and 32 shot at the military base in Texas. Munley was shot three times as she and her partner confronted Hasan. Prosecutors say Hasan was a disgruntled Army psychiatrist and Muslim who had become radicalized through communications with Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hasan is awaiting a military trial on murder charges.
Munley said she has been laid off from her position on Fort Hood’s civilian police force.
The White House and Pentagon have refused to characterize the attack as terrorism, instead terming it “workplace violence.” The victims have been denied Purple Hearts and are suing the military because they claim the “workplace violence” designation gives them diminished access to medical care and financial benefits normally available to those whose wounds are designated as “combat related.”
An Army spokesman told ABC none of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no oversight of Veterans Administration policies.
Munley told the network the White House used her for political advantage by having her sit next to Michelle Obama during the president’s 2010 State of the Union address.
Some of the victims “had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment” and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group’s lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.
“There’s a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case,” said Rubinstein. “We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers’ command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn’t so bad, it wasn’t combat.”
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is “committed to the highest care of those in our military family.”
“Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all servicemembers,” said Little. “The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident.”
Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.
“If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis,” McHugh told ABC News. “It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform.”
Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.
Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as “workplace violence” instead of “combat related” or terrorism.
Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.
Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the “workplace violence” designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as “combat related.”
Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below:
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
by DREW ZAHN
Source & Complete Article Here.
The evil clan of Bozombies are at it. How long will it be before dissenters are “sanctioned” for disagreeing with the administration?
John Brenner, in a rare display of bipartisanship, came under fire by both Democrats and Republicans during his nomination hearing in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In what the Washington Post described as one of the most heated sessions for a nominee in a decade, Brennan was asked to defend the refusal by the administration to provide basic information on the drone program, including the death toll. To make the point, he was prodded to square this with his assertion that he opposed enhanced interrogation methods, known as water boarding. In both cases justice department lawyers provided legal opinions justifying the programs.
Earlier this week a White Paper was leaked and published by NBC news that justified killing American citizens abroad provided that they were an imminent threat to the United States, as determined by a high level administration official. The White Paper was vague enough to allow the execution unchecked.
A Justice Department White paper issued late Monday, justifies killing Americans abroad if they pose an imminent threat to the United States. The document details that the American citizen has to be associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States.
The document further details that the imminent threat does not have to be based on intelligence of a specific attack, but “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity.” It must also take collateral damage to civilians into consideration.
While Brennan defended the White Paper policy and the drone program in general, he said that the water boarding undertaken by the Bush administration was reprehensible and had to be stopped. Brennan wasn’t sure if the enhanced interrogation program was effective and if it had yield any useful information.
On a second controversial topic, he said that after reading a classified intelligence report on harsh interrogation techniques, he does not know if water boarding has yielded useful information.
Despite what he called a public misimpression, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee that drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he declared.
Republicans have claimed that water boarding indeed yielded results and information extracted that vital information and possibly thwarted dozens of attack and may have led to the capture of Osama Bin Ladin.
This was confirmed in an interview of retired Central Intelligence Agency field officer John Kiriakou, who headed he interrogation of Zubaydah in Pakistan after his capture in 2002.
Kiriakou told ABC that Zubaydah was waterboarded — a technique in which the person being interrogated is made to feel as if he is being drowned — after initially refusing to cooperate with those questioning him.
Zubaydah withstood the waterboarding for “quite some time” — about 30 to 35 seconds — Kiriakou said in the ABC interview.
“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” Kiriakou told ABC. “From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”
While Brennan supports the Obama administration drone program, he said that it has to be acknowledged publicly.
Apparently Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was not too impressed with Brenner’s answers. She opined that this rationale was long gone. She said that she thought the administration was victim of its own secrecy.
She said that she had sought permission to disclose estimates of civilian casualties attributed to the drone program, but was told she couldn’t since it was classified. For the public, the drone program doesn’t exist.
She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.
Although the public and the media have been aware of the drone program, particularly the drone strikes into Pakistan, this week was the first time that the administration publicly acknowledged it.
Since 9/11 the CIA has transformed into a powerful para military arm of the US administration. While it still collects data from all corners of the world it has become more and more involved in striking foreign targets with drones from a distance. The whole operation can be likened to a computer game, where the operators guide a drone to its target often more than 10,000 miles removed. No stench, no noise and no real evidence of collateral destruction. Clinical and clean with minimum psychological effect on the operators, the program has become an effective tool for the administration.
If John Brennan were confirmed, he would be the most experienced director in decades, having served 25 years in the agency.
The question is if water boarding is so reprehensible, why isn’t the indiscriminate killing of civilians?
Full article here.
USA forget being tarred n feathered in terminology such as being labeled a “birther”. Forget the term “political correctness”, “pc” or “being politically correct”. Instead USA, we must remember the facts of historical truth.
Remember that Obama has publicly stated he was Kenyan BORN in at least two public acknowledgments used for marketing two separate promotions of his books.
Obama stated he was KENYAN BORN.
Obama is therefore not Constitutionally allowed to be our POTUS. Impeach him or shackle him at once! -PBN
As WND reported, Breitbart News originally found a brochure from two decades ago in which literary agency Acton & Dystel promoted Obama as the author of the never-produced “Journeys in Black and White” by declaring Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”Twelve years later, however, the Dystel of Acton & Dystel was busy promoting Obama’s new book, “Dreams from My Father,” and still touting the author as “born in Kenya.”
Screenshot of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios page from 2003, from Wayback Machine
Through the Internet archive Wayback Machine, WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, including the following: “Barack Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. His first book is ‘Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
Even if the original 1991 brochure’s listing of Kenya as Obama’s birthplace was in error, as the agency has since claimed, it apparently was an error Obama allowed his publicist to persist in for over a decade, right until after he was running for president.
In April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, Dystel was still touting the then-Democratic senator from Illinois as “born in Kenya.”
Screen capture of Dystel & Goderich author bio, April 3, 2007
Another trip to the Internet’s Wayback Machine shows Dystel & Goderich describing Obama this way: “Barack Obama is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.”
Dystel & Goderich author bio, April 21, 2007
Only a few weeks later, the Internet archive reveals, the publicist had changed Obama’s birthplace to Hawaii.
The text of Obama’s biography in the brochure Breitbart reported on, created by Acton & Dystel in 1991, states:
“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”
Image from Breitbart.com
Breitbart News published a disclaimer at the beginning of its report stating its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, was never a “Birther” and Breitbart News “has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’” Breitbart himself once characterized Obama’s eligibility as “not a winning issue.”
What’s wrong with just reporting the facts? Joseph Farah blasts the “anti-birther” narrative that infects most of the media – Bretibart.com included. Read his latest column, “Breakthrough on eligibility story,” now.
“Regardless of the reason for Obama’s odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama – who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media,” the report says.
Yet the biographies are just a few of numerous published reports – as well as personal claims – that Obama was born abroad, including the recent testimony of a Chicago-area postal worker who reported he was told by the parents of Bill Ayers that Obama was a foreigner.
Allen Hulton, a retired Chicago-area mailman, has come forward with his first-person recollection of a clean-cut young man he identified as Obama who approached him and told him he was going to be president.
Allen Hulton (WND photo)
Hulton delivered mail to Tom and Mary Ayers in a Chicago suburb in the late 1980s and early 1990s and claims to have met Obama in front of the Ayers home.
In this short but cogent post by VotingAmerican you can clearly see, what every whinny liberal and centered conservative knows. And that is that the vast majority of Americans do not trust any form of Government to be able to protect them. We also realize that making thes guns black market just ups the ante for decent law abiding citizens thereby giving the criminal element a peek at our hand. But will it happen? We say, if and or when the government tries to take the law abiding citizens guns, it will be a blood bath. Molon Labe. -PBN
Only 22% of Americans believe gun control will reduce crime
58% of Americans believe violent crime would be reduced if more people had guns
65% of American gun owners say they would defy gun confiscation
52% of gun owning Democrats would defy gun confiscation
70% of gun owning Republicans would defy gun confiscation
73% of gun owning Independents would defy gun confiscation
77% of gun owning Men would defy gun confiscation
52% of gun owning Women would defy gun confiscation
68% of gun owning whites would defy gun confiscation
54% of gun owning non-whites would defy gun confiscation
58% of gun owners with a college degree would defy gun confiscation
69% of gun owners without a college degree would defy gun confiscation
Among every segment of the gun owning population, a majority says they will defy gun confiscation.