Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States

Posted on by
Reply

Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States

On May 1, 2012, our Glorious Leader, Premier Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat, signed yet another Executive Order – Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation.  This dictate is designed to standardize regulations between the United States and it’s so called trading partners.

What is a regulation?  A law.  So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law.  It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.

Considering the many international security agreements the traitors occupying our highest seats of power have entered into, this latest executive order can absolutely be used to institute gun confiscationlaws/regulations, without any consent by our Congress or our Judicial.  And once these foreign laws are brought to the United States under the various security agreements, foreign troops will be brought in to enforce the foreign laws upon the people of the United States.

So look at what we have now.

  • The Patriot Act which allows unlimited spying on the American people by the government.
  • The National Defense Authorization Act with Sections 1021 and 1022 for the military arrests and indefinite detention of American nationals without any due process of the law.
  • HR 347 Trespass Law for the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act upon any citizen who dares to speak out against the insurgency.
  • Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act, which allows the dictator to confiscate every resource of the United States, including we the people as conscripts to be put in servitude to the insurgency.

This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did to the Russian people in 1917.  Now we have this new executive order for the implementation of laws not legislated by our Congress.  If we were to allow ourselves to be disarmed by these international soviet socialists, the next step would be to eliminate everyone who refuses to acquiesce to collective slavery.

This latest executive order is nothing more than another act of blatant treason and we the American people must reject it absolutely.

Here is the Executive Order.  Read and interpret it for yourself.

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – – – – – -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and

(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and

(ii) examine, among other things:

(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;

(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and

(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.

(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.

(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.

(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.

(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.

(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:

(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and onRegulations.gov;

(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major tradingpartners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.

(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.

(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.

(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.

(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);

(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);

(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);

(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or

(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE NEW WORLD ORDER: PARANOIA OR REALITY?

Posted on by
Reply

The New World Order: Paranoia Or Reality?

The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine. Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward their work. The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been mentally inoculated against the very whisper of the terminology. That is to say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such discussion instinctively without even knowing why.

Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony) grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance. I know this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard fact on the NWO that we happened upon. After seeing the conspiracy crowd made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.

Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject. Yes, it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing. If more people were less afraid to shine a floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more willing to absorb it. And, if more unaware people were willing to listen with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it. The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO. Instead, people refuse to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe are not yet embraced by the majority.

It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the life of the follower, and not of the leader. Only through great hardship and trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength to break free from the collectivist mindset.

Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of background knowledge. A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a Department of Defense program designed to import and train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil. Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/04/27/the-russians-are-coming-patriot-paranoia-run-amok/

The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion. Without the ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of history…

If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question; what is the New World Order? What is the foundation of the philosophy that drives it? What are its origins? This is something mainstream pundits never explore. They simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the whole thing up for our own entertainment. In reality, the phrase New World Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a thing as “conspiracy theorists”.

The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and unaccountable governing body. The goal; to one day completely dismantle individual, state, and national sovereignty. However, what I and many others hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough. We must examine the original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.

I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations. But, to solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go straight to the horse’s mouth:

“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go….We are living in the end of the sovereign states….In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.” — H.G. Wells, in his book, “The New World Order”, 1940

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” — Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, 1992

“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments … I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known … The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) … the American Branch of a society which originated in England … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established.” – Prof. Carroll Quigley, mentor to Bill Clinton, from his book ‘Tragedy and Hope’

“Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.” – President George H.W. Bush at Texas A&M University 1989

“We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.” – President George H.W. Bush State of the Union Address 1991

“The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth – in Morocco – to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.” – Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)

“To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.” – United Nations Our Global Neighborhood 1995

“What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.” – Henry Kissinger on NAFTA, Los Angeles Times

“All these new challenges are bringing together about the biggest restructuring we’ve ever seen not just of the global economy but global order as a whole. And two hundred years ago, a famous British foreign secretary said that the new world had been called into existence to address the balance of the old. In 1989 another world war ended dominated by the cold war and people talked then in 1990 of the new world order. What they meant then was a new political order. And what was not foreseen then but is obvious now, from everything that we see and do, what we experience every day of our life is the sheer scale and speed and scope of globalization…” – Prime Minister Gordon Brown, CBI Speech 2007

“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.” – CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April 1974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs

As we can see quite clearly from the direct quotes above, the New World Order, and its pursuit of global government, is not some “delusion” built upon exaggerated claims or impractical fears. It is, in fact, a very OPEN and freely admitted sociopolitical ideology held by a select and decidedly influential group of people. To label it “conspiracy theory” is absurd.

Are capitalist and socialist organizations “conspiracy theory”? Are political parties “conspiracy theories”? Is Greenpeace a paranoid figment of our imagination? What about corporate lobbyists? Was the purge of Stalinist Russia a fable? Did the Nazi party not actually seek to rule the world? Obviously, these have all been substantial forces in the making of our current era.

Throughout history, very real organizations of people with specific and directed beliefs have sought to guide the course of our cultural progression according to their personal values, sometimes using coordinated and underhanded means. The New World Order is no different in this regard. Its uniqueness lay only in the insidious nature of its methods and the complexity of its structure. In fact, I would have to question the sanity of anyone who DOESN’T believe that conspiracies are a constant and concrete reality. Secretive groups of men have always sought power over others and have always cloaked their thirst in the auspices of patriotism and rationalism.

Another issue which average Americans stumble over is the fraudulent notion of the left/right paradigm. For those within the ranks of the New World Order, “left” and “right”, Democrat and Republican, are ultimately meaningless terms. This is undeniable after one realizes that the leadership on both sides of the aisle exhibit almost identical policy initiatives and voting records. When the two primary political entities of a system differ only in rhetoric but not in action, one has to question whether they are separate parties at all:

When a liberty minded network like Oath Keepers points out the underlying New World Order-ness of a DoD program to train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil, they are referring to the centralizing nature of the procedure, and they are quite correct. The problem is that those without any context or background knowledge are completely unequipped to understand the significance of the danger. If only they knew about programs like the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, constructed to dissolve sovereign military and economic functions between the three countries:

http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/HudsonNegotiatingNorthAmericaadvanceproof2.pdf
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d

What is to stop this trend of military homogenization with neighboring foreign countries from spreading around the world, enabling corrupt governments stocked with proponents of globalism to use not only a country’s own troops domestically, but the troops of other nations?

As the SPLC points out in an attempt to be clever; this intermingling has been going on for quite some time. What they fail to mention is the terrible track record these operations have amassed. The ‘School Of The Americas’, for example, used the same rhetoric of “international cooperation” and the spreading of “democracy” as a fair trade when training foreign troops on U.S. soil, yet, all the school seemed to produce were tyrannical despots and mass murderers:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097124,00.html 

Or, how about the recent training of the Iranian dissident group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) at a secretive Department of Energy site in Nevada:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html

Are we supposed to believe that the training of Russian troops within our border will produce better results?

These activities on the part of our government, in the end, do not serve the best interests of the American people in the slightest, but what they do serve, is the ideological addictions of the global elite. That is to say, they further the interests of the New World Order.

As researchers and web journalists, we are supposed to be afraid to mention the NWO. We are supposed to refrain from using certain vocabulary exactly because portions of the public are unfamiliar with it. To be honest, I have to laugh at this dynamic. I think it far better to embrace the truth of a matter, along with its dialogue. To be unashamed and unabashed in the exposition of the facts regardless of the ignorance of those around us. The New World Order is a definable and quantifiable political movement. Elitists who praise it in public are showered with accolades while citizens who oppose it in public are accused of paranoid ramblings. The less we care about what others might think, the more dedicated we can be to the truth. At bottom, when it comes to matters of survival and principle, it is a far better thing to be “crazy” and right, than “sane” and wrong.

U.S. Troops In Neighboorhood Streets Fully Armed

Posted on by
2

U.S. Troops In Neighboorhood Streets Fully Armed

The photo shown above was taken by a subscriber in the city of Crookston, MN from the front porch of her suburban home.  No, the men pictured aren’t from the local high school’s J.R.O.T.C sqaud – they are in fact trained soldiers serving in the Minnessota National Guard, Unit 2-136 CAB / B Company. Now, I have never personally been to Crookston (although I’m sure it’s lovely), but I’m relatively confident that they are located on domestic soil, and unless I am missing something, the citizens of Crookston weren’t dealing with any natural disaster at the time this haunting snapshot into the coming police state was taken.

No, what was actually going on that morning was a “training exercise” involving a quiet neighborhood that probably isn’t that different from your own. Being the patriot that she is, Maggie decided it might be a good idea to start asking some questions. Nothing too difficult, mainly just what the hell they were doing walking fully armed down a street regularly used to facilitate the innocent pastimes of all American kids.

Glancing at her briefly one Soldier responded, “Just training Ma’am. Joining up with another patrol at the rally point.”

Not accepting this as a reasonable answer to her inquiry, Magge went on, “Oh, ok. What are you training on the streets of town for exactly?”

At that the young soldier replied, “To be honest ma’am, I don’t know.”

The reason for his domestic training exercise that morning might be unknown to him, but sadly this is not only just another indicator of the uncertain times ahead, but also a revealing indicator of how worried the Feds are of a possible outbreak of civil insurrections across the nation.

DHS Search and Rescue SWAT vehicles

A few weeks back, I wrote a short piece detailing a few disturbing government purchases, including 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets (keep in mind the total population of the U.S. is 311,591,917), reinforced vehicle check-points, and hundreds of armored ‘civil-tanks’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Around the same time, the U.S Army was stockpiling anti-radiation pills and our President was issuing executive orders that essentially would eliminate the requirement of an actual emergency to declare Martial Law and seize any goods or property it deems necissary including authorizing forced labor of the citizens.

With this recent development, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a violent scenario has the potential of manifesting in the country I love – the country I would give my life to preserve for my younger countrymen, and since hollow point bullets are specifically designed to kill, the state has made its’ position alarmingly clear.

Well let me make myself clear: I would gladly die on my feet rather than live on my knees.

 

 

SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

Posted on by
Reply

SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Scroll down for video

Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden’s death as a campaign tool
Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
‘I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.’

More…
‘Forward’ revealed as Obama’s new campaign slogan
Barack Obama’s mother ‘was secretly in contact with his estranged father during his entire childhood without his knowledge’
Why ‘annoying cuss’ Jimmy Carter is the least popular member of the Presidents’ Club
Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’
Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago

Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compound
Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.
She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room… all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the same
Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.
Mr Kyle added: ‘He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it’s going to get him some pretty good mileage.’
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’
Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.
‘Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden – you can’t take that away from him.
‘My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it’s kill. He’s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.’
But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.
‘The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become “OK, enough is enough – we’re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.” They don’t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.
‘Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it’s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.’
It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don’t think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
‘He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don’t think he’d have any problem taking that decision.’
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’

Watch the ad

OBAMA QUIETLY SEEKING TO CEDE U.S. OCEANS TO U.N. LAW

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, WND has learned.

The plan was previously a pet project of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, whose ocean-zoning scheme was partnered with a globalist group that also aimed to hand over U.S. oceans to U.N. governance.

Obama’s plan is still in draft form. It calls for an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean.

The executive order is to be based on the recommendations of Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce, created in 2010 also by executive order.

The agency is tasked with recommending specific actions for a presidential plan to achieve the vision of “an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations.”

The Taskforce’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by WND.

The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Convention.

The convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.

States the report:

The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over and under the world’s oceans.

United States accession to the Convention will further our national security, environmental, economic, and diplomatic interests.

The report lists key reasons for compliance with the law, including:

  • The Convention has garnered the unequivocal support of our national security leadership under both Republican and Democratic administrations, because, among other things, it codifies essential navigational rights and freedoms upon which our Armed Forces rely.
  • The Convention sets forth the rights and responsibilities of nations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment and to protect and preserve resources off their shores.
  • By becoming a party to the Convention, U.S. legal rights to our extended continental shelf can be put on the strongest legal foundation.
  • As a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States would have the ability to participate formally and more effectively in the interpretation and development of the Convention.
  • Joining the Law of the Sea Convention would reaffirm and enhance United States leadership in global ocean affairs.

While the White House claims its ocean plans are not meant to zone the seas, a major conclusion of the Taskforce was to “establish a framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) that establishes a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.”

Panetta’s ocean scheme

Much of the Taskforce’s recommendations were previously called for by a group headed by Panetta until his appointment as CIA director in 2009. Panetta became defense secretary in July 2011.

Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to “accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform.”

Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Other recommendations of Panetta’s Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which mirror Obama’s taskforce recommendations, include:

  • The administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes.
  • Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  • Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

Podesta served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team.

Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”

CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.

CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.

The movement brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya.

NY TIMES: OBAMA TO EXPAND USE OF EXECUTIVE POWER AND BYPASS CONGRESS MORE

Posted on by
Reply

WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama speaking in Cleveland in January. Increasingly in recent months, the Obama administration has been seeking ways to bypass Congress.

A Measure of Change

Asserting the Agenda

Obama’s Deficit Dilemma (February 27, 2012)
Related in Opinion

The Loyal Opposition: Government by Executive Order (April 23, 2012)

The Election 2012 App
A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.

Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.

“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”

Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress’s attempt to prevent him from having White House “czars” on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama’s increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor’s administration: Mr. Bush’s frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture.

“Obama’s not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute,” said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. “But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago.”

The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended their right to enact it.

In the following months, the administration increased efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions through environmental regulations, gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls, and refocused deportation policy in a way that in effect granted relief to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Each step substituted for a faltered legislative proposal.

But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration’s broader political messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course.

First, he proposed a jobs package and gave speeches urging lawmakers to “pass this bill” — knowing they would not. A few weeks later, at the policy and campaign strategy meeting in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the president told aides that highlighting Congressional gridlock was not enough.

“He wanted to continue down the path of being bold with Congress and flexing our muscle a little bit, and showing a contrast to the American people of a Congress that was completely stuck,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a deputy chief of staff assigned to lead the effort to come up with ideas.

Ms. DeParle met twice a week with members of the domestic policy council to brainstorm. She met with cabinet secretaries in the fall, and again in February with their chiefs of staff. No one opposed doing more; the challenge was coming up with workable ideas, aides said.

The focus, said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was “what we could do on our own to help the economy in areas Congress was failing to act,” so the list was not necessarily the highest priority actions, but instead steps that did not require legislation.

Republican lawmakers watched warily. One of Mr. Obama’s first “We Can’t Wait” announcements was the moving up of plans to ease terms on student loans. After Republican complaints that the executive branch had no authority to change the timing, it appeared to back off.

The sharpest legal criticism, however, came in January after Mr. Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process to install four officials using his recess appointment powers, even though House Republicans had been forcing the Senate to hold “pro forma” sessions through its winter break to block such appointments.

Mr. Obama declared the sessions a sham, saying the Senate was really in the midst of a lengthy recess. His appointments are facing a legal challenge, and some liberals and many conservatives have warned that he set a dangerous precedent.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, who essentially invented the pro forma session tactic late in Mr. Bush’s presidency, has not objected, however. Senate aides said Mr. Reid had told the White House that he would not oppose such appointments based on a memorandum from his counsel, Serena Hoy. She concluded that the longer the tactic went unchallenged, the harder it would be for any president to make recess appointments — a significant shift in the historic balance of power between the branches.

The White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, said the Obama administration’s legal team had begun examining the issue in early 2011 — including an internal Bush administration memo criticizing the notion that such sessions could block a president’s recess powers — and “seriously considered” making some appointments during Congress’s August break. But Mr. Obama decided to move ahead in January 2012, including installing Richard Cordray to head the new consumer financial protection bureau, after Senate Republicans blocked a confirmation vote.

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama declared, beneath a “We Can’t Wait” banner. “When Congress refuses to act and — as a result — hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

The unilateralist strategy carries political risks. Mr. Obama cannot blame the Republicans when he adopts policies that liberals oppose, like when he overruled the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to strengthen antismog rules or decided not to sign an order banning discrimination by federal contractors based on sexual orientation.

The approach also exposes Mr. Obama to accusations that he is concentrating too much power in the White House. Earlier this year, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, delivered a series of floor speeches accusing Mr. Obama of acting “more and more like a king that the Constitution was designed to replace” and imploring colleagues of both parties to push back against his “power grabs.”

But Democratic lawmakers have been largely quiet; many of them accuse Republicans of engaging in an unprecedented level of obstructionism and say that Mr. Obama has to do what he can to make the government work. The pattern adds to a bipartisan history in which lawmakers from presidents’ own parties have tended not to object to invocations of executive power.

For their part, Republicans appear to have largely acquiesced. Mr. Grassley said in an interview that his colleagues were reluctant to block even more bills and nominations in response to Mr. Obama’s “chutzpah,” lest they play into his effort to portray them as making Congress dysfunctional.

“Some of the most conservative people in our caucus would adamantly disagree with what Obama did on recess appointments, but they said it’s not a winner for us,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s new approach puts him in the company of his recent predecessors. Mr. Bush, for example, failed to persuade Congress to pass a bill allowing religiously affiliated groups to receive taxpayer grants — and then issued an executive order making the change.

President Bill Clinton increased White House involvement in agency rule making, using regulations and executive orders to show that he was getting things done despite opposition from a Republican Congress on matters like land conservation, gun control, tobacco advertising and treaties. (He was assisted by a White House lawyer, Elena Kagan, who later won tenure at Harvard based on scholarship analyzing such efforts and who is now on the Supreme Court.)

And both the Reagan and George Bush administrations increased their control over executive agencies to advance a deregulatory agenda, despite opposition from Democratic lawmakers, while also developing legal theories and tactics to increase executive power, like issuing signing statements more frequently.

The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.

“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.

But Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration, said the Obama administration’s pattern reflects how presidents usually behave, especially during divided government, and appears aggressive only in comparison to Mr. Obama’s having been “really skittish for the first two years” about executive power.

“This is what presidents do,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “It’s taken Obama two years to get there, but this has happened throughout history. You can’t be in that office with all its enormous responsibilities — when things don’t happen, you get blamed for it — and not exercise all the powers that have accrued to it over time.”

CNN tells is like it is about the OBAMA

Posted on by
Reply

This guy is probably looking for a new job about now.  This is a must watch (only 1.5 mins long) Even CNN is getting a belly full of Obama Lies. Did you see this one? CNN no less. Wow!!! Do not delete this one. Just 90 seconds! Pass this on quickly, it’ll be taken off quickly. Obama may even be losing the sycophantic support of CNN. This could be the most important 1.5 minutes of your day. Please listen and distribute STAND-UP & SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN NOW Semper Fi

Length: ‎1:38

 

 

MICHELLE OBAMA LOSES LAW LICENSE

Posted on by
3

 

Did you know that our First Lady Michelle Obama lost her law license back in 1993? Oh sure I knew that, “NOT.” Sure, I saw this on the front page of the New York Times during the elections of 2008, “NOT.” I’ve listed below from the State of Illinois’s website of the court action against Michelle forcing her to give up her license. It’s understood that in the box attacked below under Malpractice Insurance – “No malpractice report required as attorney is under court order inactive status.”
In other words Michelle was under court order to give up her license and is not allowed to practice law in Illinois, period. I hate to use this word but its “rumored” that she was extorting clients. Again, it’s “rumored!” It’s also “rumored” that our President Barack Obama may have been disciplined for not divulging other names that he has used in the past. That really concerns me. He also has an inactive Illinois license to practice law (listed below).
This is so unfortunate for the Obama’s, after all they are our first family and he is the first black/white President of the United States but I can’t stop thinking that this guy and his wife are not who they say they are. They don’t seem to uphold the integrity of our past first families, yes, even Richard Nixon for all you lefties out there.
The more I find on the Obamas, the more I feel that the FBI when doing their background check must have been sleeping at the switch. My research is finding reputable sources disclosing many of their past discretion’s and questionable acquaintances.
Obamas background is questionable enough but do we now have to worry about his wife, also? My god do we have a den of thieves living in the White House?
If you want to check yourself, here is the link and just search under “Obama.” Bingo!

This was taken from the Illinois Law website two years ago – Since than they have altered the court order portion most likely since this article was posted.

https://www.iardc.org/index.html

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY’S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of December 31, 2009 at 1:23:34 PM:
Full Licensed Name:
Michelle Obama
Full Former name(s):
Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court:
May 12, 1989
Registered Business Address:
Not available online
Registered Business Phone:
Not available online
Illinois Registration Status:
Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration;consult attorney for further information)
No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:
None

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of December 31, 2009 at 1:23:34 PM:
Full Licensed Name:
Barack Hussein Obama
Full Former name(s):
None
Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court:
December 17, 1991
Registered Business Address:
Not available online
Registered Business Phone:
Not available online
Illinois Registration Status:
Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration;consult attorney for further information)
No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.

I wanted to include this comment taken from Atlas Shrugs blog site. It’s quite revealing. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html
In case readers are wondering….in 1992 Michelle Obama was still an active member of illinois bar but had left sidley austin law firm to go work for mayor daley YES that Mayor Daley in Chicago-she worked as Daleys “assistant” for a year and a half-(that term drives me nuts but that is how it is listed on her BIO–she was his “assistant…” thats a FACT!now what does a harvard trained ‘assistant” do for the most corrupt mayor and city gov in america…???after working in 1992 for Daley…in 1993 she assumed a role in some community organziing venture called PUBLIC ALLIES (another community organizer in the family?)my smell test tells me as Daleys assistant…she was not always doing something kosher…and in 1992 she was still member of the bar…perhaps after her dealings with him and for him…she was CAUGHT doing some shenigans…and was put on court ordered inactive status later in 1993–after the issue was brought to the ADRC attention.seriously, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to wonder if MO was working for Daley in 1992 and her license went on COURT ORDERED INACTIVE STATUS soon after her connection and work with him…that she is not guilty of SOMETHING unethical (which is all it needs) or worse…she did something illegal.

The Manning Report at www.atlah.org
is an expose by a black preacher of the obamas. He says Michelle was forced to give up her license
($394,000 missing from Cook County
Hospital where she worked) in exchange for no criminal sentencing. He also says the male obama is a fraud.
WHY do you people think ‘obama’ sealed all his Illinois state bar exam results and records of what he did while he was in Illinois???????????????Can you get some reality??????????
And why do you think he has spent MILLIONS of dollars sealing ALL records???Please open your eyes and wake up America? Or do you really want a communist muslim destroying your country?”

The above is what I read on the net more then a year ago..

Back in the Bad Old Days They Had Two Words for This – “Ni**er Rich!!!!” Oh Em I Gonna Catch Hell for This One

The Moocher Shops Incognito At Target ~ Or Who The Hell Are They Kidding?

AP photographer Charles Dharapak told CBS News he took pictures of the first lady at the Target on Route 1 in Alexandria, Virginia.

The first lady’s office confirmed that the pictures showed were indeed the First Moocher!
Inquiring Minds Want To Know! Did all those Secret Service Men also go “Incognito” and did they make all the other shoppers leave so that Target would be able to to accommodate Moochelle?
What a pathetic story! Do these idiots in Washington really think we’re a bunch of morons and would buy a stupid photo-op like that? Will this idiocy ever cease?
When was the last time the Moocher spent any of her own money on anything. And especially in a Target Store where they don’t even carry sneakers that sell for $600.00, or Cristal Champagne and Beluga Caviar!
This little charade was meant strictly for the for the dumb democrats so that they would be able to tell us how she is “One Of Us” and that she is a good and careful shopper. Pardon me? How down-to-earth she is? Wow, she’s one of us!
As if she does ANY shopping on her own.
And they say that the only one who spotted her was the Cashier, well sure, the give away was the 2 dozen bags of Lays potato chips in her shopping cart.
Maybe the $ 42, 000 diamond bracelet gave her away!
Lets look closely at the picture. She has a shopping cart ( yeah right) but yet she’s carrying one of the bags in her hand, why would anyone do that, especially when the shopping cart is more than 1/2 empty? Interesting!
But if that’s what these Idiots want us to believe, then fine, we believe it, Mission Accomplished. OK, our first Moocher is just one of the girls. Pardon me while I puke.
This Charade was “ALMOST” as insulting as Barack’s photo-Op on the Jewish High Holidays days, when the “Hypocrite In Chief” once again made an ass of himself by posing with a Jewish family.
The Jewish community is far too smart to fall for his Hypocrisy. It seems that his speeches change according to whoever he is speaking to. He supports Israel when he needs the Jewish vote, however, the White House said the U.S. will press for a Palestinian state quickly if President Obama is re-elected..Told ya.
I have been shocked, speechless, and baffled how any Jew could vote for Barack Hussein Obama knowing his bigotry against Israel, and the way he humiliated Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House.
I think it’s high time that the American Jews understand that Barack Hussein Obama is no friend of theirs or of Israel’s.

Obama in Colombia Plotting US Gun Confiscation using Foreign Troops

Posted on by
1

On April 2, 2012 the foreign insurgent Obama met with his fellow international conspirators, Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderón in Washington DC.  This get-together was billed as a conference on international trade but the discussion quickly turned to the necessity for new gun regulations and prohibitions in the United States for the securityof Mexico, which I guess could be tied into international trade as Obama’s AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder has been and is engaged in international gun running and drug trafficking for profit throughout North America.

Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat, the South Side of Chicago back-ally gangster, is attending the 6th Summit of the Americas in Colombia.  Again these meetings are being billed as trade conferences, but are they really?

Taking into consideration the actions we are seeing, through a coordinated effort between the plethoras of so called security agencies in the United States to orchestrate the necessary conditions to begin an attack upon our 2nd Amendment, we should be looking very carefully at every meeting these international soviet socialists are involved in.  We must understand that the international insurgency into the United States has become revealed to the point that they must act quickly if they are going to attempt to disarm the American population.

Look at the situation on its face.  We the American people of the American race are literally clearing the shelves of firearms and ammunition.  At the same time we are making it clear that we want to arm ourselves, those who are supposedly our representatives are taking actions to begin confiscating our guns.

Enter the US Army Military Personnel Exchange Program, wherein officers in the US Army are being exchanged with officers from countries around the world for the purported purpose of cross training for international crisis.  What is happening right before our eyes is the international soviet socialist elite are putting together an international coalition army for the purpose of disarming the American citizens.

Understand, this army must be coordinated and considering the reality of diverse languages requires a communication system which has to be established before this foreign army can begin operations in the United States.  This is why we have all the cross training, in order to procure communication between the various foreign units.

This operation has been underway for many years now.  We all remember guns being confiscated from American citizens during the exercises conducted after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and right now there are Polish troops training in Illinois for gun confiscation in the United States.

The international insurgents within the United States government have declared that they will use drones against we the people.

Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 with Sections 1021 and 1022, authorizing military arrests and indefinite detentions of American citizens without any due process of law, in essence suspending habeas corpus just like Lincoln did at the beginning of the US Civil War.

Obama has signed HR 347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, the no-Trespass legislation, designed to insure a violent response when peaceful American protesters take to the streets this summer to challenge their being disenfranchised through the corrupt and fraudulent corporate owned election process.

Obama has signed the executive order National Defense Resources Preparedness designed to deny resources to US patriotic militia after the conflict begins.  You see this is not going to be a conventional war.  This country is our home.  There is no single supply line to be cut.  This is why the soviet insurgency intends to seize all resources.

There are only a handful of traitors within our military who are going to cooperate with this foreign insurgency.  They will be used mainly in communications, as orders that are handed down in English must be translated into other languages as they are relayed to the various elements of the foreign army.  I guess in reality this bunch of traitors would have to be considered priority targets for the resistance.

If you think this is just a conspiracy theory, consider this.  Obama is supposedly falling in the opinion polls, the race for the national election is supposedly on, and, out of nowhere, Obama takes off to Columbia for meetings that really cannot have much substance unless he is reelected and/or the status quo is preserved.

If you put all the pieces together and connect the dots, the reality of what we are looking at cannot be denied.  It is not a question of if, but rather of when.  Considering the fact that gun purchases are not slowing down the when will be soon.

To you foreign troops out there who have had it whispered in your ear that you will be engaging the American people of the American race for the purpose of disarming and bringing us into a one world dictatorship, be advised.  If you come here, you will die here, each and every one of you.  Once you have put us to the task you have sealed your fate.  We are not going to let you leave, we will slaughter you and leave your bodies to decay where they fall and your bones to bleach upon our soil as a warning to all others who might in the future entertain the notion of conquering we the American people in our own country.

God bless our Republic, death to the international corporate mafia, we shall prevail.

North American Union will Attempt to Disarm the People of the United States

Posted on by
2

North American Union will Attempt to Disarm the People of the United States

 

The international insurgent President Barack Obama hosted Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for talks on transnational trade and security Monday.  This is a blatant display of an international socialist cabal, intent on further destroying the sovereignty of our republic and our individual states.

Mexican President Calderon proudly stated that his socialist government had confiscated 140,000 firearms in Mexico and then tried to imply that every one of them was bought in a gun store in the United States.  He blamed the rash of violence in Mexico on the sunsetting of our unconstitutional assault weapons ban, suggesting new gun restrictions and confiscations in the United States as a necessity for Mexico’s security.

There was of course no mention of the fact that our southern border is being deliberately left wide open.  And of course no mention of the fact that US AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder, acting as representative for the insurgent Obama and in correlation with the Mexican government, has been running guns to Mexico and drugs back into the United States for years now.

This communist parley was immediately followed by the announcement that the FBI had arrived in Florida to begin investigating the death of Trayvon Martin.  It looks like what this whole thing is building into is an attempt at gun confiscation in the United States.

The US government has begun buying up millions of rounds of ammunition, in fact to the point that it has driven up prices and availability for we the people here at home.  What we are about to see is a coordinated attack on US nationality and our sovereignty.

Considering the duplicit acts the US government has been caught in in the past three years, using our own military to disarm us is not feasible.  In fact what is left of our military in this country is now being considered the enemy as our troops are themselves preparing to stop the socialist insurgency in the United States.

This transnational cabal that has been formed is in preparation for Mexican and Canadian troops to be brought into the United States to disarm the American people in the name of safety and, as psychotic as it sounds, justice for Trayvon Martin.

The Martin case has been latched onto by the socialists in an attempt to put forth the illusion of racial disunity to the extent that the federal government has now had to step in.  We must realize that 90% of the killings in the United States are blacks killing blacks and this is a direct result of inner city poverty and the $40 billion per year drug war, which cannot be won because the insurgents in our governmentare the cartel making billions from the prohibitions to our freedom to smoke or ingest whatever we please.

There are no words to describe the extent of the duplicity and treason we are seeing occur right before our eyes.  We must wrap our arms around our 2ndAmendment and prepare to drive the invaders from our borders.  We cannot tolerate even the smallest further infringement upon our 2nd Amendment, having the realization that in the end game, these international soviets intend to exterminate us after we are disarmed.