Activist James Kaleda was giving testimony when state legislators did not agree with what he was stating and claimed that Mr. Kaleda was “Out of Order”, requesting that he be forcefully removed from the hearing on a new gun control bill in NJ.
Mr. Kaleda receives a standing ovation from the spectators as he is removed by NJ state troopers.
Everyone is entitled under the 1st Amendment to express criticism of the government but when Big Brother doesn’t like what you have to say, the Constitution is thrown out the window.
Mike Kelly carried the frustration of Conservative America on his shoulders today as he grilled outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. Though his line of questions seemed like more of a “venting” session, someone in the House needed to do a little venting for Conservative Americans today.
Right-wing Americans are sick and tired of being made out to be second class citizens because we believe in the principles on which this country was built. Those of us who have ever dealt with the IRS, and felt that we were wronged, would view Kelly’s rant as mild but it’s a start. Kudos to Mike Kelly.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., seemed to capture the angst against the agency toward the end of the hour-long hearing, as he described the ways its agents are capable of ruining lives.
“You can put anybody out of business that you want. … When the IRS comes in there, you’re not allowed to be shoddy,” he said, suggesting the agency’s leadership was being held to a different standard now that it is coming under scrutiny.
“This is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all Americans,” he said.
When he finished, the committee room erupted in cheers and applause that lasted several seconds.
The hearing, though, was more than just venting.
While Democrats voiced concern that the latest scandal would be used to score “political points,” lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scolded the agency. And they made clear they’d be pressuring the IRS in the weeks to come on several points – namely, who was responsible and whether lawmakers were overtly lied to last year.
In a related story, Representative Kelly also released a statement today to inquire if “Auto Dealership Closures” were also political. The letter was co-signed by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH) and Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA). Here is Kelly’s statement with a link to the letter he co-signed:
The IRS’s now-confirmed targeting of conservative groups is a frightening reminder that no branch or department of the federal government is immune from overstepping legal and ethical boundaries. Oftentimes holding government accountable means having to dig for the truth, which is exactly what this letter is about. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General report from the aftermath of the auto bailouts indicated that ‘little or no documentation of the decision-making process to terminate or retain dealerships’ exists, making it ‘impossible in many cases’ to determine if decisions deviated from ‘supposedly objective criteria.’ In light of the department’s unthinkable breaches of public trust still being revealed by the IRS scandal, my colleagues and I have a duty to examine whether auto dealers across the country saw their businesses close as a result of similar political profiling.
In an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, famed veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted the importance of bringing out the truth in regards to Benghazi while noting that it is indeed comparable, if not worse, than Watergate.
“I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed.”
The corporate media has indeed done everything they can to make the Benghazi scandal as partisan as possible and in doing so they have made it a Republican Vs. Democrat issue when it should be a non partisan issue uncovering the facts of how four Americans died. This is not a political game, it is a matter of life and death.
Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
In an appearance on the Sean Hannity Show, Senator Rand Paul, responding to the growing list of scandals that have rocked the White House in recent weeks, stated that President Obama is, “drunk on power.”
Many have wondered if an upcoming investigation by Congress will actually lead to leadership within the IRS being held accountable, especially when you consider the history of top federal government officials being let off for a variety of crimes and scandals.
Scoffing at an upcoming House Committee on Ways & Means inquiry into how the IRS targeted those who mentioned the Constitution, the bill of rights, or even making “America a better place to live,” Kentucky Senator Paul said he would introduce a resolution today calling for the IRS agents involved to be fired for abusing their power in targeting people for their political activities.
“The President says he’s going to do something if they’re guilty, well it sounds like there’s already been an investigation and no one’s been fired,” Paul told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “I’m afraid he’s going to do about as much as he did after Benghazi,” he added, noting that those involved in the botched security operation still work for the State Department.
Accusing Obama of engaging in “faux outrage” over the IRS scandal, Paul said the President was “using the power of his government to investigate his enemies, he’s tapping the phones of the press, and it turns out last year he signed legislation that allows him to detain an American without a trial and send them to Guantanamo Bay.”
“This sounds like a President somewhat drunk on power, not cautious about how he uses power,” added Paul.
In the days and weeks ahead it will be interesting to see if any of the growing scandals actually directly impact the White House and President Obama who, by any stretch of the imagination, truly is drunk on power.
Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
A decision handed down by an Indiana jury in late April 2013 has concluded that outright fraud put both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot in that state in 2008.
Two Democratic operatives in the state were convicted of the illegal scheme.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.
According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who pled guilty, Morgan ordered Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race.
Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
If the scheme was exposed during the election it could have lead to Obama being removed from the ballet.
The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit.
He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest.
A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time, could have been bounced from the ballot.
The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.
“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.
Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
The number of households on food stamps up 60% and the number of Sturm, Ruger guns sold up 150% since Obama assumed office in 2009. He’s really brought the country together.
James Quinn is a senior director of strategic planning for a major university. James has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 25-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning. He is married with three boys and is writing these articles because he cares about their future. He earned a BS in accounting from Drexel University and an MBA from Villanova University. He is a certified public accountant and a certified cash manager. Visit The Burning Platform for news, commentary and humor.
In a video for the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, Condoleezza Rice defends the United States’ torture program and confirms the role of Bush in the program itself.
The fact that Bush authorized waterboarding is not just now being revealed. Indeed, it has been known since he published his memoir.
However, as the ACLU points out, “What comes as a bit of a shock, perhaps, is how candid Rice is about the role of President Bush himself in authorizing torture.”
“Now Rice has confirmed that President Bush himself was involved in vetting the CIA’s request for approval to torture,” Alexander Abdo, staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Security Project writes.
“The president asked two very important questions in the decision to use these techniques,” Rice says. “He asked the CIA if it was necessary and he asked the Justice Department if it was legal. Both departments answered yes.”
“Only when he was satisfied that we could protect both our liberties and our security did he signal that we could go ahead,” former Secretary of State Rice says in the clip.
In the clip originally obtained by Foreign Policy, which is only 49 seconds long, Rice also claims that torture actually kept Americans safe after September 11, 2001.
“The fact that we have not had a successful attack on our territory traces directly to those difficult decisions,” Rice says in the brief portion of the five-minute video presentation.
“We couldn’t disagree more,” Abdo wrote.
This is far from baseless opinion. In a 2004 special review, the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General itself concluded that “[t]he effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured.”
In other words, even the inspector general of the CIA itself wouldn’t come out and say that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually worked.
The researcher “found that in order for torture to generate even the smallest amount of actionable intelligence the state must make the supposedly ‘rational’ calculation to actually ‘torture innocent detainees for telling the truth in order to maintain torture as a threat against those who withhold information.’”
Abdo argues that beyond the fact that torture itself is not nearly as effective as apologists like Rice and others claim, it has also actually harmed our national security.
“Torture served as a recruiting tool for our enemies, and experienced American interrogators dissented from the use of torture, arguing that it didn’t work and would produce false statements that would waste time, even if it occasionally produced truthful ones,” Abdo said.
“The level of denial among torture supporters is astounding in the face of all of the evidence confirming that U.S. policy was in fact torture, including this month’s comprehensive bipartisan report from The Constitution Project,” Abdo added.
Yet we still know very little about the torture program and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 6,000-page report remains hidden from public eyes.
As such, the ACLU urges Americans to contact members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and tell them to release the 6,000-page factual report to the public.
I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
A former libertarian abandons his dream of a voluntary world and explains the potential worse case scenario after the overnight disappearance of government. The ending will SHOCK you!
The notorious Gang of Eight U.S. Senators are expected to drop their immigration reform bill just hours before the only hearing on the topic. The bill is estimated to be 1,500 pages long.
Four Democrats and four Republicans, known as the “Gang of Eight,” wrapped up months of hard-fought negotiations this week and will put forth a bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
But the legislation includes a cutoff date of December 2011, which would bar undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. after then from seeking legal status and then citizenship, according to sources.
Sources who spoke to ABC News said that the cutoff date was a Republican-backed idea designed to only allow those undocumented immigrants already assimilated into their communities to stay. But that idea may run into resistance from Democrats and immigrant-rights groups since it may exclude many undocumented immigrants from obtaining legal status.
So if they provide the bill on Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will have mere hours to read and review this monster legislation. This is clearly more of a Democrat approach to getting legislation through. It isn’t surprising either seeing that the bi-partisan group is not only made up of Democrats but also RINOs (Republican in name only).
“All issues that rise to the member level have been dealt with,” Sen. Chuck Schumer ( D-NY) said in a statement on Thursday. “All that is left is the drafting.”
Apparently this legislation is also being touted as requiring the federal government to meet certain border security benchmarks before moving forward with the “pathway to citizenship,” commonly called amnesty, for illegal immigrants. If the legislation is dropped on the morning of the hearing, then the hearing should be shut down until the legislation can be read and understood. I’m not holding my breath on that.
While Gang of Eight Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says that he is open to multiple hearings and an open and transparent immigration reform process (sounds like another politician we’ve heard from in recent years), his actions alongside his colleagues don’t back up what his mouth is saying. In fact, he seems quite content with the single hearing.
Behind the scenes, the potential 2016 aspirant has already launched a lobbying campaign to convince conservatives that the plan will be tough on the border. The goal is to assuage GOP concerns over the pathway to citizenship that would be offered to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to apply for citizenship after 13 years as the new enforcement measures take effect.
The Florida Republican has privately briefed individual GOP senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee — including conservative skeptics John Cornyn of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah — about the soon-to-be-unveiled proposal, according to sources familiar with the matter. His staff has pitched the plan to conservative thought leaders, including at the National Review and Wall Street Journal editorial board as well as the columnist Charles Krauthammer, sources say.
And after being rebuffed in his bid for extensive hearings on the bill before the Judiciary Committee, the senator wants to launch his own public hearing process of sorts to allow Republican senators to question expert witnesses about the plan, a move aimed at alleviating conservative fears that the plan will be jammed through Congress with little public airing.
Senator Rubio’s office issued a press release, in which they quote Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday:
“The one thing that’s clear is that this isn’t going to be health care reform. It’s not going to be rushed through. It’s going to go through the committee process. There’s going to be hearings. There will be lots of amendments. And I think the only way to get buy in from some of those other 92 senators is going to be regular order, that is a very gradual slow way.”
Though the press release has Wallace claiming there will be “hearings,” plural, and “lots of amendments,” The Washington Post’s David Nakamura writes, “A bipartisan Senate group on immigration legislation is attempting to craft an agreement so secure that the eight members will oppose amendments to its core provisions, an arrangement that could delay the introduction of a bill, people familiar with the negotiations said.”
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) once again demonstrated why he should be on his way out when he is up for re-election. On CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, McCain expressed bewilderment over the proposed filibuster by Senators Paul, Cruz and Lee over Harry Reid’s gun control legislation. “I don’t understand it,” McCain said. “The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”
“I don’t understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leaders said we could have amendments,” McCain said.
Well, there is a good reason. Most of the time people are busy engaged in life while RINOs like John McCain and Lindsey Graham sell us out in the Senate. A filibuster, like the one these three senators engaged in previously over the authority of the President to assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil stopped Americans in their tracks to listen to what their government is engaged in and demonstrated how it was a violation of the Constitution and the rights of the people.
The Senate, as well as the House is to uphold the Constitution. Mike Flynn writes, “Originally, the Senate was designed to act as the states’ check on an encroaching federal government. Senators were appointed by state legislatures to be their voice in Washington. The House was designed to be the voice of the people. Sadly, those days are long gone. Today, Senators are just House members juiced-up on steroids. Worse, they have a habit of putting decorum and the traditions and processes of the institution above foundational principles.”
Applying a filibuster to this debate is in essence an attempt to regain some of that power Senators once wielded to keep in check the Federal government from expanding its power, which McCain has been guilty of allowing to happen. A filibuster won’t fix what is wrong in Washington, but it is a means of exposing those who are corrupt, lazy, and disinterested in doing what the people sent them there to do.
“What are we afraid of? … If this issue is as important as we all think it is, why not take … it up and debate?” McCain said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Everybody wants the same goal to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled.”
That is true, but gun control legislation doesn’t do that. It is smoke and mirrors and the people that actually know what the Second Amendment says have already been shown how the trick works so we aren’t fooled, which is why we speak up and people like Sens. Paul, Cruz, and Lee are our voices in the U.S. Senate.
Instead of reading the tea leaves and understanding this is what the people want, Senator McCain along with Lindsey Graham and others are being sidelined, which is good and bold, principled and courageous men are taking the Senate by storm. Personally, I’m glad to see it. It’s good to see some Republicans with backbone stand up to the Democrats and establishment Republicans for the sake of the people. Let’s hope that we can find more like this in the future.
During a speech at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) fundraiser on Wednesday Barack Obama openly lied, not that most things coming out of his mouth aren’t lies, in order to push his political agenda. He pushed for more gun control in the same place he made his now infamous “bitter clingers” speech, and told a major whopper in declaring that the AR-15 alleged to have been used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shootings was a fully automatic weapon. The reality, of course, is that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and a pair of handguns. Yes, it was clearly a lie, since the speech was written out before hand and viewed on his teleprompter.
“Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”
Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
While fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930′s, in clear violation of the Second Amendment, one would think that there would be a correction from the administration as though Obama had misspoke. The reality is, he didn’t. He knew exactly what he was doing and is clearly out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook to get a reaction. After all, for Alinsky, the means justify the ends, even if it means lying.
Additionally, Obama is not only constrained by the Constitution, but he is restrained by it. The Constitution attaches iron fetters, as it were, to him and all elected officials. Thus, it gives no authority for them to conduct background checks or tell people what kinds of weapons they can or cannot own.
He also said, “”The opponents of some of these common sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed – nothing to do with the facts – but feeds into this suspicion about government.”
“You hear some of these quotes: I need a gun to protect myself from the government,” he added. “We can’t do background checks because the government’s gonna come take my guns away.”
“The government’s us,” Obama countered. “These officials are elected by you. They are constrained as I am constrained, by a system that our founders put in place.”
Apparently he missed the part where there is a governing document and that he is bound to it and so are the states since they agreed to it. I don’t see him making this kind of argument for say, immigration, do you? No, he happily tip-toes through the tulips on that issue. I don’t see him making that argument when it comes to marriage, do you? Though I think the Federal government has no business in marriage, he picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. It’s because he is lawless. The Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it clearly says and so he mocks the Second Amendment and those who believe in keeping and bearing arms. Well Obama, the Founders did put the system into place and though they clearly wrote out that the keeping and bearing of arms is “I need a gun to protect myself from the government” and that it “shall not be infringed,” you and your thugs continue to try to infringe upon it every chance you get.
Perhaps James Madison would point out Obama’s error here, if only he and the rest of the Socialists who support him would listen. From Federalist 46, Madison writes:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Of course Obama and those who side with him claim they are not after our guns, but they have a history of being anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment with their words and with their actions. However, keep in mind that Alinsky was one that exhorted radicals to patience. Whatever it takes to achieve the goal is permissible as long as you attain the goal and in this case Obama and the anti-gun crowd continue to keep coming back for more. We must not weary of the fight, for the fight for liberty is never finished.
The House Health & Government Operations Committees (HGO) and the House Judiciary (JUD) considered SB 281/ HB 294 in a joint voting session on Friday, March 29th 2013 and approved the governor’s gun control package. The Maryland Minutemen captured the full segment in the Maryland House of Delegates. Delegate Mike Smigiel (36th District) spoke up on the matter, pointing out that the legislators had told the public one thing but were pushing a law that said something else. He offered an amendment, but it appears there was some legislative “hanky panky” going on. This video documents what those, who are in control of the legislative process in the Maryland State House, do to get their way. They change the rules (Watch the video).
You’ll notice immediately at the start of the video that Smigiel is pointing out exactly what was done to the vote count. Clearly there are many representatives in the Maryland State House that cannot be trusted. Smigiel says that bill should have passed, which would have punished a criminal for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.
He then went on to address his colleagues about the amendment put forward. “This amendment,” he said, “will make sure that those who are committing violent acts with firearms are held accountable and punished and kept in jail.”
The amendment also removed any chance of probation or time off for “good behavior.” Smigiel said if Maryland was serious about dealing with the issues of criminal use of firearms, then maybe they ought to start dealing with those who commit crimes with firearms. Sounds reasonable enough, don’t you think?
However, Smigiel points out that the legislation before them, the governor’s bill, would punish legal firearms owners if someone broke into their home and used their gun in the commission of a crime! Notice that the other delegates are barely paying attention.
“There is not one line in this bill that punishes a bad guy,” Smigiel declared.
Obviously, that right there is the issue. As I’ve said all along, all law is morality and someone’s morality will be legislated. In the case of the Maryland governor’s legislation, the roles are reversed and the law abiding citizens are legislated as criminals. Smigiel’s amendment would have altered that.
Pick up the video at 8:20 to see, following the vote to pass the amendment that would have targeted the criminal, how the power brokers made an unprecedented move. They wanted to recount the votes and Delegate Smigiel called them on it. He said there was a good vote and then people went around and “whipped” people into changing their votes. “That’s not democracy, that’s tyranny,” he exclaimed.
Delgate Smigiel told Freedom Outpost that the original count, which you can see in the video, was 24-21. He then said one person changed their vote, that would make it 23-22. “You’re not allowed to change your vote when it’s going to change the outcome of the vote,” he said.
“We never allow anyone to change their vote in judiciary,” he continued. “On the floor you can keep changing votes all the way up until the last vote, where it would change the outcome. You’re not allowed to change that. So the guy couldn’t have changed his vote.”
In addition Smigiel said, “Then the chairman said he was going to vote.” However he didn’t vote in the previous round and Smigiel explained that the chairman does not vote, according to parliamentary procedure, unless there is a tie. “He voted to make a tie,” said Smigiel.
“If there’s a tie, then we lose,” the Maryland delegate said. “But we didn’t lose, he put it up for a new vote.”
Smigiel’s point was that the chairman and others were engaging in shenanigans to get the outcome they wanted and breaking virtually all the parliamentary rules that they normally engage in.
Smigiel provided the votes sheet on SB 281, which you can view below:
Smigiel also took to his own blog to point out the steps that would be taken to stop the legislation in its tracks and if unsuccessful, what route they would take. He writes,
“First, the fight to stop this legislation is not over. We need to have the biggest turnout yet on the day of the hearing in the House. I expect they may say one day and do it the next day just to get a lot of people discouraged so we should have an A and B plan. That way we will have folks ready to be here the second day if they should cancel the first scheduled day of the floor debate. We need the galleries packed on what ever day the bill is argued on the floor. We need witnesses against the crimes against liberty when they are committed.
Second, the groups that have been going through the public donor lists of the gun grabbers and contacting the businesses and unions, veterans, masons, and other fraternal organization members to tell them not to donate to the gun grabbers or their businesses and groups will be boycotted by the millions of Marylanders who are Second Amendment supporters. This tactic has already proven to be very effective and will probably be effective when those coming to Annapolis happen to be holding copies of the donor lists of their favorite liberal legislators so they can be shown you have the list when you go to talk to them. They understand dollars.
…
If the Governor gets a bill we will challenge it in the courts and also at referendum.
…
If we are unsuccessful in the courts and at referendum then I will stand to nullify these laws, alongside of all those Patriots who understand that no legislature, no executive nor any court can pass or interpret any law to infringe upon those rights which are unalienable and which government is prohibited from infringing upon by the Constitution. We will not surrender those rights which were bought at the expense of the blood and treasure of so many Patriots who came before us.”
Maryland, like other parts of the country are being swallowed up by Socialists and Communists. It’s good to see that Mr. Smigiel has a spine and is willing to expose the corruption taking place there in the Maryland House of Delegates.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pretty much dumped Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban bill, leaving her feeling a bit betrayed. In fact, it is questionable that a serious background check will make it to the Senate floor.
Feinstein’s response to Reid’s decision was classic. She told CNN, “What Senator Reid told me is that I would have an opportunity for a vote. I take him at his word. I told him also that it would be my intention to separate out the prohibition on the future, manufacture, transfer, sales, and possession of large ammunition-feeding devices of more than ten bullets. I asked him if this could be part of a package. He said no. And I took away from that meeting the belief that we would have a vote on the full bill, and a vote on ammunition-feeding devices of more than ten bullets.”
“This is very important to me and I’m not going to lay down and play dead,” she continued. “I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation. It’s aimed to protect children, to protect schools and malls. It’s aimed to dry up the supply of these over time. And it came out on a 10-8 vote of the Judiciary Committee. Not to give me a vote on this would be a major betrayal of trust.”
Instead of including the assault weapons ban in the final bill, Feinstein said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has told her she can introduce it as an amendment to the full bill — fulfilling his promise to hold an up-or-down vote on the measure. A separate vote will be held on an amendment to limit the size of ammunition clips, she said.
Reid said later Tuesday, however, that the amendment has no chance of passing. “Right now her amendment, using the most optimistic numbers, has less than 40 votes. I — that’s not 60,” Reid said. “I have to get something on the floor so we can have votes on that issue and the other issues that I’ve talked about. And that’s what I’m going to try to do.”
Reid’s decision is a setback for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are pushing a series of proposals to limit gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn.
“I think we have growing momentum on our side,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said. “Newtown was a call to action and I think we’ve made tremendous progress. Three-plus months ago, this issue was politically untouchable. This time is different.”
Jennifer Rubin writes, “Senior Senate Democratic aides called talk of the ban’s demise “premature,” but admitted that it is unlikely to be included as part of the broader package, which could be introduced by Reid as early as this week.”
“Still unresolved is what Reid’s final bill might say about expanding the gun background check program,” Rubin continued. “Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is working with other Democrats to find potential Republican co-sponsors for a revised bill that would permit exceptions for firearm exchanges between family members or close friends. But talks have been hampered by disagreements over whether to establish a record-keeping system for non-commercial gun transactions.”
Well, it appears to me that these Socialist Democrats are smoking something behind closed doors because everywhere I turn people are opposed to their tyranny, not in favor of it. I’ll also point out that any and all legislation that they put forward restricting guns at the Federal level are just simply unconstitutional. It’s actually a bit rewarding to watch Feinstein and her bill go down in flames. We can only hope the rest of the minutia of gun control legislation will find a similar fate.
A report on Channel 10 News (Israel) states that President Obama intends to use his next meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss a strike on Iran.
“I have conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu all the time. And I understand and share Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence that Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon, because it would threaten us, it would threaten Israel, and it would threaten the world and kick off a nuclear arms race,”
President Obama said during an interview on the television program 60 Minutes last year, but not before adding that he’ll continue to block “noise” from Netanyahu’s camp. Obama said recently:
“Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis — on these issues. Because it affects them deeply. They’re one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence,”
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison (Minn.) exploded in a tirade aimed squarely at Fox News conservative talk show host Sean Hannity Tuesday night.
“Quite frankly, you are the worst journalist I have ever seen,” Ellison said shortly after being introduced on the show by Hannity.
“What you just displayed was not journalism. It was yellow journalism. It wasn’t anything close to try to tell the American people what’s really going on. It’s just shocking.”
After six minutes of back and forth wrought with accusations, false claims and frustration, Hannity finally ended the contentious encounter.
“Congressman, you are a total waste of time. I’m moving on because my audience deserves better. I tried to give you a fair shot.”
Following Alex Jones’ explosive appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight last month, gun control advocates reacted to Jones’ fiery historical defense of the right to bear arms by attempting to dismiss the fact that tyrannical regimes always disarmed their target populations as a myth or a hoax.
Numerous left-wing blogs successfully gamed Google’s search engine results so that when people searched for terms such as ‘Nazi gun control’, they were met with a plethora of articles claiming the historical basis for this connection was a fabrication.
A meme has been launched claiming that historical gun grabs by dictatorships is a myth – an insulting attempt to literally re-write history in the name of pursuing a contemporary political agenda.
In reality, the Nazis did take existing gun control laws and make them more draconian in order to target their political adversaries. That is a manifestly provable historical fact.
Hitler disarmed his domestic enemies before launching a genocide against them.
The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from “acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons,” and ordered them to turn in all guns and ammunition to local police.
As historian William Sheridan Allen noted, the Nazis also began house to house gun confiscations targeting “subversives” shortly after they came to power.
In addition, historians like Israel Guttman have outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary:
“This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”
Similarly, as J.E. Simkin and Aaron Zelman document in their book “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.
A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable by death.
Stalin disarmed his domestic enemies before launching a genocide against them.
With Russians almost universally disarmed, Stalin was given free reign to carry out one of history’s most brutal prolonged genocide, with tens of millions of people executed or starved to death in the three decades that followed, a model subsequently mimicked in China and Cambodia.
Brutal dictatorships have almost always been preceded by widespread gun confiscation, and to allow leftists to claim otherwise in the pursuit of their contemporary political agenda is an insult to the historical record.
H/T - This web page has an excellent and fully sourced list of all the countries where gun control was a pre-cursor to mass genocide.
We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.com™ strives and will continue to uphold it’s duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
A senior Niger official has said that in January US Ambassador Bisa Williams requested permission to establish a drone base in the country. Niger readily agreed and last month the US and Niger signed a status of forces agreement so the two nations can :
“Define precisely what kind of military presence we may have in Niger in the future.”
A US spokesperson for the state department said. 100 US troops have been sent to Niger to help set up the drone base.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
While headline stories about averting the dangers of an international “currency war” dominated news coverage of the recently concluded G20 meeting in Moscow, the real unreported story is that the global gathering of central bankers and finance ministers is pushing forward with their plan for “supersizing” the International Monetary Fund.
The end goal is to transform the IMF into a global Federal Reserve, with the ability to flood the world with huge new volumes of loans and currency. It would also wield vast financial regulatory powers.
The IMF’s unit of account, or “currency,” known as a Special Drawing Right (SDR), is being readied for eventual adoption as the replacement for the U.S. dollar in international transactions, to lead the way toward eventual adoption of the SDR or some other designated unit as the global currency, much in the same way that the euro was foisted upon the people of Europe as a replacement of their national currencies.
The mainstream media seem intent on keeping the public fixated on the latest Kardashian frolics, sportsmania, and Dremocrat-Republican political mudwrestling, while coverage of the G7, G20, and IMF confabs that are determining the economic fate of the world receive short shrift.
And the little reporting of these events that does leak out usually amounts to little more than regurgitation of the pre-scripted talking points of the conference principals.
Over the past four years, The New American has published numerous articles detailing the radical plans currently underway for the total destruction of the dollar and the plans for supersizing the IMF into a global Fed. (See the linked stories at the bottom of this article).
Virtually unreported was IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde’s comments at the close of the G20 Moscow summit on February 16 that she expected the IMF members to come through soon with the remaining funds necessary to double the IMF’s funds.
Unknown to most voters and taxpayers the world over is the fact that their governments’ finance ministers agreed at theG20’s Korea meeting in 2010 to increase the “quotas” (contributions) of each member to the IMF, effectively doubling the IMF’s SDR assets to about $US 750 billion.
The IMF has also benefited immensely from another set of recent innovations that have received almost zero news coverage: the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) and the General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB).
Once activated, the IMF reports, the NAB “can provide supplementary resources of up to SDR 370.0 billion (about $567 billion) to the IMF.”
“The potential amount of credit available to the IMF under the GAB totals SDR 17 billion (about $26 billion),” says the same IMF web page.
With our national budget now being measured in trillions of dollars, the merehundreds of billions of dollars the IMF is bandying about may no longer seem as impressive as it once might have.
However, the IMF has much grander visions; this is just the start. As we reported previously, the IMF’s Christine Lagrande in February 2012 called for a trillion dollar “firewall,” including a European Stability Mechanism (ESM) for bailing out the collapsing economies of Europe’s socialist regimes.
Finance ministers, including then U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, all took to chatting up the supposed necessity of the emergency “firewall.” As we reported at the time, acceding to these calls would be the equivalent of “giving even more matches and gasoline to the arsonists who have already burned through trillions of dollars in ‘quantitative easing’ and ‘stimulus’ funds.”
Following the Fed’s Example
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (shown above) told the Moscow G20 conference that the Fed would continue its inflationary policy of creating colossal sums of new digital dollars out of thin air, otherwise known as “quantitative easing.”
The Fed under Bernanke has expanded assets to a record exceeding $3 trillion and pushed down the benchmark interest rate close to zero….
The Fed last month affirmed a plan to buy $85 billion per month in bonds, seeking to foster growth and reduce a 7.9 percent jobless rate.
“We believe that by strengthening the U.S. economy we are helping to strengthen the global economy as well,” Bernanke told the G20 ministers, according to Bloomberg. “The Federal Reserve continues to provide accommodative monetary policy in our effort to foster maximum employment and price stability,” Bernanke said.
We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.com™ strives and will continue to uphold it’s duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Is the U.S. economy about to experience a major downturn? Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of signs that economic activity in the United States is really slowing down right now. Freight volumes and freight expenditures are way down, consumer confidence has declined sharply, major retail chains all over America are closing hundreds of stores, and the “sequester” threatens to give the American people their first significant opportunity to experience what “austerity” tastes like. Gas prices are going up rapidly, corporate insiders are dumping massive amounts of stock and there are high profile corporate bankruptcies in the news almost every single day now. In many ways, what we are going through right now feels very similar to 2008 before the crash happened. Back then the warning signs of economic trouble were very obvious, but our politicians and the mainstream media insisted that everything was just fine, and the stock market was very much detached from reality. When the stock market did finally catch up with reality, it happened very, very rapidly. Sadly, most people do not appear to have learned any lessons from the crisis of 2008. Americans continue to rack up staggering amounts of debt, and Wall Street is more reckless than ever. As a society, we seem to have concluded that 2008 was just a temporary malfunction rather than an indication that our entire system was fundamentally flawed. In the end, we will pay a great price for our overconfidence and our recklessness.
So what will the rest of 2013 bring?
Hopefully the economy will remain stable for as long as possible, but right now things do not look particularly promising.
The following are 20 signs that the U.S. economy is heading for big trouble in the months ahead…
#1 Freight shipment volumes have hit their lowest level in two years, and freight expenditures have gone negative for the first time since the last recession.
#2 The average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen by more than 50 cents over the past two months. This is making things tougher on our economy, because nearly every form of economic activity involves moving people or goods around.
#3 Reader’s Digest, once one of the most popular magazines in the world, has filed for bankruptcy.
#4 Atlantic City’s newest casino, Revel, has just filed for bankruptcy. It had been hoped that Revel would help lead a turnaround for Atlantic City.
#5 A state-appointed review board has determined that there is “no satisfactory plan” to solve Detroit’s financial emergency, and many believe that bankruptcy is imminent. If Detroit does declare bankruptcy, it will be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.
#6 David Gallagher, the CEO of Town Sports International, recently said that his company is struggling right now because consumers simply do not have as much disposable income anymore…
“As we moved into January membership trends were tracking to expectations in the first half of the month, but fell off track and did not meet our expectations in the second half of the month. We believe the driver of this was the rapid decline in consumer sentiment that has been reported and is connected to the reduction in net pay consumers earn given the changes in tax rates that went into effect in January.“
#7 According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence in the U.S. has hit its lowest level in more than a year.
#8 Sales of the Apple iPhone have been slower than projected, and as a result Chinese manufacturing giant FoxConn has instituted a hiring freeze. The following is from a CNET report that was posted on Wednesday…
The Financial Times noted that it was the first time since a 2009 downturn that the company opted to halt hiring in all of its facilities across the country. The publication talked to multiple recruiters.
The actions taken by Foxconn fuel the concern over the perceived weakened demand for the iPhone 5 and slumping sentiment around Apple in general, with production activity a leading indicator of interest in the product.
#9 In 2012, global cell phone sales posted their first decline since the end of the last recession.
#10 We appear to be in the midst of a “retail apocalypse“. It is being projected that Sears, J.C. Penney, Best Buy and RadioShack will also closehundreds of stores by the end of 2013.
#11 An internal memo authored by a Wal-Mart executive that was recently leaked to the press said that February sales were a “total disaster” and that the beginning of February was the “worst start to a month I have seen in my ~7 years with the company.”
#12 If Congress does not do anything and “sequestration” goes into effect on March 1st, the Pentagon says that approximately 800,000 civilian employees will be facing mandatory furloughs.
#13 Barack Obama is admitting that the “sequester” could have a crippling impact on the U.S. economy. The following is from a recent CNBC article…
Obama cautioned that if the $85 billion in immediate cuts — known as the sequester — occur, the full range of government would feel the effects. Among those he listed: furloughed FBI agents, reductions in spending for communities to pay police and fire personnel and teachers, and decreased ability to respond to threats around the world.
He said the consequences would be felt across the economy.
“People will lose their jobs,” he said. “The unemployment rate might tick up again.”
#14 If the “sequester” is allowed to go into effect, the CBO is projecting that it will cause U.S. GDP growth to go down by at least 0.6 percent and that it will “reduce job growth by 750,000 jobs“.
#15 According to a recent Gallup survey, 65 percent of all Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of “economic difficulty“, and 50 percent of all Americans believe that the “best days” of America are now in the past.
#16 U.S. GDP actually contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012. This was the first GDP contraction that the official numbers have shown in more than three years.
#17 For the entire year of 2012, U.S. GDP growth was only about 1.5 percent. According to Art Cashin, every time GDP growth has fallen this low for an entire year, the U.S. economy has always ended up going into a recession.
The world’s richest countries saw their economies contract for the first time in almost four years during the final three months of 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said.
The Paris-based thinktank said gross domestic product across its 34 member states fell by 0.2% – breaking a period of rising activity stretching back to a 2.3% slump in output in the first quarter of 2009.
All the major economies of the OECD – the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK – have already reported falls in output at the end of 2012, with the thinktank noting that the steepest declines had been seen in the European Union, where GDP fell by 0.5%. Canada is the only member of the G7 currently on course to register an increase in national output.
#19 Corporate insiders are dumping enormous amounts of stock right now. Do they know something that we don’t?
#20 Even some of the biggest names on Wall Street are warning that we are heading for an economic collapse. For example, Seth Klarman, one of the most respected investors on Wall Street, said in his year-end letter that the collapse of the U.S. financial system could happen at any time…
“Investing today may well be harder than it has been at any time in our three decades of existence,” writes Seth Klarman in his year-end letter. The Fed’s “relentless interventions and manipulations” have left few purchase targets for Baupost, he laments. “(The) underpinnings of our economy and financial system are so precarious that the un-abating risks of collapse dwarf all other factors.”
So what do you think is going to happen to the U.S. economy in the months ahead?
Please feel free to express your opinion by leaving a comment below…
The whole world is a battlefield for the U.S. war machine and the Internet is its new favorite weapon.
Anonymous officials in the U.S. government leaked today that it is set to go on the offensive in the cyberwar against China in retaliation for alleged state-run cyberattacks against U.S. interests.
The Associated Press reports that the US is ready to strike back against China:
As public evidence mounts that the Chinese military is responsible for stealing massive amounts of U.S. government data and corporate trade secrets, the Obama administration is eyeing fines and other trade actions it may take against Beijing or any other country guilty of cyberespionage.
According to officials familiar with the plans, the White House will lay out a new report Wednesday that suggests initial, more-aggressive steps the U.S. would take in response to what top authorities say has been an unrelenting campaign of cyberstealing linked to the Chinese government. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the threatened action.
Even if we are to assume what the anonymous officials are saying is true, where’s the proof?
The supposed paper of record the New York Timesbroke the story yesterday that cyber attacks appearing to originate in China came from a building occupied by China’s People’s Liberation Army’s Unit 61398.
NYT writes:
A growing body of digital forensic evidence — confirmed by American intelligence officials who say they have tapped into the activity of the army unit for years — leaves little doubt that an overwhelming percentage of the attacks on American corporations, organizations and government agencies originate in and around the white tower.
As warlike tensions mount with China, it can’t be ignored that the very same paper of record ran false “weapons of mass destruction” stories to push for war in Iraq. Those, too, were famously planted by anonymous officials and experts close to the “evidence”.
This latest evidence inciting a more-aggressive response from the U.S. comes from a report put together by the computer security firm Mandiant. Mandiant has been called “The Go-To Security Firm” for cyber attacks. Their $100 million in revenue is up 76% from last year and they count 30 percent of the Fortune 100 as clients — conveniently including The New York Times who sought their help during its supposed hacking by China.
Mandiant’s report on China concludes; ”Either Unit 61398 is responsible for the persistent attacks or they are being done by a secret organization of Chinese speakers with direct access to the Shanghai telecommunications infrastructure who are engaged in a multi-year espionage campaign being run right outside the military unit’s gates.”
Some are saying it’s an attack bigger than September 11th. “I call it cyberterrorism that makes 9/11 pale in comparison,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich), told NBC News. But what evidence and damages can be proven that can compare with the devastation and death on 9/11?
In an effort to provide compelling evidence Mandiant produces a video that shows, as a private security company, their creepy ability to completely shadow internet users:
This all appears very damning for China and these alleged hackers but it begs the questions, how is Mandiant allowed to spy on Internet users so thoroughly? Do they have the authority to do that to Americans? Who gave them this authority and with what oversight?
And as a final observation, this video can be easily staged with another compliant actor instead of a genuine hacker threat. It really proves nothing, just like Scooter Libby’s fake Yellow-Cake-from-Niger document proved nothing when NYT’s Judith Miller printed it, but it still led to war.
This new threat is clearly being used for several purposes. First, it serves to justify Obama’s urgency in bypassing Congress by signing his cybsecurity executive order. Second,.it comes right when the privacy-killing cybersecurity legislation CISPA is headed to the Senate for another contentious vote after having failed in two previous attempts. Third, it warrants expanding cyber surveillance contracts to Mandiant and others, and increases in U.S. Cyber Command personnel.
For some advantageous lawmakers like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) it requires global governance for the Internet to police these threats. Feinstein told the AP that “the report reinforces the need for international agreements that prohibit cybercrimes and have a workable enforcement mechanism.”
Clearly there is an agenda of controlling the Internet working in the background of these threats. And given the government’s history of lying to get us into wars that only benefit the military-industrial complex, I remain skeptical of the severity of the cyber threat.
However, the establishment is taking this quite seriously and it may lead to a cyberwar if not outright war.
So it seems Americans should be asking the most obvious question: What is Congress’ role in overseeing cyberwars?
If Obama is set to take “more-aggressive steps” in an escalating cyberwar with China including offensive action, then it seems that the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution which vests in the Congress the power to declare war comes into play.
Perhaps I’m just speaking into the wilderness since the executive branch has been ignoring this clause for decades. However, it would be nice to know whether the people’s representatives (sic) have any say in who we declare cyberwar on because any type of war can quickly lead to bullets and bombs.
The new House and Senate voted on Friday to recess for the President’s Day week. That means that when they return they have a mere 4 days to deal with the $85bn sequester that is due on March 1st.
If it comes into effect it would mean that huge across the board cuts will take place across Federal government with no real control over what can or can’t be cut. These cuts are so massive there is a distinct possibility they could force the US back into recession, most likely carrying the rest of the world along with it.
A raft of economists have warned that pulling that much money out of effective circulation will have grave economic consequences. The President has warned that job losses will be high and that Americans will feel the impact in many aspects of their lives.
To add to the problems the government will once again run out of money at the end of march, forcing another negotiation on raising the debt ceiling.
Cutting Federal staffing levels will impact the public in most areas of their lives. Air traffic control and airport security cuts could according to some observers cause delays of several hours at airports. There are worries that the food supply chain could be hit if port inspectors and administration staff find themselves out of a job.
This seems a very odd time for lawmakers to take a holiday when such major issues are looming. Just another example of the them and us attitude displayed by the leaders of this country. Nowhere other than in government can you find displays of such crass and wanton disregard for the ‘workers’ as you can find in the seats of power around the globe.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Amazingly the White House, in a letter to Congress, release Thursday, said that Barack Obama didn’t make one single phone call on the night of September 11, 2012 as the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were taking place. Perhaps you should turn on the Lady Gaga ft. Beyonce song Telephone when you read this article. It seems appropriate.
“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.
The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
So are we to believe that Obama was informed of the situation and just disappeared as Americans fought for their lives? Really? Perhaps that is possible, since he was one during the Fall of 2012 who was not participating in the ongoing Benghazi investigation.
One has to wonder why the Obama administration is openly declaring that Obama was ignoring his duty as Commander-in-chief. If this were a Republican President there is no doubt that House and Senate Democrats would be coming out with torches and pitchforks and pushing for impeachment.
Well hold that thought, for Chelsea Schilling not only lays out massive evidence for the impeachment of Barack Obama, but indicates that the talk of impeachment is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill. She writes,
Should Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?
It’s not a question yet being asked or debated in the Big Media. But it is a question being addressed by some members of Congress, by an increasing number of pundits by activists on the left and the right – and for more than one or two alleged constitutional offenses.
Some of those who have broached the subject include Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Steve Stockman; former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Fox News’ Mike Huckabee; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; author and columnist Pat Buchanan and others.
“We still don’t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn’t talking to,” said Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
“The record needs to be clear”, Senator Graham said, “this was not about a hateful video, it was about a breakdown of national security, it was about an ambassador who was begging the State Dept. to send reinforcements for months, this was about a deteriorating security situation, this is about a attack you could see coming, this is about a complete failure of leadership Sec of Defense never talked to the Sec of State, and a President who as far as we know was virtually disengaged.”
He concluded, “America needs to learn what happened, and we need to learn from our mistakes.”
President Barack Obama did not speak with Libyan leaders as the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under way last September, the White House acknowledged Thursday in a letter to lawmakers.
White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did reach out to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf at Obama’s request on the same day the attack began, but Obama didn’t personally call the Libyan leader until the following night.
“Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the president on the evening of September 11, 2012 to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory. At that time, President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation,” Ruemmler wrote. “The President spoke to President Magariaf on the evening of September 12.”
Remember Obama’s speech the day following the attacks, before he jetted off to Vegas?
In the end the blame for no response and ultimately the deaths of four Americans are with those that killed them. However, the blame for doing nothing to attempt to help them or save them lies squarely with Barack Obama himself. As he put it:
“When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.”
With this revelation, it is time that he be called to account for his responsibility or perhaps the term be better spoken as irresponsibility. Let impeachment proceedings begin and halt all confirmation of Obama’s nominations for positions in the Federal government.
Home
RSS Feed
Newsletter
Bookmark Us
Facebook
Twitter
