Visit Counter

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

This shoots a hole...






About a yard wide through the  "workplace violence"  con job Barry tried to pull off. 

The Hasan case is as close to workplace violence as Benghazi was to a video.


After Nidal Hasan Admitted Helping the Taliban, Can We Treat the Fort Hood Massacre as a Terrorist 
Attack?




Back in April, the Pentagon shot down an item in the DAB to award Purple Hearts to the victims of Nidal Hasan by asserting that, "The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Servicemembers who are killed or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States, as the result of the of any foreign hostile force, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. To do so otherwise would irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration."

And the response insisted that Hasan was a lone wolf unaffiliated with any terrorist group, even though Hasan had corresponded with Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Hasan asked Anwar Al-Awlaki, if he considered Muslim soldiers who killed Americans like "Hasan Akbar or other soldiers that have committed such acts with the goal of helping Muslims/Islam (Lets just assume this for now) fighting Jihad and if they did die would you consider them shaheeds (martyrs)?"

Hasan's defense now makes it clear that this is how he considers his actions. Despite the best attempts to cover up his actions, he stated in open court that he had acted to aid the Taliban.

The judge read from his request for a continuance, seeking to confirm Hasan's defense: that he acted "because death or grievous harm was about to be inflicted on the members of the Taliban and Mullah [Mohammed] Omar specifically by the people against whom you used deadly force."

"That is correct," Hasan said.

There is no longer any dispute about Hasan's motives or affiliations. He was acting to aid the Taliban after corresponding with an Al Qaeda leader.

If that doesn't mean the definition of enemy of the United States and international terrorist attack, what does?

The Pentagon denial was made with the additional excuse that it "would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan's ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial.

"That is no longer an issue. Hasan has all but declared that he is a terrorist. The claim of workplace violence is no longer tenable. Hasan's defense is that he was acting in support of the Taliban. It is ridiculous to argue that awarding a Purple Heart to the survivors will undermine his defense more than his claim that he was acting to protect Mullah Omar.

There is no further basis for denying that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. There is a better case for Nidal Hasan being charged as a terrorist than there is for many Muslims who have been charged as terrorists.

It's time to end the charade.




Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Sequestration... what Sequestration?





Barry was awful busy trying to inflict pain on the average American because of sequestration. No way he wanted to cut spending, actually it only cut the rate of spending by 2%. He told us sequestration would be tantamount to Armageddon. Remember the first responders standing behind him like fools? They were supposed to be the first "casualties". But guess what... nothing happened. So Barry had to manufacture a series of setbacks to punish Americans for allowing the sequestration he himself came up with. We all remember the WH tours being cancelled, air shows cancelled, ATC's laid off, etc.


Now, since the perfect storm of scandals has come over the horizon, we here nothing about sequestration.

There are two reasons for this.

1. Barry is trying to put out so many scandal fires he has no time to worry about devising more sequestration plights.


2. He changed his tactics because he doesn't want to further piss off Americans who are already pissed off over the scandals.


Maybe it's a combination of both.


This is a list of some of the more prominent current and past scandals. Can't say he doesn't have his hands full. 




1. IRS targets Obama’s enemies: 

The IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election. Questions are being raised about why this occurred, who ordered it, whether there was any White House involvement and whether there was an initial effort to hide who knew about the targeting and when.


2. Benghazi: This is actually three scandals in one:

The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission.

The changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video.

The refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack.


3. Watching the AP: 

The Justice Department performed a massive cull of Associated Press reporters’ phone records as part of a leak investigation.


4. Rosengate: 

The Justice Department suggested that Fox News reporter James Rosen is a criminal for reporting about classified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.


5. Potential Holder perjury 1

Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress he had never been associated with “potential prosecution” of a journalist for perjury when in fact he signed the affidavit that termed Rosen a potential criminal.


6. The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme: 

Allowed weapons from the U.S. to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. The ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.


7. Potential Holder Perjury 2: Holder told Congress in May 2011 that he had just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme when there is evidence he may have known much earlier.



8. Sebelius demands payment: 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate. The money would be used to help her sign up uninsured Americans for ObamaCare.



9. The Pigford scandal: 

An Agriculture Department effort that started as an attempt to compensate black farmers who had been discriminated against by the agency but evolved into a gravy train delivering several billion dollars in cash to thousands of additional minority and female farmers who probably didn’t face discrimination.


10. GSA gone wild: 

The General Services Administration in 2010 held an $823,000 training conference in Las Vegas, featuring a clown and a mind readers. Resulted in the resignation of the GSA administrator.


11. Veterans Affairs in Disney World: 

The agency wasted more than $6 million on two conferences in Orlando. An assistant secretary was fired.



12. Sebelius violates the Hatch Act: 

A U.S. special counsel determined that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made “extemporaneous partisan remarks” during a speech in her official capacity last year. During the remarks, Sebelius called for the election of the Democratic candidate for governor of North Carolina.



13. Solyndra: 

Republicans charged the Obama administration funded and promoted its poster boy for green energy despite warning signs the company was headed for bankruptcy. The administration also allegedly pressed Solyndra to delay layoff announcements until after the 2010 midterm elections.


14. AKA Lisa Jackson: 

Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used the name “Richard Windsor” when corresponding by email with other government officials, drawing charges she was trying to evade scrutiny.


15. The New Black Panthers: 

The Justice Department was accused of using a racial double standard in failing to pursue a voter intimidation case against Black Panthers who appeared to be menacing voters at a polling place in 2008 in Philadelphia.



16. Waging war all by myself: 

Obama may have violated the Constitution and both the letter and the spirit of the War Powers Resolution by attacking Libya without Congressional approval.


17. Biden bullies the press: 

Vice President Biden’s office has repeatedly interfered with coverage, including forcing a reporter to wait in a closet, making a reporter delete photos, and editing pool reports.


18. AKPD not A-OK: 

The administration paid millions to the former firm of then-White House adviser David Axelrod, AKPD Message and Media, to promote passage of Obamacare. Some questioned whether the firm was hired to help pay Axelrod $2 million AKPD owed him.


19. Sestak, we’ll take care of you:

Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used Bill Clinton as an intermediary to probe whether former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) would accept a prominent, unpaid White House advisory position in exchange for dropping out of the 2010 primary against former Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).


20. I’ll pass my own laws: 

Obama has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce, including the decision not to deport illegal immigrants who may have been allowed to stay in the United States had Congress  passed the “Dream Act.”



I said prominent... Then we have the Jon Corzine MF Global case... 
Romney killed Joe Soptic's wife.. 
Oh...and Barry said Obamacare wasn't a tax and the Supremes said it was..
and it won't cost a dime and you get to keep your own doctor...
and..well you get the drift.







Share/Bookmark

Monday, June 3, 2013

Barry said "come after me" over Benghazi


He got his wish.



November 14, 2012

(If video won't load click post title)


video
Video 31



Rice went on 5 talk shows blaming it on the video which Barry admits was a "request from the WH". Interesting choice of words. Last time I checked the WH itself can't speak.

  So who's in charge at the WH? 

 Presumably someone who lives there told her to lie. How do we know it's a lie? Because nobody and I do mean NOBODY in this administration is currently using the word "video" when it comes to any discussion about Benghazi.  






Share/Bookmark

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Stedman's... "beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse"



Wonder what brought that on?





------------------------------------------------------------------------------










First it was this concerning Rosen after Stedman went through three judges to get a warrant calling Rosen a coconspirator on a case he never planned to prosecute. Why? This in itself sends up a red flag:


Stedman's statement to Congress:

 “That is not something that I’ve ever been involved in or heard of or would think would be a wise policy. In fact my view is quite the opposite.” 


An out and out lie after it was discovered Stedman signed off on it. The Republicans seemed perplexed and are "looking into whether the attorney general lied under oath." What do they need a house to fall on them!!! These are the Contempt of Congress laws as they are written. They seem pretty clear cut to a novice like me. Stedman broke just about every rule there is!


TITLE 18 ; PART 1 CHAPTER 47  § 1001 

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally


(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— 

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; 

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.



I think Boehner said it best. "My question isn't about who is going to resign. My question is who's going to jail over this scandal?" He said this about the IRS. But most certainly this applies to Stedman.

This was not his first brush with the truth. He is the most corrupt AG we have had in the modern era. I could drag a rag through the exhaust pipe of my car and it would come out cleaner then this guy.








Share/Bookmark

Saturday, June 1, 2013

The Benghazi debacle




On a tip from Bob Sweet





Four things we do know about Benghazi:

1.  No one from our government, through a long drawn out battle in Benghazi, so much as lifted a finger to help.

2.  No one has been apprehended for this atrocity.

3.  Everyone knows it wasn't the fuc**** video but strangely enough the guy who shot it is the only one in jail.

4.   Barry was so detached after the killing of  4  Americans approximately 15 hours later he went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. No other president in the modern era whether Republican or Democrat would have done that. 

---------------------------------------------------------


Without a doubt, this is the most lucid and knowledgeable explanation of the Benghazi fiasco that I have yet read. Knowing the players, it also is the most plausible. 







Originally from a retired Navy Captain who lives in Hawaii - The author's explanation and analysis of the Benghazi events seem plausible to me. I believe others will find this of interest (about 2 min. to read).


The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.


Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission. That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation.


No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission.


For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace. On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA.


If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBArules do not apply to them.


How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed. Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them, but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.


When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.


Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella. Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour. But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders.


And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives. The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi.


The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword. We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority.


No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.


When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.


Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joinsPanetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?


General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else.


Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey. We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.






At least in Watergate no one was killed.









Share/Bookmark