Feb 5

In A Most Perfidious Act, Obama Sells Out Great Britain – Revealing Its Nuclear Secrets To Russia.

In probably the most egregious act of the Obama Administration and as far as we can tell, the most perfidious, it secretly agreed to provide Russia with classified information regarding Great Britain’s nuclear capabilities – against that nation’s will and demand. The reason for this unmitigated treachery was to persuade Russia to sign the START Treaty which is so one sided in favor of that country to begin with.

Not only did Putin et. al. crush the abjectly incompetent, naïve and traitorous Obama with this abomination of an agreement, but he also obtained the additional benefit of procuring priceless information about its other enemy’s nuclear weapons.

The START Treaty negates our marked nuclear advantages over Russia – offensively and defensively – and places all Americans as well as citizens in numerous countries around the world in much greater danger. All for a signed piece of paper which, unbelievably, they can still invalidate under certain circumstances.

As for selling out our closest ally, Great Britain, this is a most despicable, inexcusable and treacherous act that is light years worse than any of the other abhorrent acts Obama that has committed against them. Obama has made it a habit to sabotage, undermine and derogate our long time allies – like Great Britain, Israel, Poland, Australia, etc. while coddling up to and appeasing our mortal enemies who are further emboldened by his interminable weakness, incompetence and naivety.

Obama must pay and pay big time for such treason!

Obama's actions warrant impeachment and this MUST be pursued.

Obama is dangerous and must be removed from office ASAP or our and the world’s future is bleak.

He is facilitating conditions for a nuclear Apocalypse.

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

HMS Vanguard is Britain's lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain Photo: Tam MacDonald

Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope   Feb 4, 2011

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:

• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.


Print This Post Print This Post
Dec 11

Just How Bad and Un-Presidential Is Obama?

Obama requested advice from former President Bill Clinton on dealing with the fall-out from the not too popular compromise negotiated regarding the expiring Bush tax cuts. Clinton was summoned to the White House for discussions. At the end of the meeting, a very bizarre scenario occurred that visually captured in a nutshell the essence or lack thereof of Obama and his “presidency”.

With Obama standing at his side, Clinton started fielding questions from the press. Obama then made a comment that he was keeping Michelle waiting and had to leave at which point he did.

Clinton continued on, looking and acting Presidential and competent. Conversely, Obama’s excuse to leave, the exit itself and his inability to remain present for what is the most pressing and crucial issue with over $1 trillion at stake, was abjectly un-Presidential and abhorrently inexcusable. It revealed his dismissive, incompetent, arrogant, irresponsible and narcissistic nature and absence of any shred of leadership abilities.


Obama Leaves Clinton to It from The Blaze on Vimeo.


Print This Post Print This Post
Dec 9

Obama Presents A Greater Danger Than The WikiLeaks

“It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them.”

John Bolton

Indeed both are giant problems and will have long term deleterious consequences. Unfortunately, Obama’s ineptitude, lack of leadership, arrogance, ideological perversions and intellectual challenges have created a dangerous situation for America and engendered international recriminations with these document leaks that were totally avoidable if he had any shred of competence.

Obama MUST be removed from office ASAP. The danger that he represents is incalculable.

WikiLeaks cables: Barack Obama is a bigger danger
WikiLeaks harms the US. But the president's refusal to acknowledge the threats we face is a bigger danger
John Bolton   December 5, 2010

WikiLeaks has yet again flooded the internet with thousands of classified American documents, this time state department cables. More troubling than WikiLeaks' latest revelation of US secrets, however, is the Obama administration's weak, wrong-headed and erratic response. Unfortunately, the administration has acted consistently with its demonstrated unwillingness to assert and defend US interests across a wide range of threats, such as Iran and North Korea, which, ironically, the leaked cables amply document.

On 29 November, secretary of state Hillary Clinton lamented that this third document dump was "not just an attack on United States foreign policy and interests, [but] an attack on the international community". By contrast, on 1 December, the presidential press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the White House was "not scared of one guy with one keyboard and a laptop". Hours later, a Pentagon spokesman disdained the notion that the military should have prevented the WikiLeaks release: "The determination of those who are charged with such things, the decision was made not to proceed with any sort of aggressive action of that sort in this case."

Clinton is demonstrably incorrect in being preoccupied with defending the "international community", whatever that is. Her inability to understand WikiLeaks' obsession with causing harm to the US is a major reason why the Obama administration has done little or nothing in response – except talk, its usual foreign-policy default position.

At least Clinton saw it as an attack on someone. The White House/defence department view was that the leaks were no big deal. Obama's ideological predecessors welcomed publication of the Pentagon Papers, and suspected subsequent presidencies of nefarious clandestine dealings internationally, capped by Bush administration "intelligence cherry-picking" on Iraq. The prior WikiLeaks releases were largely military information, which made the Pentagon's earlier rhetoric more high-pitched, but the outcome for all three was the same: no response. What does it matter if half a million classified US documents become instantly unclassified and downloadable by friend and foe alike?

This sustained, collective inaction exemplifies the Obama administration's all-too-common attitude towards threats to America's international interests. The president, unlike the long line of his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, simply does not put national security at the centre of his political priorities. Thus, Europeans who welcomed Obama to the Oval Office should reflect on his Warren Harding-like interest in foreign policy. Europeans who believe they will never again face real security threats to their comfortable lifestyle should realise that if by chance one occurs during this administration, the president will be otherwise occupied. He will be continuing his efforts to restructure the US economy, and does not wish to be distracted by foreign affairs.

The more appropriate response is to prosecute everyone associated with these leaks to the fullest extent of US law, which the justice department at least appears to be considering. Next, we must stop oscillating between excessive stove-piping of information, as before 9/11, and excessive access, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks. There is no one final answer, but the balance must be under constant analysis. Finally, the Pentagon's cyber-warriors need target practice in this new form of combat, and they could long ago have practised by obliterating WikiLeaks' electrons. Had we acted after the first release in July, there might not have been subsequent leaks, and lives and critical interests would have been protected.

But that was not to be under Obama. His secretary of state does not comprehend that America is the subject of the attack, his department of defence is not interested in defending us, and the president himself seems utterly indifferent to the whole affair.

All of this underscores the real problem. It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them. While our economic difficulties have dominated the national debate for two years, national security will inevitably again come to the fore, as Americans see the full extent of the devastation left by Obama's policies. That shift cannot come too soon.


Print This Post Print This Post
Nov 30

Obama and the Wikileaks: Incompetent, Dismissive and Advancing His Agenda

The dismissive attitude with which the Obama Administration has “handled” the Wikileaks has been nothing short of stupefying. They had the best legal and technological resources available to them that might have prevented further embarrassing, damaging and top secret leaks after the initial releases back in July yet apparently did little.

The consequences of their inaction and insouciance are incalculably catastrophic and far-reaching and will have lasting effects and influences on both our allies and enemies. This newest set of leaks has been called the 9/11 of diplomacy and foreign policy.

Myriad questions need to be asked and answered on both sides of this equation including how one 22 year old Private was able to obtain access to all this information including some that were labeled top secret ones.

Is Obama so incompetent that he didn’t have the common sense or intelligence to aggressively pursue an expeditious solution?

Or is this part of his strategy to countenance the destruction of this country in every way possible and this was a perfect strategy? The ideological statements which he has made in this past support the validity of this.

Was he just too bored, detached or distracted to give this disaster its due attention?

We suspect all of these figured into the equation.

Which leads to our now almost daily call to have Obama removed from office ASAP!

There is another immensely important issue obliquely related to this saga of the inability of the government to protect and defend its deepest diplomatic and foreign policy secrets. This involves Obamacare and the mandated government’s handling of our medical records and information.

Virtually more important than anything else relating to government controlled healthcare is the protection of the confidentially of our health information. We knew before the wikileaks that maintaining our medical privacy would be next to impossible particularly given that potentially 100,000 individuals might be able to access our records due to the bureaucratic arrangement.

Well, now make that absolutely impossible!

We cannot trust the government with our medical information. Period!

The magnitude of the risk of the inadvertent release and posting, theft and even blackmail of our health care records is incomprehensibly higher compared to the stolen “top secret” government files.

This should be the number one “deal breaker” that vaporizes Obamacare.

Serious Questions about the Obama Administration's Incompetence in the Wikileaks Fiasco
Sarah Palin  November 29, 2010

We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?

The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?

We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.


Print This Post Print This Post
Nov 28

Obama’s Leadership Weaknesses Are Engendering Violence By Rogue Regimes

Obama is perceived worldwide by our friends and enemies alike as an impotent, incompetent and narcissistic leader and are responding in rational ways. Of course, a majority of Americans have the same sentiment. In the START Treaty, Putin et al have given up nothing whereas Obama is selling the store (our nuclear stockpile capabilities). The Russian leader with little effort cowered Obama into removing defensive weaponry that was protecting Eastern European countries.

Iran continues its production of weapons grade material unabated and Ahmadinejad thumbs his nose at Obama. Obama makes no threats.

Hugo Chavez is flouting his power and agreements with Russia and even has stated his plans to become a (threatening and destabilizing) nuclear power in South America.

What was Obama's response to this taunt?



Without provocation, North Korea "recklessly" attacks with missiles an island that is part of South Korea. This was just the latest in a string of unprovoked military aggression against South Korea.

What was Obama's reaction?

Another of his delayed responses. In fact, he instead first had to make his appearances on TV (that were not news conferences) before offering any sort of comment. Just yukking it up while our ally is attacked.

You could be absolutely sure that if Reagan were President (or virtually any other previous President excluding Jimmy Carter), for example, North Korea wouldn't have dare considered any of their recent aggressive actions against South Korea. They would have known in no uncertain way that there would have been serious reprisals of significant consequence. Instead, we have a very dangerous and volatile situation that could have been averted had not it been for the sheer impotence and weakness of Obama.

Obama needs to be removed from office ASAP before any more damage is done leading to an apocalyptic outcome.

Impeachment would be a good start.


Print This Post Print This Post
Nov 26

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry Suggests Military Action To Address Border Issues

For a long time we have been stating that not only has Obama been negligent regarding securing our borders with Mexico in particular but he has also willfully adopted the position of allowing it to remain porous for political reasons to the detriment of national security and individual safety. Thousands of Americans have been needlessly murdered or subjected to other violent and non-violent crimes perpetrated by these invaders as a direct result of such wanton neglect. (The now convicted murderer of Chandra Levy, the high profile incident occurring in Washington in 2001, was himself an illegal alien.)

We strongly feel that Obama’s incompetence and arrogant, selfish motivation for consciously preventing our borders from being secured from illegal aliens, terrorist, and Mexican narco-gangs and even suing Arizona for taking actions that comport with federal law in order to protect its citizens, are strong grounds for impeachment. He has wantonly violated a basic responsibility of the Presidency.

Gov. 'Blackjack' Perry?
Investor’s Business Daily   11/19/2010

As Mexico buckles, Rick Perry's warnings are starting to sound like prophecy.

Border: As lawlessness spreads in Mexico, the governor of Texas speaks of sending in U.S. troops — a dramatic statement underscoring the fact that the region needs help and isn't getting it.

Attending a conference of governors in San Diego on Thursday, Rick Perry startled some by saying defeating Mexico's cartels may require U.S. military intervention.

"You have a situation on the border where American citizens are being killed," he told MSNBC. "I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military. I think you have the same situation as you had in Colombia. Obviously, Mexico has to approve any type of assistance that we can give them."

That may sound extreme, but it underlines that Washington has shortchanged Mexico on even military aid that would help it win its drug war. It has also done little for border states such as Texas and Arizona that bear the brunt of the war, other than deliver lawsuits.

To Washington, the only motive for states' efforts to resist the violent drug cartels is racism, not security.

But Perry knows what he's talking about.

A day earlier, spillover from the war in Mexico took on a quite literal meaning when a dead body clad in cartel-style combat gear washed up on the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande near Salineno, Texas.

According to the Monitor daily in McAllen, police had no idea who he was. But it's likely he's another hash mark to the 31,000-plus death toll of Mexico's war since 2006.

Meanwhile, just eleven blocks away from the Texas town of Roma, hundreds of war refugees from Mier, Mexico, huddle in the town of Miguel Aleman after being forced from their town by the brutal Los Zetas cartel, which vandalized and looted the town.

Los Zetas want Mier for reasons barbarian marauders do — the town sits at a strategic choke point of highways to large cities on both sides of the border. Whoever controls Mier controls routes to them. The Zetas, made up largely of Mexican military renegades, think in military terms.

That's why Mier and this region keep coming up in the news.

Thursday, Mexican troops blew away 11 Zetas in the area and the Zetas took five military men hostage. Mexico watchers noted that the directness of the battle in Mier suggests the Zetas mean to control that town at all costs. Their intensity was seen last month just north of Mier at the Falcon Reservoir, where an American jet-skier was killed and the Mexican police official investigating was beheaded.

The nearby Falcon Dam was also threatened by Zetas with destruction last April, which if carried out would have flooded both sides of the border and displaced 6 million people.

If these realities and other outrages don't wake us up to the fact that our border is now a war zone, what will? War zones require a military response, and as Gov. Perry makes his warning, the prospect of an expedition against the bandits, similar to the ones Gen. John J. "Blackjack" Pershing led in 1916 and 1917, grows more likely.

That's doubly so as the war gets bigger.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, speaking by conference call Thursday, said the Obama administration has yet to present a "comprehensive and credible plan" to address national security threats along the border.

Plan Merida, a $1.4 billion package of training and equipment aid to help Mexico fight the cartels, remains largely unspent, with only 9% delivered, according to a 2009 report. That's negligence.

Meanwhile, a 44-page "Broken Neighbor, Broken Border" congressional field investigation, released Friday by Rep. John Carter of Texas, warns that law enforcement agencies in Texas and Arizona are being overwhelmed by the Mexican war's spillover, spending a third of their budgets and manpower on it.

Worst of all is the condescending attitude of the Department of Homeland Security's Janet Napolitano, who snidely told Perry that if he wants border protection, it's up to him to pay for it with Texas National Guard troops. Is she saying border protection isn't her job? If so, that's dereliction of duty.

As Mexico buckles, Washington fails on every front to admit the problem. It raises the possibility that troops really will have to be used — as a last resort. Perry's warning in that case will be prophecy.


Print This Post Print This Post
Nov 13

Obama “Thought” Process: Feed My Self Interests or Protect the Borders, etc.

We have commented as have others on the unconscionable amount of taxpayer dollars that are being spent on “emperor” Obama’s ten day tour to India and Indonesia. That is $200 million dollars per day for ten days total!

A two billion dollar profligacy in attempts to enhance his world standing and sate his unfettered ego and narcissism – all at the expense of the overburdened, far underemployed American taxpayer who stands to gain virtually nothing. This is indefensible, irresponsible, arrogant and rapacious and he should face harsh consequences for his actions.

That money should be going right back to the taxpayers. Period.

As noted below, the United States gives Mexico $400 million per year totally to fight the drug cartels which now is equivalent to just a two day’s for Obama to stay at the Taj Mahal hotel in India. Furthermore, why does he need more than 3000 people to accompany him?

An astoundingly large number of Americans are being murdered both in the U.S. and in Mexico by Mexicans – legal and illegal. Imagine what some of this money could do to shore up our borders, reduce crime and illegal immigration. Even in today’s world, $2 billion dollars can be put to a multitude of other good uses. Instead, the U.S. Treasury is being raided and used as Obama's personal bank account.

Obama doesn’t and won’t see it this way. (Neither will the press.)

Impeachment proceedings would be a bargain…

As Obama Tours, Our Border Woes Worsen
Investor’s Business Daily    11/04/2010

Border: As President Obama tours India in the style of an Ottoman sultan, the gates of his own nation remain under siege. Five more Americans were killed in Mexico this week, with little interest from Washington.

How is it the White House can scare up $200 million a day for a presidential visit to India — for a pasha-like caravan of 3,000 people, 34 battleships, hundreds of helicopters and loaded hotels for 10 days of peacock diplomacy — but deliver few reinforcements to the battle zone our own border has become?

That's the sad reality as one considers the extravagant costs of President Obama's 10-day trip to India and other Asian countries while the resources committed to securing our border and helping our desperately struggling neighbor, Mexico, go wanting.

Wednesday, Mexican cartels murdered another American, Eder Diaz, 23, a University of Texas-El Paso student visiting his family in Juarez. His friend Manuel Acosta, 25, whose citizenship is not known yet, was also killed. Diaz's death made him the fifth American killed in Mexico this week. The State Department says 92 Americans were killed in Mexico from June 2009 to June 2010.

Diaz won't be the last, because in reality, families and businesses are intimately entwined across our southern Border. But nearly 100 dead Americans is unacceptable. Were such numbers to occur in Iraq, the anti-war left would protest. The White House offers only silence. There won't be a $2 billion presidential visit to the frontier where the killings are happening anytime soon.

The problem is now on our side as well. Immigration activists say about 4,300 Americans are killed by illegal immigrants every year as our border goes unguarded. With cartels controlling the illegal immigration trade, it's likely cartels had a hand in at least some.

One bad U.S. killing stands out: in suburban Phoenix, where three cartel members beheaded a rival last month. Chandler, Ariz., police say Mexico's cartels operating on U.S. soil are the suspects. In the past, such depravity had been dismissed as unlikely here because cartels would be too afraid. Well, not anymore.

The cartels in fact are operating here easily. On Thursday, U.S. agents arrested 45 cartel members known as La Familia Michoacan in Atlanta. La Familia, run by a drug lord known as "El Mas Loco," is the craziest of all the cartels. Based in central Mexico, the group is known for its bizarre religious rituals and freakish crimes. In 2006, they rolled severed heads like bowling balls onto a dance hall floor. Now they're here.

The problem here comes down to two issues: As the president spends $2 billion to impress India's locals, his country is doing little on one of its most vital foreign policy priorities: protecting our border and helping our neighbor Mexico win its brutal drug war.

How is it that $2 billion can gets splashed out on a trip to India while the Merida Initiative to help Mexico fight its cartels gets a mere $400 million a year? Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, says he needs help, and the sad thing is that U.S. aid in this kind of war is known to be effective — as it had been in Colombia. How much more critical it is in the case of the war on our own border.

Perhaps more outrageously, the border fence, meant to keep cartel business out, approved in 2006 as the Secure Fence Act, hasn't been built. Unless completed, the $3 billion spent will be little more than another chapter in the annals of U.S. government waste.
We see a skewed sense of White House priorities.

The president on the one hand is making an extravagant show of U.S. might and power in India. Yet back home, barbarian hordes at our gates are killing U.S. nationals and literally streaming over our border as the leader of the Free World does nothing.

The world will eye this disconnect and conclude that the U.S., for all of its resources, is nothing but a paper tiger. The result could be ominous.


Print This Post Print This Post
Nov 12

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Dept. of Justice: Racist, Corrupt and Incompetent

The following article is a trenchant and eye-opening expose of Attorney Eric Holder and the Dept. of Justice (which should be more aptly renamed the Dept. of Reverse Discrimination and Liberal Policy Enforcement). What was supposed to be an agency charged with protecting and defending the equal rights for all Americans has become a partisan, discriminatory, corrupt, arrogant and incompetent one that will commit unlawful, anti-American acts in order to advance the Progressive agenda under Obama.

As the author Hillyer noted:

“Under attorney general Eric Holder, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is dangerously politicized, radically leftist, racialist, lawless, and at times corrupt. The good news is that it's also often incompetent. This means the Holderites can bungle their leftist lawlessness so badly that even the most reticent of judges are obliged to smack them down.”

Regarding specific issues and examples, it was revealed that:

“… the department failed for more than a year to update its website to reflect the new law protecting military voters -- but it spent what must have been an immense amount of taxpayer-supported staff time building a 2,314-word web page telling felons how to recover their voting privileges. Yet the department enjoys no statutory authority to deal with felon voting at all. Who needs the law when you can bolster the numbers of a key Democratic constituency?”

Within the DOJ there was a culture of blatant and illegal reverse discrimination with a pro-black philosophy as identified:

There “… is a serious misuse of power under the false color of law. The New Black Panther case is almost a perfect microcosm of this Holderite habit -- in multiple ways. It featured political interference in a case already won. It featured officials dropping a case without even reading the briefs. The two lawyers acting in political-appointee capacity who were most directly involved in dropping the case have both been sanctioned by courts for ethical breaches. Both have been believably accused, under sworn testimony by a highly respected witness, of consciously refusing to force civil rights laws to benefit white people.”

We have been vehemently calling for the removal of Attorney General Holder from his position – either by resignation or Congressional intervention. His actions on numerous occasions have been illegal and racist and at times even unconstitutional. Added to this are his overall incompetence, judicial ineptness and ignorance of the Constitution that are unparalleled in our Country’s history.

Read: Justice, Denied by Quin Hillyer


Print This Post Print This Post
Oct 25

Mexican Drug Cartels Send Well-Armed Assassins To Arizona

In a memo from the Department of Homeland Security, Arizona law enforcement authorities have been warned that well-armed and trained drug cartel assassins have been sent to the state to protect the illegal drug shipments from thieves and others. According to the specious claims of the Obama Administration and the supremely inept Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Democrat Governor, Janet Napolitano, the state is as safe as ever.

Unless you are in a persistent vegetative state, any person would comprehend the dangers that these unfettered cartels present to the citizens of Arizona and the nation in general. Add this to the impact of millions of illegal aliens and countless terrorists crossing our unguarded borders and one can see the absolute arrogance, incompetence, and demagoguery of the Obama Administration in refusing to secure our borders and even suing the State of Arizona which is trying to protect its own citizens.

Which is all the more reason why the Democrats need to be voted out of office in November and impeachment proceedings against Obama and several others in his administration need to be expeditiously begun.

Mexican hit men stalk U.S.
Drug lords' gunmen target narcotics thieves, feds say
Jerry Seper     The Washington Times   October 17, 2010

Drug-smuggling gangs in Mexico have sent well-armed assassins, or "sicarios," into Arizona to locate and kill bandits who are ambushing and stealing loads of cocaine, marijuana and heroin headed to buyers in the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security has warned Arizona law enforcement authorities.

In a memo first sent in May but widely circulated since, the department said a group of "15, very well-equipped and armed" assassins complete with body armor had been sent into the state to identify, locate and kill the drug thieves, who are thought to be independent operators.

The memo said the assassins had been dispatched to the Vekol Valley, a well-established and widely travelled drug-smuggling corridor running north and south across Interstate 8 between the Arizona towns of Casa Grande and Gila Bend. The valley is a direct link to both the interstate and to Phoenix, giving drug smugglers the option of shipping their goods to California or to major cities both north and east.

Disguised as groups of backpackers but carrying empty boxes covered with burlap, the memo said the paid assassins would attempt to "draw out the bandits." Once identified, it said, the assassins "will take out the bandits."

"We just received information from a proven, credible confidential source who reported that a meeting was held in Puerto Penasco, in which every smuggling organization who utilizes the Vekol Valley was told to attend," the memo said. "This included rival groups within the Guzman cartel."

Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera heads what formally is known as the Sinaloa Cartel, which smuggles multi-ton loads of cocaine from Colombia through Mexico into the United States. One of the most powerful and dangerous drug gangs in Mexico, it also is known as the Guzman cartel and has been linked to the production, smuggling and distribution of Mexican marijuana and "black tar" heroin.

The federal government recently posted signs along Interstate 8 in the Vekol Valley warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers. The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, warning travelers they are entering an "active drug- and human-smuggling area" and may encounter "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county includes the valley, told The Washington Times earlier this month that Mexican drug cartels have posted scouts on the high points around the valley to control movement in the area. He said they have radios, optics and "night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has."

"This is going on here in Arizona … 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States," he said.
The sheriff said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but got 15 signs along Interstate 8 instead.

Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful drug cartels, and more than 28,000 people have died since he launched his crackdown in late 2006.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has called the signs "an insult to the citizens of border states." He said American citizens should not have to be fearful for their lives on U.S. soil.

"If the federal government would do its job of enforcing immigration laws, we could better secure the border and better protect the citizens of border states," he aid.

Two years ago, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the investigative arm of Homeland Security, said in a report that border gangs were becoming increasingly ruthless and had begun targeting not only rivals, but federal, state and local police. ICE said the violence had risen dramatically as part of "an unprecedented surge."

The Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center, in its 2010 drug-threat assessment report, called the cartels "the single greatest drug-trafficking threat to the United States." It said Mexican gangs had established operations in every area of the United States and were expanding into rural and suburban areas.

It said assaults against U.S. law enforcement officers along the southwestern border were on the increase — up 46 percent against U.S. Border Patrol agents alone.


Print This Post Print This Post
Oct 11

Is The Obama Administration Illegally Procuring Tax Information On Oppostion Groups and Individuals?

When a government becomes larger and more intrusive and its leaders more elitist, arrogant and consumed with power and control, the individual citizen can expect that his or her rights and freedoms will come under attack. This is a sine qua non of authoritarian regimes.

We are unfortunately experiencing this with Democratic rule in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Despite the vociferous opposition by a majority of Americans, Congress has passed and Obama has signed several legislative bills which abridge the rights, freedoms, and choices of Americans while also imposing massive taxes and redistribution of wealth schemes.

Related to this are methods of intimidation and violation of privacy and privileged information. These are abuses of power such as were seen with Watergate and Nixon. There is concern that the Obama Administration is engaged in similar tactics.

These issues must be publicized and ultimately investigated by a Congress that hopefully will be controlled by Republicans after the November elections. These and other egregious actions and inactions by Obama should be scrutinized as possible impeachable offenses.

The American public more than deserves this.

Treasury Watchdog Launches Probe Into Whether Administration Spied on Conservative Billionaires' Taxes
October 06, 2010 |

A Treasury Department watchdog has launched an investigation into whether the Obama administration improperly snooped around the tax records of the mega-conglomerate that has poured millions into Republican campaigns.

J. Russell George, Treasury's inspector general for tax administration, wrote in a brief letter Sept. 28 to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that he will launch a "review" of the allegation at the request of Grassley and six other Republican senators.

The controversy concerns the multibillion-dollar oil company Koch Industries, a major political contributor to conservative causes and a major target this year of Democrats trying to stoke voter outrage over the funding behind those causes.

President Obama publicly called out the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity at an early August fundraiser in Texas -- that incident, in turn, helped fuel suspicion after an administration official was quoted later in the month speaking in unusual detail about Koch finances.

Coinciding with the release of a report on corporate tax reform, the official was quoted saying Koch, described as a "really giant firm," was set up as a pass-through company -- in other words, a company structured to escape corporate taxes by allowing income to flow directly through it.

But a Koch attorney questioned where and how the administration found that information -- while at the same time denying the suggestion that it does not pay corporate income tax -- and Grassley subsequently called for a probe into whether officials breached tax privacy law.

In a Sept. 24 letter, Grassley and other senators urged George to investigate the "very serious allegation" that the administration may have violated the IRS code that protects federal tax return privacy. The senators noted that the Koch website does not reveal anything about being a "flow-through entity."

"Thus, the statement that Koch is a pass-through entity implies direct knowledge of Koch's legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation," they wrote. "The statement is also troubling because it was made shortly after the president highlighted the advocacy work of certain tax-exempt organizations funded by Koch Industries, Inc."

A company spokesman told said Koch Industries is "cooperating fully" with the investigation, adding that the firm is "grateful that our concerns appear to be taken seriously."

Koch Industries has been an increasingly popular topic of political conversation after The New Yorker published a lengthy article on the "war against Obama" being waged by the company's owners, David and Charles Koch. The article detailed the Koch family's enormous wealth; their role in setting up the conservative Americans for Prosperity and the libertarian Cato Institute; and their web of political contributions -- though the political donations are difficult to pinpoint, the magazine reported that the family's charitable foundations have spent close to $200 million over the past decade.

Campaign finance records at the Federal Election Commission show the firm's political action committee, KochPAC, contributed about $8 million over the past decade, with much of that money going to the campaigns of top Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg TV in September that companies like Koch are "going in and opposing Democratic candidates and supporting Republican candidates."

Koch Industries has fought back against the sudden press.

The company issued an article-length statement in August slamming the New Yorker piece as a smear job full of "factual inaccuracies" and "misrepresentations." The company then wrote a letter to the magazine objecting to the implication that it was "secretly funding and participating in a shadowy political netherworld."

After Grassley requested an investigation into the possibility of administration meddling, Koch attorney Mark Holden said in a statement the firm was "deeply concerned" about the administration's access to their records.

"As a matter of law, the administration should not be accessing or disclosing our confidential tax information. In addition, even if the administration has not accessed our confidential tax information, we remain concerned that we were singled out by an administration official on a conference call regarding corporate income taxes. For the administration to single out one corporation, with no evidence of wrongdoing, is not only troubling to us, but should be troubling to all Americans," he said.

"Hopefully, the actions by the Senate Finance Committee will uncover the facts as to what, if any, confidential information was accessed and disclosed by the administration," he wrote.

An administration official denied the charge in a statement to last month, saying no senior officials had access to tax returns and that the Koch information probably "came up from publicly available information."

The IG investigation might not provide resolution anytime soon, though, unless Republicans win a majority in the Senate.

The same provision the administration is being accused of violating also prohibits most members of Congress, including Grassley, from accessing IRS information. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, where Grassley is the ranking member, is one of two members of Congress allowed to access that information. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is the only other member granted access.

George said in his letter to Grassley that there would be "certain constraints on my ability to share information from our review with you" without a request from the chairman, but he would make available what is allowable by law.


Print This Post Print This Post