The unveiling of the dictatorial debacle that is Obamacare absolutely flabbergasts me. It is stunning on so many levels, but the most shocking aspect of it for me is watching millions of free Americans stand idly by while this man, his minions in Congress and his cheerleaders in the press systematically dismantle our Constitution, steal our money, and crush our freedoms.
The President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (with no small help from Justice John Roberts) take away our health care, and we allow it. They take away our insurance, and we allow it. They take away our doctors, and we allow it. They charge us thousands of dollars more a year, and we allow it. They make legal products illegal, and we allow it. They cripple our businesses, and we allow it. They announce by fiat that we must ignore our most deeply held beliefs – and we allow it.
Where is your spine, America?
Yes, I know people are complaining. I read the news on the internet. I read blogs. I have a Twitter feed. So what? People in the Soviet Union complained. People in Cuba complain. People in China complain (quietly). Complaining isn’t the same thing as doing anything about it. In fact, much of the complaining that we hear sounds like resignation: Wow. This sucks. Oh well, this is the way things are. Too bad.
Perhaps you need reminding of a few important facts. Here goes:
1. The President is not a king
Barack Obama does not behave like a President, an elected official, someone who realizes that he works for us. He behaves like a king, a dictator – someone who believes that his own pronouncements have the force of law, and who thinks he can dispense with the law’s enforcement when he deigns to do so. And those of us who object? How dare we? Racists!
And while he moves steadily “forward” with his plans to “fundamentally transform” the greatest country in human history, he distracts people with cheap, meaningless trivialities, like “free birth control pills”! (In fact, let’s face it: this administration’s odd obsession with sex in general - Birth control! Abortion! Sterilization! Gay guys who play basketball! — is just plain weird. Since when did the leader of the free world care so much about how people have sex, who they have it with, and what meds they use when they have it? Does he have nothing more important to concern himself with?)
2. It isn’t just a failed software program; it is a failed philosophy
People are marveling that Healthcare.gov was such a spectacular failure. Well, if one is only interested in it as a product launch, I’ve explained some of the reasons for that here. But the larger point is that it isn’t a software failure, or even a product failure; it is a philosophy failure.
I have said this before: Obama is not a centrist; he is a central planner. And this – all of it: the disastrous computer program, the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, the lies, the manipulation of public opinion, the theft of the public’s money and property, and freedom (read insurance, and premiums, and doctors) — IS what central planning looks like.
The central premise of central planning is that a handful of wunderkinds with your best interests at heart (yeah, right) know better than you what’s good for you. The failure of such a premise and the misery it causes have been clear from the dawn of humanity. Kings and congressmen, dictators and Dear Leaders, potentates, princes and presidents can all fall prey to the same imperial impulses: “we know what is good for ‘the people.’
And they are always wrong.
There is a reason that the only times communism has really been tried have been after wars, revolutions, or coups d’état. You have to have complete chaos for people to be willing to accept the garbage that centralized planning produces. Take the Soviet Union, for example. After two wars, famine, and the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, why wouldn’t people wait in line for hours to buy size 10 shoes? Or settle for the gray matter that passed for meat in the grocery stores?
But communism’s watered-down cousin, socialism, isn’t much better. Ask the Venezuelans who cannot get toilet paper. Toilet paper. ¡Viva la Revolución!
Contrary to what so many who believe in a “living Constitution” say, the Founding Fathers absolutely understood this. That is why the Constitution was set up to limit government power. (Memo to the President: the drafters of the Constitution deliberately didn’t say “what government had to do on your behalf.”) They understood that that was the path to folly, fear, and famine.)
3. Obama is deceitful
Just as the collapse of the computer program should not surprise anyone, neither should we be shocked that the President lied about his healthcare plan. Have any of you been paying attention over the past few years? Obama has made no secret of his motivations or his methods. The philosophies which inspire him espouse deceit and other vicious tactics. (Don’t take my word for it: read Saul Alinsky.) Obama infamously told reporter Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own bullshit.” He has refused to be forthcoming about his past (where are his academic records?). His own pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told author Ed Klein, that Obama said to him, “You know what your problem is? You have to tell the truth.”
Did Obama lie when he said dozens of times, “If you like you plan, you can keep it”? Of course he did. That’s what he does.
4. The media is responsible
And had the media been doing their jobs, we would have known a lot of this much, much earlier.
The press is charged with the sacred responsibility of protecting the people from the excesses of government. Our press has been complicit, incompetent, or corrupt. Had they vetted this man in 2008, as they would have a Republican candidate, we would have known far more about him than we do, even now. Had they pressed for more details about Obamacare, Congress’ feet would have been held to the fire. Had they done their jobs about Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, NSA spying - or any of the other myriad betrayals of the public trust that this administration has committed, Obama would likely have lost his 2012 reelection campaign. (A fact which even the Washington Post has tacitly acknowledged. Well done, fellas! Happy now?)
Instead, they turned a blind eye, even when they knew he was lying, abusing power, disregarding the limits of the Constitution. It was only when he began to spy on them, and when the lies were so blatant that the lowest of low-information voters could figure it out that they realized they had to report on it. (Even in the face of blatant, deliberate and repeated lies, the New York Times has the audacity to tell us that the President “misspoke.”) They have betrayed us, abandoned us, and deceived us.
5. Ted Cruz was right. So was Sarah Palin.
The computer program is a disaster. The insurance exchanges are a disaster. What’s left? The healthcare system itself. And this, of necessity, will be a disaster, too.
Millions of people have lost their individual insurance plans. In 2015, millions more will lose their employer-provided coverage (a fact which the Obama administration also knew, and admitted elsewhere).
The exorbitant additional costs that Obamacare has foisted on unsuspecting Americans are all part of a plan of wealth confiscation and redistribution. That is bad enough. But it will not end there.
When the numbers of people into the system and the corresponding demand for care vastly exceed the cost projections (and they will, make no mistake), then the rationing will start. Not only choice at that point, but quality and care itself will go down the tubes. And then will come the decisions made by the Independent Payment Advisory Board about what care will be covered (read “paid for”) and what will not.
That’s just a death panel, put politely. In fact, progressives are already greasing the wheels for acceptance of that miserable reality as well. They’re spreading the lie that it will be about the ability of the dying to refuse unwanted or unhelpful care. Don’t fall for that one, either. It will be about the deaths that inevitably result from decisions made by people other than the patients, their families, and their physicians. (Perhaps it’s helpful to think of their assurances this way: “If you like your end-of-life care, you can keep your end-of-life-care.”)
6. We are not SUBJECTS (or, Nice Try, the Tea Party Isn’t Going Away) We have tolerated these incursions into our lives and livelihoods too long already. There is no end to the insatiable demand “progressives” have to remake us in their image. Today it is our insurance, our businesses, our doctors, our health care. Tomorrow some new crusade will be announced that enables them to take over other aspects of our formerly free lives.
I will say it again: WE ARE NOT SUBJECTS. Not only is the Tea Party right on the fiscal issues, but it appears that they are more relevant than ever. We fought a war once to prove we did not want to be the subjects of a king, and the Boston Tea Party was just a taste of the larger conflict to come. If some people missed that lesson in history class, we can give them a refresher.
The 2014 elections are a good place to start. Call your representative, your senator, your candidate and tell them: “We are not subjects. You work for us. And if the word “REPEAL” isn’t front and center in your campaign, we won’t vote for you. Period.”
1. The word comprehensive is a synonym for unread.
2. Sec. 2106 of the bill outsources the job of guiding aliens through the amnesty process from DHS to Democrat front groups. These partisan, activist groups — like La Raza and the SEIU — are certain to utilize the aliens their own (likely illegal) voter registration and absentee ballot schemes to benefit the progressive agenda.
McCaughey says that this particular section of the bill will “be the end of the two party system in America.”
Funding for these groups comes from the American taxpayer. Worse yet, these left wing activitists effectively become a fifth branch of government, performing many of the roles that the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) perform today.
3. Sec. 2531 of the bill sets up a “Citizenship Foundation” run by another bunch of community organizers. This foundation will develop “citizenship preparation” programs to teach American history and civics. Suffice it to say that these new educational materials will teach the progressive agenda and dependence on government; not the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, private property rights and the beauty of the free market system.
4. A TV ad starring Marco Rubio insists that aliens with provisional status will have to support themselves. That’s a lie: Sec. 245C(b) of the bill waives the “public charge” requirement for the unemployed, students, those in job training, those caring for a child, and anyone over 60. Which means no one will be required to support themselves and virtually every alien will be permitted to begin drawing tens of thousands of dollars each year in federal benefits.
5. Finally, many of the bill’s key provisions are described as “emergency legislation”. This is Congress’ method for avoiding its own “Pay As You Go” law (which requires that mandatory spending programs are offset by reductions in other programs or tax increases). Amnesty is anything but an “emergency”.
I’ll put it simply, in terms even Johnny Boehner, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Mitch McConnell can understand: anyone who supports this madness is a traitor to the American citizenry.
A State Department whistleblower has accused high-ranking staff of a massive coverup — including keeping a lid on findings that members of then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s security detail and the Belgian ambassador solicited prostitutes.
A chief investigator for the agency’s inspector general wrote a memo outlining eight cases that were derailed by senior officials, including one instance of interference by Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
Any mention of the cases was removed from an IG report about problems within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which provides protection and investigates crimes involving any State Department workers overseas… “It’s a coverup,” declared Cary Schulman, a lawyer representing the whistleblower, former State Department IG senior investigator Aurelia Fedenisn.“The whole agency is impaired…”
Among the bombshell findings:
* A DS agent was called off a case against US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman over claims that he solicited prostitutes, including minors… Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo… Gutman was a big Democratic donor before taking the post, having raised $500,000 for President Obama’s 2008 campaign and helping finance his inaugural.
* At least seven agents in Clinton’s security detail hired prostitutes while traveling with her in various countries, including Russia and Colombia… Investigators called the use of prostitutes by Clinton’s security agents “endemic.” … According to the memo, members of the Special Investigations Division (SID) approached the agent who was probing “and reportedly told him to shut down the four investigations…”
* The case in which Clinton enforcer Mills allegedly intervened centered upon Brett McGurk, Obama’s nominee to be US ambassador to Iraq… McGurk’s expected nomination fell apart after a computer hack exposed his racy e-mails and an extramarital affair with Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon… According to the memo, the SID “never interviewed McGurk, allegedly because Cheryl Mills from the Secretary’s office interceded…”
* The document states that a security officer stationed in Beirut, Chuck Lisenbee, allegedly engaged in sexual assaults against local guards…
…[The whistleblower], who retired in December, has been threatened by State Department officials with criminal charges.
This is no joke folks. This puts millions of lives at risk. Maybe even US national survival. From Russia Today:
The designs for more than two dozen major weapons systems used by the United States military have fallen into the hands of the Chinese, US Department of Defense officials say.
Blueprints for the Pentagon’s most advanced weaponry, including the Black Hawk helicopter and the brand new Littoral Combat Ship used by the Navy, have all been compromised, the Defense Science Board claims in a new confidential report.
The Washington Post acknowledged late Monday that they have seen a copy of the report and confirmed that the Chinese now have the know-how to emulate some of the Pentagon’s most sophisticated programs.
“This is billions of dollars of combat advantage for China,” a senior military official not authorized to speak on the record told Post reporters. “They’ve just saved themselves 25 years of research and development.”
“It’s nuts,” the source said of the report.
The Defense Science Board, a civilian advisory committee within the Pentagon, fell short of accusing the Chinese of stealing the designs. However, the Post’s report comes on the heels of formal condemnation courtesy of the DoD issued only earlier this month.
“In 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the US government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,” the Defense Department alleged in a previous report.
Ellen Nakashima, the Post reporter who detailed the DSB analysis this week, wrote that the computer systems at the Pentagon may not have necessarily been breached. Instead, rather, she suggested that the defense contractors who built these weapons programs have likely been subjected to a security breach. US officials speaking on condition of anonymity, she reported, said that a closed door meeting last year ended with evidence being presented of major defense contractors suffering from intrusions. When reached for comment, the largest defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman — all refused to weigh in.
Chinese hackers have previously been accused of waging cyberattacks on a number of US entities, including billion-dollar corporations and governmental departments. In 2007 it was reported that China accumulated the blueprints for the Pentagon’s F-35 fighter jets, the most expensive weapons program ever created, but the latest news from the DSB decries that much more has been compromised.
According to the Post, the plans for the advanced Patriot missile system, an Army anti-ballistic program and a number of aircraft have all ended up in the hands of the Chinese. The result could mean the People’s Republic is working towards recreating the hallmarks of America’s military might for their own offensive purposes, while also putting China in a position where even the most advanced weaponry in the world won’t be able to withstand complex defensive capabilities once those projects are reverse engineered.
“If they got into the combat systems, it enables them to understand it to be able to jam it or otherwise disable it,” Winslow T. Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight, told the Post. “If they’ve got into the basic algorithms for the missile and how they behave, somebody better get out a clean piece of paper and start to design all over again.”
Mandiant, a US security firm located outside of Washington, reported earlier this year that China has enlisted an elite squadron of cyber warrior to attack American computer systems and conduct espionage on behalf of the People’s Liberation Army. When the report was released in February, Mandiant said the PLA’s elusive Unit 61398 has successfully compromised the networks of more than 141 companies across 20 major industries, including Coca-Cola and a Canadian utility company. Those hacks reportedly subsided after Mandiant went public with their claims, but earlier this month the firm said those attacks have since been renewed.
“They dialed it back for a little while, though other groups that also wear uniforms didn’t even bother to do that,” CEO Kevin Mandia told the New York Times recently. “I think you have to view this as the new normal.”
On their part, China has adamantly denied all claims that they’ve waged attacks on US networks. Following Mandiant’s initial report, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said the claims were “irresponsible and unprofessional.”
“Hacking attacks are transnational and anonymous,” Hong Lei said. “Determining their origins are extremely difficult. We don’t know how the evidence in this so-called report can be tenable.”
So much for the notion, popular in even some conservative circles, that China would never attack America, because “we owe them too much money.”
China has a huge social time bomb ticking. Millions of young men will never marry, because of the shortage of women caused by the “one child’ policy.
China’s Communist rulers know that those young men could turn on them, at a moments notice.
A war with America, in conjunction with Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Islamic terrorists, would solve two major problems for China.
Firstly it would eliminate millions of troublesome young men. Secondly, the Chinese are confident it would deliver them the best substantial chunk of “living space” on the planet – the Continental United States. Siberia? Or California, Colorado, and the Carolinas? Which would you choose?
If any American seriously doesn’t think China is planning for a major war, please contact me. I own a bridge in New York that you might be interested in buying.
***Soooooo, Russia today is reporting that China has the USA’s military plans? WHERE IS THE US MEDIA??
How many ignored warnings does it take? That is one question that should hang over Britain after the horror of the daytime murder of a British soldier on the streets of south London. On Wednesday afternoon, Drummer Lee Rigby was killed in Woolwich by two men wielding large knives and shouting “Allahu akbar”—God is great.
Islamist have been saying for years they would do this. They have planned to do it. And now they have done it.
The attack itself is not surprising. What is surprising is that British society remains so utterly unwilling not just to deal with this threat, but even to admit its existence. Politicians have called the Woolwich killing “unforgivable” and “barbarous.” But expressions of anger should not really be enough.
Attempts to attack military targets in Britain go back to before the millennium and even before, it is important to note, the war on terror. In 1998 Amer Mirza, a member of the now-banned extremist group al Muhajiroun, attempted to petrol-bomb British army barracks. In 2007, a cell of Muslim men was found guilty of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier in Birmingham. The plan had been to take the soldier to a lock-up garage and cut off his head “like a pig.” They wanted to film this act on camera and send it around the world to cause maximum terror.
In 2009, al Muhajiroun protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British troops returning from Afghanistan. Carrying banners saying “go to hell,” “butchers” and “terrorists,” the group was protected by British police officers from an increasingly irate crowd of locals. The resulting outrage toward the police gave rise to the deeply troubling English Defence League, a street protest movement that often turns violent.
Now comes the attack in Woolwich, which the perpetrators—as with the earlier cell—wished to be observed and even filmed. Reports suggest that they invited people to capture their actions on video. The perpetrators gave interviews, machetes in hand, to bystanders with cameras. This horrific scene is something that will stick in the memory.
But it should also have been foreseen. Instead we entered the stage of denial. For there is already, in the reaction to events, more than a hint of what I have previously termed “Toulouse syndrome.” The term is named after the attacks last year carried out by a jihadist called Mohammed Merah, who killed three French soldiers in a rampage that concluded with the murders of four French Jews at a school in Toulouse.
In the early stages of the attacks, when little was known, there was significant speculation that the culprit was a far-right extremist. At that stage everybody knew what they were going to say. But once the culprit turned out to be an Islamist, the gaze nearly fell away completely. “Nothing to see here, please move on” was the order of the day.
“Toulouse syndrome” also touched Boston last month. After the bombing at the marathon, media and politicians waited, hoping—some even said as much—that the attackers would be tea-party types. Then everybody would know what to say. But when it turned out to be Islamists?
So it is with the Woolwich killing, which British officials have lined up to denounce. Yes it is sickening. Of course it is barbaric. But what of it? Even all these years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, our societies remain unfit for purpose in facing up to—and facing down—Islamic extremism.
Too many still seek refuge in ignorance and denial that was so memorably displayed by U.S. officials after the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. A man who was a member of the American armed forces, Maj. Nidal Hasan, gunned down his colleagues while shouting “Allahu akbar.” On that occasion the American government, like the French government before it and the British government this week, decided to focus on everything about the attack other than what really mattered: the motive. Fort Hood was put down to a case of workplace violence.
There will be many angles to the events in London that must be addressed in the coming days, and we can hope many will receive the appropriate level of public attention. Among them will be one particularly unpleasant irony.
Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain’s “jihad-seekers’ allowance.” As he explained to his followers, “The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir”—a slur for non-Muslims. “Allahu akbar. We take the money.”
After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he’s taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. “It’s irrelevant,” Mr. Choudary replied.
This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own. A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172).
The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.
Mr. Murray is associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank.
Libya: At least a dozen rewrites of the Benghazi talking points were made, with all references to al-Qaida and prior attacks removed at the direction of the secretary of state’s office.
The astonishing thing about the administration’s Benghazi cover-up is that it actually thought it could get away with it. But each lie has been successfully peeled away, from the protest that never happened, to the irrelevant filmmaker who was blamed, to the intelligence community whose talking points were used as a cover for incompetence and malfeasance.
Now White House and State Department emails obtained by ABC News, some first published by the Weekly Standard, show that the intelligence community, led by the CIA, told the truth about terrorist involvement in the Benghazi attacks and prior warnings in its original talking points draft. It was the White House and the State Department that lied and had them altered.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters last Nov. 28. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
What the talking points reflected, after a dozen heavy edits dictated by the State Department, was a sanitized version designed to protect President Obama’s re-election chances and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s prospective candidacy in 2016. They were deliberately altered to eliminate references to terrorism so the whole thing could be blamed on an inflammatory video and no one in the administration could be held responsible.
As ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported, edits included requests from the State Department that references to the al Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
The original CIA talking points contained this paragraph: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including a June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to White House officials and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information, saying it “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Why would a State Department interested in protecting its secretary and its president want to tell the truth? The original CIA draft said “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack.” It specifically named the al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia. Nuland objected, and it was taken out.
In an email dated Sept. 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows — Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
At a meeting Saturday morning, Sept. 15, at the White House, they were. The CIA drafted a final version of the talking points by deleting all references to al-Qaida and to the security warnings in Benghazi before the attack. In that email, Rhodes used the excuse that “we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” Ironically, it was Rice’s recitation of the censored talking points that impeded the FBI investigation and reduced cooperation by insulting the Libyan president. As Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks said during his recent testimony to Congress, Rice contradicted the Libyan president’s Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated.
“President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced,” Hicks said. “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf told CBS News’ “Face The Nation” on Sept. 16 after Rice appeared saying exactly the opposite.
So as we’ve noted, we have Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, trying to intimidate Gregory Hicks from telling the truth that they knew it was a terrorist attack from the “get-go,” that there was no “protest” or mention of one from anyone on the ground and that the infamous YouTube video was “a non-event” in Libya.
And we have Clinton spokesman Victoria Nuland censoring CIA talking points that note terrorist involvement in the attacks and mention prior attacks in an environment full of terrorist training camps.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens was aware of the threat and had warned Benghazi could not be defended after what security they had was withdrawn.
In Stevens’ name, and the names of Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the American people deserve to know the truth. Those responsible for this fiasco and its cover-up must be held accountable.
Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.
[Thus] President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime—possibly resulting in imprisonment—for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)—whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military…
Here’s an idea regarding outrageous bills such as Obamacare and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. Bills so complex and so lengthy that no one, not a single legislator, is able to read or comprehend them before being forced to vote.
This idea builds upon Thomas Jefferson’s suggestion to James Madison: that bills passed by Congress should lay in stasis for at least a year in order to facilitate public review and open debate. I propose: Any bill passed by Congress shall, prior to being signed into law by the President, be published into the Congressional Record. It shall be be open to public discourse and debate for a period no less than a number of days equal to or greater than the number of pages required for publication in the Congressional Record before it may be signed into law.
A bill that requires 2,000 pages should require at least 2,000 days of public review and debate.
My, my, my. Antique media now faces an interesting dilemma: let Fox News capture all of the Nielsen ratings as Benghazi-gate explodes or attempt to cover it and spin. Either way, they lose:
U.S. Had Assets That Could Have Saved U.S. SEALs
BAIER: The administration has insisted there was no help for the Americans under assault in Libya, none that could arrive in time to change the outcome in Benghazi. Tonight is the first of three exclusive reports charging that claim is just not true.
Because the Special Operator in this piece is fearful of reprisal, we have agreed to conceal his identity. Correspondent Adam Housley has the story.
HOUSLEY: Many Americans are asking indeed, I asked myself. How could this happen? In the seven months since the Benghazi attacks on 9/11, information from the administration has been incomplete at best.
Details and time lines provided by the State Department, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies had been contradictory and failed to answer many questions.
In December, a State Department review concluded: There simply was not enough time for U.S. military forces to have made a difference: Having said that, it is not reasonable nor feasible to forces at the ready to respond to protect every high risk post in the world.
But members of the military who are monitoring events in Benghazi disagree.
Only a few dozen people in the world know what happened that night and Fox News spoke exclusively with a Special Operator who watched the events unfold and has debriefed those who are part of the response.
SO: I know for a fact that C-110, the UCOM SIF was doing a training exercise not in the region of northern Africa but in Europe. They had the ability to react and respond.
HOUSLEY: The C-110 is a command in extremis force… a 40-man SPECOPS force capable of rapid response and deployment, specifically trained for incidents like the attack in Benghazi. That night, they were training in croatia just three and a half hours away.
SO: We had the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in four to six hours from their European theater to react.
HOUSLEY: They would have been there before the second attack.
SO: They would have been there before the second attack. They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfill out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop.
And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because the security was unknown situation.
HOUSLEY: No one knew that?
SO: If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum you send forces there to facilitate the exfill or medical injuries.
We could have sent a C-130 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.
HOUSLEY: Our source says many connected to Benghazi feel threatened and are afraid to talk. So far confidential sources have fed some information but nobody has come forward publicly on camera until now.
SO: The problem is, you have got guys, in my position you have got guys in Special Pperations community who are — still active and still involved.
And they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that could effect high level commanders.
HOUSLEY: Despite the concern, our confidential source says the community feels there was a betrayal. All the way to the top. And that people on the ground in Benghazi were left to fend for themselves.
SO: I don’t blame them for not coming forward, you know. It’s something that is a risky, especially in a profession to say anything about anything in the realm of politics or that deals with policy.
HOUSLEY: Our source provides insight into how the U.S. government and military reacted from the moment the attack began through the immediate hours after ambassador Chris Stevens went missing. What they were told to do and what not to do as Stephens, Diplomatic Officer Sean Smith and former Special Operations members Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
SO: There is a lot of responsibility and onus that needs to be taken up and accounted for.
HOUSLEY: The attack began on September 11th, 2012 at a diplomatic compound in Benghazi and culminated roughly seven hours later at a second location, a CIA annex about one mile away.
While the official responses from Washington have been that the assets could not have made it from benghazi in time that killed Woods and Doherty, there were at least two military units that could have made it in time including the one training in Croatia.
SO: Besides those guys who went in on their own, we had two more assets that could have been there. Two more assets that could have been on the ground. It’s frustrating, upsetting especially being in the community. The hardest thing to deal with in any kind of, you know, dangerous scenario or gun fight, is, you know, we always look to each other to help each other and that’s how we get through situations. It’s not about the assets overhead. It’s about the guys on the ground.
HOUSLEY: He also says as the attack began there were at least 15 Special Forces and highly skilled State Department security staff available in the capital Tripoli who were not dispatched even though they were trained as a quick response force.
Meantime, a group of American reinforcements also in Tripoli, which included the CIA’s global response agent Glen Doherty and seven others took matters into their own hands. This is a little known fact which contradicts the State Department’se report. The team commandeered a small jet and flew to Benghazi while still under fire. Doherty would eventually be killed on the roof along with his friend Tyrone Woods.
SO: These men deserve the highest medal of honor for their action. If it wasn’t for that decision we would be looking at different situation. 20-plus hostages… captured by AQ or you would be looking at a lot of dead Americans dead in Benghazi.
HOUSLEY: We have heard some of these same details from a number of our other sources who have not yet come on camera. Some of our British sources on the ground that night confirmed. Tomorrow, more of our exclusive interview including the hunt for those responsible or the lack of a hunt.
Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi-Lawyer
At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
Toensing declined to name her client… However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators considered relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.
“It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said… Federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistle-blowers.” The laws aim to ensure these individuals will not face repercussions from their superiors, or from other quarters, in retaliation for their provision of information about corruption or other forms of wrongdoing to Congress, or to an agency’s inspector-general.
Spread this story far and wide. It’s time to break vintage media’s embargo.
It’s time to drag John Boehner out of the bar, wake him up, and name a Special Prosecutor.
This is impeachment material. Impeachment material.
But — but — but — I thought all who work in government are benevolent public servants? That they’re better than the rest of us? That they’re angels, working for the public good?
Twenty-four current and former Internal Revenue Service employees have been charged with stealing government benefits, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
The IRS employees were indicted on charges that they illegally received more than $250,000 in benefits including unemployment insurance payments, food stamps, welfare, and housing vouchers, the U.S. attorney’s office in Memphis said in a news release.
Prosecutors say 13 of the IRS employees face federal charges of lying about being unemployed while applying for or recertifying their government benefits…
They each face up to five years in prison if convicted of making false statements to receive the benefits.
Eleven others face state charges of theft of property over $1,000, a felony that can carry a sentence of probation up to 12 years in prison if they are convicted.
Now take this fraud, multiply it by a million dollars or so, and you get your typical Senator.
Orr said authorities have video of a man in a black jacket on a cell phone, wearing a gray hoodie and a white baseball cap backwards placing a black bag at the second bomb site outside of the Forum restaurant on Boylston Street and then leaving the area before that explosion.
Two more from 4chan: this pair may match the persons of interest described here:
A federal law enforcement source told Fox News that investigators are looking for two men that are persons of interest in Monday’s Boston Marathon terror attack and have distributed photos for “law enforcement eyes only.”
According to the reporter, one of the men has a backpack that appears to match the bag believed to have been used in the attack. The other man also appears to have a bag of some kind.
It would be a bad idea for Congress to give Attorney General Eric Holder the broadest possible discretion by empowering him to implement the STM background check legislation by regulations “notwithstanding any other provision” of the legislation. Perhaps the courts would say the anti-gun registry provisions prevail over the “notwithstanding” clause and there can be no step toward a gun registry, and perhaps the courts would say the “notwithstanding” clause displaces the anti-gun registry provisions and Attorney General Holder can start toward a gun registry.
The statutory rights of Americans to live free from a federal government registry of everybody who has firearms, what types of firearms they have, and where they have them should not be left to the judicial roulette of liberal judges in some courts and conservative judges in others.
The STM gun control legislation eliminates any HIPAA privacy protection for mental health records in connection with the NICS system, leaving only what privacy protection the Attorney General cares to provide. The STM legislation says that information collected under the law by Attorney General Eric Holder to help him enforce the prohibition on firearms possession by mental defectives or people committed to mental institutions “shall not be subject to [HIPAA]
Congress has made gun laws so complex that even the well-meaning, law-abiding citizen who owns firearms will have a hard time learning about and complying with every firearms law and regulation on the books. It is unreasonable to assume that every person at a gun show will automatically know that it is a crime to transfer a firearm without a necessary background check. The STM bill’s new undercover sting provision is a trap for the innocent.
I am always amazed — amazed — when anyone has the gall to dismiss, even laugh off, the suggestion that the right to keep and bear arms is a smart and necessary provision for a free society. Human history (not to mention current events!) is too chock-full of examples of nefarious regimes violently abusing and controlling their people, and the freedoms enjoyed by American citizens are the exception, not the rule. During a committee hearing of the Oregon state senate in considering their own state package of gun-control legislation last week, one testifier reminded the assembled lawmakers of one of the Second Amendment’s most crucial purposes, and of the real-world consequences of neglecting that purpose.
In 1957 a Revolution … individuals … malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime … a dictatorial regime … in my nation. Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named -ism you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People. The right of the People to wear guns. That is a God-given Right. It’s not given by anybody. It’s not given by any group. It’s the same thing as freedom, which is a God-given Right. And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away. To cease to defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my death.
I’ve been through it. I’ve been there. You people don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it. You haven’t been tortured. You haven’t been [sic] assassinations, you haven’t been mothers begging for the life of their son not to be killed because the only reason is they wanted to be free. And they killed the mothers and they killed the son.
So my way to protest, the way to oppose, because if we keep tangling with the Second Amendment, we are open the same way that Cuba was open for Communism. China, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Venezuela, on and on. A dictatorial regime that will destroy this country, in the same way that it destroyed those ones that I mentioned to you.