Saturday, September 29, 2012

Patriot or Traitor: Peter King Calls for Susan Rice's Resignation - Th...

Patriot or Traitor: Peter King Calls for Susan Rice's Resignation - Th...: Peter King Calls for Susan Rice's Resignation Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who chairs the House Homeland Securi...

Peter King Calls for Susan Rice's Resignation - This calls for one damn bell too short. Impeach the Nigerian now. We can not allow another fours years for this maniac to destroy America.

Peter King Calls for Susan Rice's Resignation

Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has demanded the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in the wake of the Benghazi  attack.

King said on CNN Friday that Rice's explanation on the talk shows was "such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership" and "such a misstatement of facts" that "I believe she should resign."

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney also accused the administration of being dishonest.

Urgent Poll: Romney or Obama to Handle Foreign Crisis? Vote Here!

"I think it's pretty clear that they haven't wanted to level with the American people. We expect candor from the president and transparency," Romney told Fox News this week. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials sought to explain Friday why the Obama administration's understanding of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is "evolving."

Facing a barrage of Republican criticism about what the administration knew and when about the attack, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a statement Friday that laid out how officials came to understand the assault that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. At the same time, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations issued a statement explaining her early descriptions of the attack.

In the days immediately after the attack, the administration said it believed it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad and ignited mob protests on U.S. embassies around the Middle East and in North Africa. Now, the administration has begun to call it a terrorist attack carried out by al-Qaida-linked militants and explain that it was a planned attack distinct from the mob protests in the region.

Republicans have seized on the Obama administration's changing narrative, saying the administration was too slow to label it a terrorist attack because, they said, the White House did not want to admit its policies had failed to defeat al-Qaida, and quell anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

"Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving," DNI spokesman Shawn Turner's statement said.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaida," he said.

At the same time, a spokeswoman for Rice also sought to explain comments that Rice made early in the investigation saying there was no evidence the Benghazi attack was premeditated.

"During her appearances on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16, 2012, Ambassador Rice's comments were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was under way that would provide the definitive accounting of the events that took place in Benghazi," said Erin Pelton, spokeswoman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. "At every turn Ambassador Rice provided — and said she was providing — the best information and the best assessment that the administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community."

Further intelligence may be slow to arrive. The FBI team that arrived in Libya last week to investigate the incident can't get to the scene of the attack because it is too dangerous, according to two law enforcement officials. The officials requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing investigation.

Republicans have seen the Libya attack as an opportunity to attack President Barack Obama on one of his strengths, foreign policy.

Recent intelligence reports indicated a force of more than 50 heavily armed extremists attacked the consulate, using gun trucks for added firepower, and establishing a perimeter to limit access to the compound and catch any Americans who might try to escape. A first wave of attacks set fire to the main building, forcing the Americans to flee to a fallback building a half mile away, where a second group of extremists attacked with mortar fire. Stevens died of apparent smoke inhalation when he was caught inside the main consulate building, becoming separated from the other fleeing diplomats.

Urgent Poll: Romney or Obama to Handle Foreign Crisis? Vote Here!

Intelligence officials have focused their attention on Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan militant group led by a former detainee at the U.S. military-run prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that there has been a "thread of intelligence reporting" about groups in eastern Libya trying to coalesce but no specific threat to the consulate.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Peter King Calls for Susan Rice's Resignation
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Patriot or Traitor: From: Paul Ryan To: ...

Patriot or Traitor: From: Paul Ryan <please-reply@nrcconline.org>
To: ...
: From: Paul Ryan To: CONCERNED CITIZENS Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:29 PM Subject: We need you...
From: Paul Ryan <please-reply@nrcconline.org>
To: Arnold J. Nass & CONCERNED CITIZENS
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:29 PM
Subject: We need you
Arnold,

As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I know all about the Greek-like debt crisis that is headed our way if we do not put our fiscal house in order.

Here's the thing: President Obama knows it too. But he's not willing to fix it…because he doesn't think it's good politics.

My colleagues and I in the House of Representatives have stood up to President Obama and offered solutions to our debt crisis. It's our job to fix problems -- not blame others for them.

We went to Washington to do something -- not to kick the can down the road.

That's why we need your help to keep the House in GOP hands.

Please give $6, $8 or $18 right now to keep control of the House.

It is vital we do this. We can stop President Obama and restore the American Idea with a strong House GOP.

That starts with you right now. Please throw in $8 or $18 today.

Thank you,

Paul Ryan
Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. NRCC.org
Contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee are not tax
deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
National Republican Congressional Committee

320 First Street | Washington, DC 20003 | (202) 479-7000

Patriot or Traitor: Goodbye to DISNEY OWNED ABC TVBy Gaylon Barrow, Se...

Patriot or Traitor: Goodbye to DISNEY OWNED ABC TVBy Gaylon Barrow, Se...: Goodbye to DISNEY OWNED ABC TV By Gaylon Barrow, September 29, 2012 ...

Goodbye to DISNEY OWNED ABC TV

By Gaylon Barrow, September 29, 2012

ABC News Joins Obama
and Bans American Flag Lapel Pins!!!!!
ABC NEWS BANS FLAG LAPEL PINS This is what we get from the present stuff going on in Washington . What next?
Barbara Walters said that this was going to hurt ABC bad.
And she works for ABC.
YESTERDAY THE BRASS AT ABC NEWS ISSUED ORDERS FORBIDDING REPORTERS TO WEAR LAPEL PIN AMERICAN FLAGS OR OTHER PATRIOTIC INSIGNIA. THEIR REASONING WAS THAT ABC SHOULD REMAIN NEUTRAL ABOUT 'CAUSES'.
SINCE WHEN IS PATRIOTISM TO BE DISCOURAGED?
I URGE YOU TO BOYCOTT ABC AND ITS SPONSORS AND AFFILIATES. WE ARE SLOWLY LOSING EVERYTHING OUR COUNTRY STANDS FOR AND EVERYTHING OUR MEN AND WOMEN FOUGHT AND DIED TO PRESERVE!
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY AS YOU CAN.
THIS HAS BEEN VERIFIED THROUGH:





Patriot or Traitor: Santorum: Obama Won't Prevent Iran From Going Nucl...

Patriot or Traitor: Santorum: Obama Won't Prevent Iran From Going Nucl...: Santorum: Obama Won't Prevent Iran From Going Nuclear Former GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum charges that President Obama's refusal...
Santorum: Obama Won't Prevent Iran From Going Nuclear
Former GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum charges that President Obama's refusal to take effective action against Iran allows the Islamic Republic to ignore the U.S. and pursue its nuclear weapons agenda. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Santorum says Obama's disastrous foreign policy of "negotiating with radical Islam" endangers both Israel and America. He also asserts that Mitt Romney will prevail in getting his message past "a mainstream media that is doing its best to carry President Obama’s water.”

Friday, September 28, 2012

Patriot or Traitor: Summary of OBAMA's GIANT Giveaway of 8 American Al...

Patriot or Traitor: Summary of OBAMA's GIANT Giveaway of 8 American Al...: WILL YOU STILL VOTE FOR THIS BUFFOON NOW! By Gaylon Barrow, September 28, 2012 The giveaway of 8 American Alaskan...

Summary of OBAMA's GIANT Giveaway of 8 American Alaskan Islands to the Russian Government.

WILL YOU STILL VOTE FOR THIS BUFFOON NOW!

By Gaylon Barrow, September 28, 2012

     The giveaway of 8 American Alaskan islands and vast resource-rich seabeds to the Russians is
underway by the U.S. State Department in the guise of an agreement on a maritime boundary
between Alaska and Siberia.
     In the mid-1970s countries adopted the concept of exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and
fishery conservation zones extending 200 nautical miles from their coastlines.  If two countries
are within 400 miles of each other, they need to negotiate a division of the seabeds by a
"maritime boundary".  It is usually some variation of an equidistant line between the two
coastlines.  For the U.S. this has been necessary vis-a-vis Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Russia,
among others.
     The seabeds between Alaska and Siberia are enormous:  hundreds of thousands of square
miles.  The distance between the two countries at the Bering Strait is less than three miles
between Little Diomede Island (U.S./Alaska) and Big Diomede Island (Russia).

     The State Department with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at the end of the
Ford Administration unilaterally proposed to the Soviets in January 1977 an unfortunately
concessionary maritime boundary line.  It was based on part of a line described in the 1867
treaty between the U.S. and Russia. [See 1867 Treaty.]  Generally this part of the line starts
midway between Attu Island and Copper Island in the Aleutian Island, proceeds northeast
for about 1000 miles to a midpoint between Little Diomede Island and Big Diomede Island,
and then turns due north into the Arctic Ocean.
     The problem is that this line places on the Russian side 8 American Alaskan islands along
with their 200-mile seabeds.  It amounts to a giveaway of not only the land territory, but also
hundreds of thousands of square miles of seabeds to the Russians.  (See shaded area of map
below.)  There is no quid pro quo for the American public or for the State of Alaska.  These
seabeds are rich in oil, gas, fisheries, and other resources worth billions of dollars.  The oil
and gas potential is measured in the billions of barrels.  The fisheries are in the hundreds of
millions of pounds per year, reflecting that Alaska is the number one fishing state in the nation.
The strategic military significance can been seen in their location in any flight path of missiles
from the Asian mainland toward North America, and in their advantageous positions for
strategic defense initiative (SDI) installations.
     In 1977 the Soviets eagerly accepted the concept of the proposed maritime boundary line,
but no formal agreement was reached until 1990.  At least 10 rounds of secret negotiations
occurred through the Carter, Reagan, and Bush Administrations with no public, Congressional,
or State of Alaska input sought by the State Department.  According to State Department
documents, for 13 years the Soviets were demanding even more seabeds along the Bering
Sea part of the line.  The Soviets wanted to draw the line as a "rhumb line", that is, a straight
line between the two end points on a flat mercator projection map, rather than an "arc of a
great circle", which is the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. The "rhumb line"
version would give the Soviets another 50,000 square miles of seabeds along the 1000-mile
length.  Eventually, a compromise line was adopted in 1990.  It also created unprecedented
"Special Eastern Areas" and "Special Western Areas", which allowed each government to
exercise sovereignty on the other's side of the maritime boundary line.  At no time did the
State Department demand to keep the 8 American Alaskan islands and resource-rich
seabeds from the Soviets/Russians..
The 8 American Alaskan Islands
     The eight American Alaskan islands include five in the Arctic Ocean and three in the
Bering Sea.  The history of the five Arctic islands present heroic achievements of American
exploration in the Arctic.  They could not have been acquired from the Russians in 1867,
inasmuch as the Russians had not even discovered or claimed them.   The three in the
Bering Sea were acquired under the 1867 treaty.
     Wrangell Island:  At 3,000 square miles, it is by far the largest of the five (equal to
Rhode Island and Delaware together).  It was first landed on and formally taken into
U. S. possession on August 12, 1881, by direction of Captain Calvin Leighton Hooper
aboard U. S. Revenue Marine (Coast Guard) ship Thomas Corwin.  Among the landing
party going ashore onto Wrangell was the famed explorer John Muir.  He wrote about
his "notable addition...to the national domain" in his book "The Cruise of the Corwin".
[See excerpts from Muir's Book.]  In September 1881 USS Rodgers conducted an
extensive survey of the island under Navy Lieutenant Robert M. Berry.  Wrangell was
named in honor of the Baltic Baron Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell, who had
conducted Arctic forays but never sighted nor landed on the island.  (Note:  Another
Wrangell Island exists near Juneau. It is not involved in this issue.)
     Bennett, Jeannette, and Henrietta Islands:  Known together as the DeLong
Islands, they were discovered and taken into U. S. possession during the famous
expedition led by U. S. Navy Lieutenant George Washington DeLong in 1879-81
aboard USS Jeannette.  Co-sponsored by the noted New York City Herald publisher
James Gordon Bennett, this brave expedition is memorialized in a major monument at
the U. S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.  The crew received Congressional medals.
The book "Icebound" by Leonard Guttridge, published by the Naval Institute Press,
gives a thorough and gripping account.  [See "Icebound" book.]  The three islands
were named after the newspaper publisher, his sister Jeannette, and mother Henrietta.
     Herald Island:  It was taken over by the U.S. in the late 1800s when the British
abandoned it.  It had been named after the British ship HMS Herald.
     Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock, and Sea Otter Rock:  These islands in the Bering
Sea were acquired in 1867 from Russia.  The treaty's Article I language states, "...to the
meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude [167 east], so as to
include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian."
That meridian runs between Copper and Bering Islands at the westernmost end of the
Aleutian islands. [See 1867 Treaty.]
Political Battle over Maritime Boundary Agreement
     The entire 10 rounds of negotiations from 1977 to 1990 have been kept completely
secret from the American public, even though the establishment of a boundary between
the two superpowers of the Cold War warranted front page treatment.  The State
Department continues to today to refuse to reveal the names of the negotiators, the dates
and locations of the negotiating sessions, and the actual records of the negotiations.
     STATE DEPARTMENT WATCH discovered the existence of the negotiations in
1984.  It began a public campaign of opposition both to the immense giveaway involved,
and to the power of the State Department to adopt such a maritime boundary as an
executive agreement and not as a treaty.  The State Department never notified the United
States Senate that it was negotiating over something that might result in a treaty, as
required by law.  Treaties require Senate review, and in this case would require House
of Representatives implementation review because it disposes of U.S. government property.
The State of Alaska was ignored.  STATE DEPARTMENT WATCH aided the Alaska
Legislature in passing several resolutions protesting the giveaway.  In particular they challenged
the unconstitutional denial of the state government's right to participate in the negotiations and
to consent to the terms that affect the state's territory, property, and sovereignty.  This right
was firmly established by Secretary of State Daniel Webster in 1842 in the negotiations
between the U. S. and Great Britain over establishing the boundary between Maine and
what is now Canada, which was formalized in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty.
[SeeWebster-Ashburton Treaty.]

     At least 50,000 protest letters from the public were delivered to the State
Department. Numerous nationwide and local groups passed resolutions of opposition.
[See Organization Resolutions.] The California Legislature supported Alaska's position.
[See Resolutions of Alaska and CaliforniaLegislatures.]  No nationwide or Alaska groups
supported the proposed maritime boundary agreement.
     On June 1, 1990, while Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met with President
George Bush in Washington, a "U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Agreement"  was signed
by Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze.
It was presented to the public as a proposed treaty.  It adopted a boundary line with the
8 American Alaskan islands on the Russian side. [See Proposed Treaty.]
      Unbeknownst to either the public, Alaska, or Congress, Baker and Shevardnadze
also signed on June 1, 1990, an executive agreement that stated "...pending the entry into
force of that [Maritime Boundary treaty] Agreement, the two Governments agree to abide by
the terms of that Agreement as of June 15, 1990."  In other words, regardless of whether the
proposed treaty were ever ratified by both parties and then entered into force, the exact same
maritime boundary line would go into effect immediately without any review by the public,
Alaska, or Congress.  Somehow the State Department was asserting that an executive
agreement could accomplish the exact same thing that would legally require a treaty.
[See 1990 Executive Agreement.]
      The State Department continued the deception through the hearing on the proposed
treaty at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee presided over by Senator Joseph Biden Jr.
on  June 13, 1991. It completely failed to mention the existence of the executive agreement.
STATE DEPARTMENT WATCH was the only group allowed to testify against the proposed
treaty at the hearing.  The existence of the executive agreement did not show up in the President's
Transmittal to Congress, the Committee Report, or the debate on the Senate floor where it
passed on September 26, 1991.  The proposed treaty has never been ratified by the
Soviet/Russian side, and thus has not "entered into force" to this day.
     An important distinction between a treaty and an executive agreement is that a
treaty is the supreme law of the land (over all state law too), while an executive agreement is
not superior to any conflicting state law.  An executive agreement can be rescinded by either side.
     In March 1997 the Russian Duma (legislature) voted overwhelmingly to void the
executive agreement, demanding more fishing area in the Bering Sea equal to 300 million
pounds of fish to be taken from American fishing fleets. The Russian president has not voided
the executive agreement as yet.  In response to the Russian initiative, the State Department
has actively conducted secret negotiations with the Russians over these concessions.
[See News Articles on Russian Demands.]
     In the State Department Secretary of State Colin Powell has overall control of
this giveaway policy.  It is implemented by the Legal Adviser William H. Taft IV, the
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs A. Elizabeth Jones, and the Assistant
Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental Scientific Affairs John F. Turner.
On May 20, 2003, due to the national publicity on the giveaway, the Bureau of European
and Eurasian Affairs posted on the State Department's website "Fact Sheet" on "Status
of Wrangel [sic] and Other Arctic Islands." [Wrangell Island is spelled with two l's.]  It
contained at least four major errors.  [See "Fact Sheet".]
     It is the opinion of STATE DEPARTMENT WATCH that the State Department's
stance is in obvious opposition to the American public interest and that the giveaway of
American/Alaska territory and vast resource-rich seabeds is a new form of unlegislated
"foreign aid".  The public does not receive any identifiable quid pro quo.
Recommended Corrective Actions 
     1.  Congress should pass legislation memorializing the policy that maritime
boundaries can be established only by treaty, and that if a maritime boundary affects a
state's territory, sovereignty, jurisdiction, or property interests, then the state must
participate in the negotiations and consent to the terms that affect the state.

     2.  Congress should hold hearings to require the State Department to reveal
(a) any and all actions, directives, and personnel involved in implementing its maritime
boundary executive agreement, and (b) any actions, directives, and personnel involved in
recognizing Russian control or sovereignty over Wrangell, Herald, Bennett, Jeannette,
Henrietta, or Copper Islands or Sea Otter Rock or Sea Lion Rock.

     3.   The State Department should expand on the "Fact Sheet" on "Status of
Wrangell [sic] and Other Arctic Islands" to prove its assertions, and to revise its shortcomings.

     4.  The State of Alaska should sue the federal government to enforce its rights.

     5.  All other states should express their support for the State of Alaska.  If the State
Department is allowed to give away part of a state to a foreign power and to establish a
boundary between that state and a foreign country without that state's participation or consent,
then all states are in peril of losing their important federal status.

     6.  The Department of the Interior should evaluate the oil, gas, and other mineral
potential, and the Department of Commerce should evaluate the fishery potential for the
seabeds in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean under consideration, so that the value to the
American public can play an appropriate place in negotiations with the Russians.

     7.  The Department of State should renounce the executive agreement that Secretary
of State James A. Baker III signed.  It should renegotiate a maritime boundary which reflects
that the American bargaining position that has improved substantially since 1990 vis-a-vis
the Russian government.
     8.  The Senate should renounce any vote on the proposed treaty, inasmuch as it
was not given a full and candid presentation by the State Department and was never informed
by the State Department from 1977-1990 of the negotiations so that Senate could exercise
its "advice" authority under the "advice and consent" clause of the Constitution.
     9.  Prosecutions should commence against all officials who have participated in
this giveaway, including all civil and criminal offenses of state and federal law.

Obama’s Giveaway: Oil-Rich Islands To Russia


barack obama96438 300x222 Obamas Giveaway: Oil Rich Islands To Russia
The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.
Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.
The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.
Read more at World Net Daily.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Patriot or Traitor: HILLARY, BETTER SUITED TO MEET MIDDLE EAST LEADERS...

Patriot or Traitor: HILLARY, BETTER SUITED TO MEET MIDDLE EAST LEADERS...: By Gaylon Barrow, September 25, 2012 President Barack Obama has not planned a single meeting with foreign leaders who are visiting New Y...

HILLARY, BETTER SUITED TO MEET MIDDLE EAST LEADERS, OBAMA SAYS.


By Gaylon Barrow, September 25, 2012

President Barack Obama has not planned a single meeting with foreign leaders who are visiting New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly.

He has already received criticism for failing to make time in his election campaign schedule to meet Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but now it is clear he will not meet any of the other world leaders who are descending on the Big Apple for the annual event.

Now Obama is being slammed from both the right and the left for finding time to meet with the ladies of television’s “The View” but not with Britain’s David Cameron, Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi, France’s Francois Hollande, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai or any of the 120 leaders in town.

Reuters described it as a trip with “Whoopi but no Bibi” referring to The View’s Whoopi Goldberg and Israel’s Netanyahu. The news service pointed out that foreign policy — especially a possible Israel strike on Iran in the next few weeks — “poses a greater risk to Obama's prospects for a second term,” than any other issue.

Campaigning needs seem to be the only reason for Obama’s decision to forego one-on-one meetings. Last year he scheduled a dozen.

“There really isn't a full explanation that's been forthcoming other than the president has a busy schedule,” ABC News’ Jake Tapper said on Fox News’ On the Record.

Republican rival Mitt Romney was quick to attack Obama for failing to meet other world leaders, especially those from Israel and Arab nations. "We want a president who will shape events in the Middle East," he said.

Romney hit out at Obama’s comment on Sunday night’s “60 Minutes” that recent events in the Middle East have been little more than “bumps in the road.”

“The world looks at the events going on," Romney said at a campaign event Monday in Pueblo, Colo. "They don't see these events as bumps in the road. These are lives. This is humanity. This is freedom."

Obama addressed the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, but that was likely to be the full extent of his participation, as he left bilateral meetings to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This was no mistake, and most likely the most correct movement Obama has ever made. Hillary should have been President and Obama somewhere in the slums of Chicago. It appears he wishes this upon America.

Time magazine said, “Blink and you may miss President Barack Obama’s appearance at the annual U.N. General Assembly this week. The President plans to make the briefest visit by a U.S. President in recent memory.” Unfortunately the President made this visit but in his address mentioned nothing about the recent happenings in the Middle East. It is, as if he ignores them maybe they'll go away.

“President Obama’s display of indifference to the most basic function of his job—national security—would at least under this Administration have been absolutely unimaginable,” wrote Helle Dale on The Heritage Network blog, The Foundry.

“But even for a celebrity-hound like Obama, the contrast between the severity of the crisis facing the nation and the president’s set of priorities is beyond belief.”

Even George Soros' owned MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said the  move was “odd” and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called Obama's schedule a “missed opportunity.”

On MSNBC, Todd noted the president “won’t have a single one-on-one meeting with a world leader on his schedule. Not anybody.”

“The White House also argues that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the spokeswoman who mistakenly stated, "mob violence was what killed Ambassador Stevens in Libya", will hold meetings,” Todd said, according to Politico, after airing a clip of Fox News’s Chris Wallace pressing Obama's campaign adviser Robert Gibbs about the president's schedule. “But folks it is odd to have a president come to the United Nations and not have any bilateral's. Granted it is a campaign year, but still odd considering what’s going on in the Middle East.” Also a blunder in the fact that on the View, President Obama made no admittance that the murder of Stevens was a Terrorist attack. His words, "We're still looking into it." Looking into it? and he still has time not to meet with foreign leaders? but can set on the View's couch and joke with his wife Michelle, Barbara, Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg. What a fine mess this country is in.

Blitzer, meanwhile, told CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield that appearing on "The View" was determined by the president's campaign to be "an important thing for the president to do only six weeks before an election. Same reason why Mitt Romney the other day went on Kelly Ripa’s show.”What does Mitt Romney have to do with a sitting President's responsibilities? This kind of action is what we have endured for four years. A do nothing President, but he is a man of change. WHAT ALARMS ME IS WHAT KIND OF CHANGE DOES HE WISH?

To skip bilateral meetings may be a mistake, no matter what the change is, he wishes.

“I do think that there potentially is a missed opportunity this week for the President of the United States to meet with some world leaders, but he’s made the decision that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with those world leaders, not him” Blitzer said.

When asked on Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama would run into leaders at a reception and continues to stay in touch with them by phone. Don't count on this happening.

Carney stressed that Obama had had lengthy phone conversations with the leaders of Egypt, Libya and Yemen over unrest in the Middle East. But he could give no time, date or where these conversations took place. Definitely no contact has been made with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

During Tuesday’s address to the General Assembly, Obama said the time for diplomacy was running out when it came to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Can you guess what his intentions will be? No one else can, certainly not Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” he said. (WOW! No Joke),“It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” If Obama is serious, then why does he plan on making, if reelected the largest Defense cuts ever. These cut are to be implemented upon the Department of Defense, in February 2013. They are at present not able to repair or do maintenance on mechanical equipment. Soldiers are not readily being replaced as arbitration takes place. With Obama given time, such as four more years, we will have the weakest military prior to WWI.

On the attacks on American embassies and the killing of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Obama said, “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.”

Can you name one President who would say this without taking action of some kind. Even if it were to be taking away all aid to the Middle East.

Can you remember the downed Drone a few months ago in Iran? Senator McCain was all askew for no action taken from Obama to destroy this fantastic American weapon. Well now Iran has workable Drones flying over Israel. Thanks a lot Obama.


Monday, September 24, 2012

Patriot or Traitor: DID YOU WONDER WHY THE GOVERMENT PURCHASED BILLION...

Patriot or Traitor: DID YOU WONDER WHY THE GOVERMENT PURCHASED BILLION...: OPINION ALERT EVERYBODY HAD BETTER LISTEN TO GLENN BECK WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 AT 8:00pm AND  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 20...

DID YOU WONDER WHY THE GOVERMENT PURCHASED BILLIONS OF ROUNDS OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS.!

OPINION ALERT

EVERYBODY HAD BETTER LISTEN TO GLENN BECK

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 AT 8:00pm
AND
 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 AT 8:00pm

GLENN BECK WILL PRESENT TO THE CITIZENS OF
AMERICA A VERY SERIOUS THREAT.

ONE E-MAIL HAS OBAMA MEETING WITH A REPRESENTATIVE 
OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.

ANOTHER E-MAIL HAS THE OBAMA FAMILY LEAVING FOR 
HAWAII BEFORE THE ELECTION AND BUYING
A HOUSE THERE TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE.

COULD IT  BE THE BROTHERHOOD HAD THE ELECTION IN THE
BAG NO MATTER WHO WON
AND

 THEY ARE IN POSSESSION OF ALL THOSE SOFT NOSE BULLETS 
OBAMA HAD ORDERED?

IF SO, DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE MILITARY CAN ACT WITHOUT A
 COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
 OR 

WITH OR WITHOUT THE MILITIA, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS
AND REPEL INVASIONS? 

THE MILITIA CAN ACT BY CALL OF THE STATES GOVERNORS BUT
THEY HAVE LIMITED AMMUNITION.

FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW, OBAMA HAS SECRETLY
ORDERED MANY OF  HIS OFFICES THROUGH HIS CZARS SUCH AS, 
HOMELAND SECURITY, SOCIAL SECURITY,
 EPA, OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICES
 THAT 

REQUIRE SECURITY GUARDS TO ORDER THE AMMUNITION 
TO JUSTIFY THEIR PURCHASING. 

THEY WERE TO ORDER HOLLOW POINT ROUNDS. BULLETS  
THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLAWED SINCE WWI. THIS TYPE 
AMMUNITION DOES CONSIDERBLE DAMAGE TO THE HUMAN 
BODY BECAUSE IT EXPLODES ON IMPACT. 

HIS AUTHORITY WAS FOR 
A FICTICIOUS 
EXPECTED CIVIL UNREST.

OVER BILLIONS OF ROUNDS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY
 THESE DEPARTMENTS.
 THAT 

ARE NOW IN THE HANDS 
OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICA. IT MAKES 
ONE WONDER IS THIS WHERE ALL THE MISSING
FAST AND FURIOUS WEAPONS ARE ALSO LOCATED.

"LISTEN LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT. FOR IT DOES.'
 

Patriot or Traitor: Monday, 24 Sep 2012 06:42 PM ...

Patriot or Traitor: Monday, 24 Sep 2012 06:42 PM ...: Monday, 24 Sep 2012 06:42 PM By Christopher Ruddy ...

Monday, 24 Sep 2012 06:42 PM

By Christopher Ruddy
Christopher Ruddy’s Perspective: What a day!

I took a look at Real Clear Politics and saw Obama
now dominating every swing state with wide margins. He's even opened
clear leads in North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada!

Is there a silver lining here?

Can Mitt Romney still win come election day?

The answer is YES and YES.

When one looks at the national tracking polls like Gallup, AP and Rasmussen, Romney and Obama remain in a statistical tie. The national race is a dead heat.

The good news for Republicans is that Barack Obama is very unpopular. Four years into his presidency, Americans know he has failed in his promise. They want change. They don't trust his new promises. Obama can be defeated. But first they need to trust Mitt Romney.

But the state polls demonstrate how woeful Mitt Romney's campaign has been run. Obama is beating Romney in these key states simply because he's running a better, more hard-hitting campaign.

With just over a month to go, here's some game-changing ideas for Romney:

1. Go Negative. Really. GOP consultants are all abuzz about how "negative ads aren't working" and that "people on the street" ads are. Baloney. Having a front row seat in battleground Florida, Obama and his allies have been bombarding Romney for months with highly effective negative ads and the state tracking polls show they do work!

Romney's camp response to Obama has been tepid. For example, they are actually running a 30-second ad blaming Obama for the housing and foreclosure crisis that concludes by asserting Romney will create 700,000 new jobs.

Voters aren't stupid. They know Obama didn't create the housing crisis. And voters are skeptical of a job promise like that.

2. Stop 'splainin.' Ricky Ricardo had the right idea, no need to start 'splainin' everything. Romney feels otherwise. Every media allegation needs to be answered. The major media wants to talk about a tape in Boca, he should be talking about jobs in Canton — the real issues affecting real Americans.

3. National addresses. I spoke with Mike Reagan this week and we were commiserating about the state of the campaign.

Mike noted that his dad, regularly accused of being a "cowboy" and all sorts of nasty things, ignored the flack. Instead, he bought air time in the 1980 campaign to give speeches in half-hour televised national addresses.

As Mike noted, he not only bypassed the liberal media, these addresses made Ronald Reagan appear presidential. They answered a key complaint, that Reagan was an empty suit. (Sound familiar?)

How about Mitt? He could do one nationally televised address each week for four weeks before election day on a key topic, giving specifics on how he will fix the problem?

How about one on energy and gasoline prices? Romney could expose how Obama gave us $4-a-gallon gasoline by debasing the U.S. currency and failing to develop our domestic resources, while offering his own plan for $2-a-gallon gasoline.

Other addresses could be on jobs and the economy, healthcare, foreign policy, and even an issue like immigration. The immigration one is important because Romney has a huge problem with Hispanics.

These addresses could serve as a powerful refocus as Romney makes Obama the issue again, while offering concrete ideas on how Mitt Romney will put America on the right track.

Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc. Read more Christopher Ruddy Insider articles — Click Here Now.

Read more on Newsmax.com: In Big Trouble, Romney Can Still Win
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Patriot or Traitor: Dems Welcome Muslims, Prohibit Christian Hospitali...

Patriot or Traitor: Dems Welcome Muslims, Prohibit Christian Hospitali...: By Gaylon Barrow September 24, 2012 CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (9/11/12) When the DNC came to Charlotte, area churches, 100 of them, offered...

Dems Welcome Muslims, Prohibit Christian Hospitality in Charlotte

By Gaylon Barrow September 24, 2012

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (9/11/12)

When the DNC came to Charlotte, area churches, 100 of them, offered hospitality, not knowing how much the Dems hate God and would actually boo God at the convention. They had no idea how that hatred would be directed at them and the churches.

The Sunday before the DNC, over 9000 people had come together to pray for the convention. Then, wanting to extend hospitality to the visitors to their city, 56 of the churches set out “Adopt-a-Delegation.

They put together gift baskets featuring Carolina Pralines and a letter welcoming them to the city and offering assistance in transportation,childcare or spiritual matters.

According to writer, Todd Starnes, The DNC banned the churches from distributing the gift baskets to delegates because, DNC said, the congregations hold values that are contrary to the party platform.

Read that carefully.

David Benham, one of the organizers of the outreach said, “We were just trying to display Southern hospitality.” DNC officials, however, conveyed to city leaders that the Christians would not be allowed to present their gift baskets.

Even the Charlotte Mayor’s office jumped in to tell the churches not to participate, saying that their views on women’s rights are contrary to the platform. That’s right….the same platform that booed God later.

Benham then asked if they could send welcome letters to the delegates. Again, the DNC refused, because, they said, “The churches hold pro-life values.”The baskets did not contain a single political or pro-life message. They just wanted to give them regional candles and a welcome letter. The DNC refused to return numerous phone calls seeking comment.

But it gets worse. When a gathering of 200 Muslims showed up to pray for the convention, the Dems welcomed them with open arms and the liberal media gave extensive national coverage.

It is ironic that this day, in the shadow of that Islamic prayer event, we commemorate the greatest tragedy in American History, when Muslims attacked America on September 11, 2001, brutally killing thousands. Of innocent people.

Muslims who publicly state their hatred of our country with fierce determination to kill us all and put America under Sharia Law, are welcomed by the Democratic Party while Christians are pushed out of sight like criminals because they respect life and hold family values.

These are the same democrats who want you to vote them into office to direct the United States of America and every life from beginning to end. It is obvious that we must not let this happen.

Our thanks to Rev. Ed Berkey (retired) who alerted us to this story.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

ATTN: ALL VOTERS OF AMERICA

N  O  T  I  C  E
IF YOU ARE A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND VIRTUOUS CITIZEN OF THE
 UNITED STATES.
WITH
RESPECT FOR AND PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
RESPECT FOR AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE 
LAND.
 AND
RESPECT FOR AND ENFORCEMENT OF AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 3 
 AS VALID TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AS PART OF THIS 
CONSTITUTION
“No person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who having previously taken an oath as an 
officer of the United States to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection 
or rebellion against the same”
AND
 AGREE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS NOT ONLY BETRAYED HIS
 TRUST IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING FAILURE TO TAKE CARE 
THAT THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
AND
COULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR AND CONVICTION OF TREASON
EXCEPT THAT
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 DEFINES TREASON AS SOMETHING
 OTHER THAN BETRAYAL OF A TRUST
BUT
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE RE-ELECTED AS
 PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE HAS
ENGAGED IN REBELLION AGAINST THE CONGRESS AND THE
 CONSTITUTION  IN MANY WAYS DESIGNED TO REDUCE WE THE
 PEOPLE UNDER ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM
THEREFORE
HE SHOULD NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT FOR THIS ELECTION
AND
WE THE PEOPLE, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN BOTH
  POLITICAL PARTIES, ARE HEREBY DEMANDING THAT THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, OR THE GOVERNORS OF THE SEVERAL 
 SOVEREIGN STATES, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THEIR STATE 
LEGISLATURES, REMOVE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NAME FROM THE 
 BALLOT PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 3 ABOVE
AND
IF THEY DO NOT, THEN ALL VOTES FOR OBAMA SHOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT
UNLESS
CONGRESS, BY A VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF EACH HOUSE,
  REMOVED SUCH DISABILITY.




DECISION TIME AMENDED

WHAT YOU PERMIT – YOU PROMOTE

YOU ONLY HAVE THE RIGHTS YOU ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR.

THOSE WHO TRADE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY HAVE NEITHER:
JOHN ADAMS

NO 1
Continue trying to control spending.
It will not happen

NO 2
Regulate use of capital assets and repeal distribution of income tax to control spending.
It is not likely to happen

NO 3
A bloody revolution could happen at any time now.

NO 4
Vote Obama out of office in 2011.
Impossible

Unless you are willing to fight them on their terms
Chicago (extortion) politics

NO 5
Who has the best organization and the most money?
George (Schwartz) Soros

Who has control of the Federal Reserve?
Obama
He is chairman of the Board of Directors

Who has the most dependent voters?
Obama

TO KEEP ON WAITING IS MADNESS
THE CATASTROPHE IS NOT COMING, IT IS HERE.
WE ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE COLLAPSE OF OUR CIVILIZATION

ALL PREVIOUS DEMOCRACIES HAVE
COMMITTED SUICIDE
AND
THE UNITED STATES IS DOING THE SAME

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4

THE UNITED STATES SHALL GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE IN THIS UNION A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

IF THE WORD GUARANTEE MEANS ANYTHING, ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE FAILED TO HONOR THEIR COMMITMENTS TO EVERY STATE IN THE UNION. THEREFORE ALL OF THEIR POWERS HAVE IPSO FACTO REPOSED TO THE STATES.

AND

ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 3

THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE-MENTIONED, AND MEMBERS OF THE SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES, AND ALL EXECUTIVES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, BOTH OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION.


WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?

THE GOVERNORS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES ARE THE SOVEREIGNTY IN OUR STEAD AND AS SUCH THEY HAVE THE POWER TO ACT SUBJECT ONLY TO THE POWERS THEY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION, AS LEGALLY AMENDED, SO LONG AS
  IT SUPPORTED AND PROTECTED THE CONSTITUTION.


WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE RIGHTFUL
 MASTERS OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE COURTS, NOT TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTION BUT TO OVERTHROW THE MEN WHO PERVERT THE CONSTITUTION.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN

THEREFORE

WE NEED THOSE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURES TO PUT THEIR HONOR BEFORE FEAR, PARTY LOYALTY, AND PERSONAL AMBITIONS


ARNOLD J. NASS,                      TYLER, TEXAS                                   903/534-0744