An IRS Scandal Inseparable from Obamacare

By David Catron on 5.28.13 @

The IRS attempts to save Obamacare by unilaterally declaring that it will disregard the law.

Thanks to ubiquitous if imperfectly honest press coverage, most Americans know about the IRS scandal involving tax-exempt applications from various Tea Party groups. The public is still, however, getting the mushroom treatment on two other outrages by that rogue agency. The media have devoted scant coverage to its theft of 60 million medical records, now the subject of a class action lawsuit, and they have been all but silent regarding the illegal IRS scheme to fund Obamacare’s federal insurance exchanges.

As scary as is the medical record theft, which I wrote about here last week, the more important of these two additional scandals involves IRS skullduggery relating to the exchanges. A year ago, the IRS finalized a regulatory ruling to the effect that it will issue tax credits through Obamacare’s federal insurance exchangesy is that such a big deal? Well, the IRS has been granted no legal authority, by the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or any other act of Congress, to issue such credits. In fact, the ruling flouts the explicit language of Obamacare.

PPACA stipulates that all such assistance must emanate from state-run exchanges. Even if the federal government sets up an exchange in a state that has declined to do so, it wouldn’t be authorized to issue tax credits. And because 27 states have refused to set up exchanges, this restriction will cripple Obamacare. Without the ability to dole out tax credits and subsidies in more than half of the states, the Beltway bureaucrats attempting to implement the much-despised “reform” law will be hamstrung.

The IRS is attempting to save Obamacare by unilaterally declaring that it will issue tax credits through all exchanges, federal and state alike. Immediately upon the promulgation of this rule, a number of experts on the health care law pointed out that it was illegal. In a paper for Health Matrix, Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon wrote, “The plain text of the Act only authorizes premium-assistance tax credits … for those who purchase plans on state-run Exchanges.”

Adler and Cannon go on to spell out the breathtaking scope of this IRS plan to offer tax credits through all exchanges: “[T]he IRS is attempting to create two entitlements not authorized by Congress.” Michael Gerson, one of the few who have addressed this in the MSM, puts it thus: “The IRS seized the authority to spend about $800 billion over 10 years on benefits that were not authorized by Congress.” In other words, the IRS has arrogated “The Power of the Purse,” a right reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

This is obviously an unprecedented and dangerous power grab. And it gets worse. Adler and Cannon also point out that the arbitrary IRS rule will allow it “to tax employers whom Congress did not authorize the agency to tax.” Just as PPACA stipulates that tax credits can only be issued through state-run exchanges, it also says that employer mandates can only originate from these entities. Therefore, the IRS isn’t legally authorized to fine noncompliant businesses in a state that has refused to set up an exchange.

Yet it clearly intends to do so. As it did with the tax-exempt applications of conservative groups and the confidential medical records of millions of U.S. citizens, the IRS plans to simply disregard the law. Because of the harm this feature of the rule will inflict on many businesses, it has generated several lawsuits. The most promising of these was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of small businesses challenging the rule as an extralegal expansion of Obamacare.

According to Michael Carvin, one of the attorneys representing the group, “The IRS rule we are challenging is at war with [PPACA’s] plain language and completely rewrites the deal that Congress made with the states on running these insurance exchanges.” Another of the group’s lawyers put the rule in context thus: “ObamaCare is already an incredibly massive program. For the IRS to expand it even more, without congressional authorization and in a manner aimed at undercutting state choice, is flagrantly illegal.”

It will come as no surprise that this illegal expansion of Obamacare involved at least one of the IRS officials at the center of the Tea Party scandal. According to United Liberty’s Brian Gilmore, the regulation has short-lived Commissioner Steven Miller’s “fingerprints all over it.” Indeed, Gilmore reports that it was Miller who approved it: “Page 30400 of the Federal Register states you-know-who as having approved the regulation: ‘Steven T. Miller, [then] Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: May 16, 2012.’”

Interestingly, that was two weeks after Miller was informed that “applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups were … singled out for extra scrutiny.” And yet we are told by the hot shot “reporters” of the establishment media that the metastasizing IRS scandals have nothing to do with Obamacare. In reality, the IRS scandals and the crime against democracy known as the “Affordable Care Act” are symptoms of a single disease, merely the two most obvious pustules of an administration scabrous with corruption.

As long as the voters allow this sick regime to stay in office, we can expect it to use the IRS and any other handy bureaucracy to target its political enemies and to issue illegal decrees. They have little respect for the law and less for the voters. There is only one cure for this disease: Obama, his congressional accomplices, and the enabling media must be replaced by people with at least a passing familiarity with ethics and integrity.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/28/an-irs-scandal-inseparable-fro

…………………….

A few comments by ATB:

Call your Congressmen …Let them know… (that YOU know) they are obligated to stand up to these usurpation of powers by the Federal government now….

This is a must read…if left to stand …it is the Trojan Horse that destroys this nation…the Gestapho IRS has usurped the power of the purse and of Congress…

Read the above thoroughly and you’ll understand the arrogance of the IRS officials who testified before Congress…they understand completely what Congress doesn’t …they’ve made Congress completely irrelevant …the IRS has usurped their every power.

Once it was determined that the American people hated Obamacare and didn´t want it, this corrupt Administration went into action fitting its various Agencies with non-existent powers to do that which Congress won´t.

“[T]he IRS is attempting to create two entitlements not authorized by Congress.”

Once again, Obama is doing an end-run around Congress, knowing full well that Congress won´t get his agenda passed for him. So Obama creates powers he hopes no one will examine.

This is seminal to our liberty and freedom. Every news outlet, including talk radio, should let Americans know that this President doesn´t have the power to do half the things he is doing.

THAT is the real scandal here; enabling his Agencies to do that which the various ACTS don´t

…………………………………….

Obama will continue throwing fastballs — from multiple fields..

….overwhelming and diluting any message the opposition might have…

Everything is on the line and he and his communist cabal are all in for 2014. America will cease to exist if they win.

Did you just get your email from the White House? Subject: Faith? …Letting you know how our caring and
decent president is helping those in OK …and today helping in NJ?…and how you too can join him …as he’s there to “steer you in the right direction”

He dares us to oppose him…as his jackals are ready to pounce:

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/a_filibuster_dare_obama_reportedly_plans_three_simultaneous_nominations_to_

JUDICIARY

A filibuster dare? Obama reportedly plans three simultaneous nominations to DC Circuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

President Obama is reportedly planning a bold move after winning approval for Srikanth “Sri” Srinivasan for a spot on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In a “more aggressive” strategy, Obama plans to nominate three people simultaneously to the federal appeals court, the New York Timesreports. “He will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees,” the story says. An announcement could come this week.

With Srinivasan’s confirmation, the court currently has four judges who are Democratic appointees and four who are Republican appointees. However, five out of six senior judges are Republican appointees, giving the court “a strongly conservative flavor,” the Times says.

Some names that have surfaced as possible nominees include Georgetown law professor Cornelia Pillard, who formerly worked for the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; consumer and investor lawyer David Frederick, who worked for five years in the Solicitor General’s office; and appellate lawyerPatricia Ann Millett of Akin Gump, who worked for a decade in the Solicitor General’s office.

Democrats plan to schedule several confirmation votes on federal court nominees this summer, which could bring attention to the filibuster issue if votes are blocked. Some Democrats hope the publicity could lead to a rule change that would prevent filibusters of judicial nominees, the story says.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/a_filibuster_dare_obama_reportedly_plans_three_simultaneous_nominations_to

……………………………………

America could be on the cusp of a great victory–a victory for accountability and truth. The Benghazi debacle is, at last, breaking into the public consciousness. Indeed, in its outlines, finally visible as the coverup unravels, Benghazi is starting to look like a scandal, bringing up memories of an earlier scandal, Watergate.

Yet the Republicans could still blow it, not only for themselves, but much more importantly, for the country. They could blow it, that is, if they make the terrible mistake of turning an honest and necessary inquiry about the events of 2012 and 2013 into a contrived exercise in political positioning for 2016.

Yes, I am looking at you, Karl Rove. After your abysmal campaign performance in 2012, it’s painfully evident that your too-clever-by-half tricks in 2013–injecting your presidential-campaign-style attack spot into the Benghazi investigation–could undercut your own party yet again.

We’ll get back to Rove in the third installment, but first, let’s assess where we are on Benghazi.

As we all know by now, the Obama administration bungled everything about Benghazi on September 11, 2012, leading to the tragic death of our ambassador and three more brave Americans. Yet at the same time, we must admit that the administration was successful in covering up its own fecklessness–at least well enough to get through last year’s presidential election.

Yet in the last few days, that coverup has been uncovered, as all Americans can now see. [snip]

Speaking of coverups and the obstruction of justice, I might add that for me, as someone who experienced Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal firsthand back in the 70s, the memories of that sordid mess have all come flooding back as I think on this new sordid mess.

The cliché of scandals is that it’s usually not the incident itself that’s so serious, but rather, the cover-up of the incident. That was certainly true of Watergate; yes, it was a criminal conspiracy from the outset–a conspiracy to rig the re-election of Richard Nixon–but it’s not clear that Nixon knew about it in advance. Yet he did know soon after the June 17, 1972 break-in, and instead of cleaning house, he helped to cover it up. That’s what turned Watergate from a election scandal into an impeachment scandal. [snip]

But of course, then Obama would have had to cancel his campaign events, hunker down in the White House, and prove himself to be a real commander-in-chief. [snip]

It never seems to have occurred to Obama, or anyone else in his administration, that the Benghazi tragedy required some sort of midcourse correction, away from campaigning and toward governing. No, the campaign strategy had been set in Chicago long before: The Obama re-election campaign was predicated on the idea that the 44th President had killed Osama Bin Laden and won the war on terror.

So Obama’s team was all assembled for that famous photo in the White House Situation Room as they awaited the news of the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan on May 1, 2011. But then, more than a year later, a new attack by Al Qaeda on a new 9/11 simply wasn’t part of the carefully laid out campaign script. And since campaigning was paramount,the Al Qaeda role in the Benghazi attack had to be airbrushed out by the White House–with the aid, of course, of an adoring media.

Thus the terrorist assassins became, in the Obama narrative, just an unruly mob, fired up by some dumb Mohammed video made in California. Once that cover story was settled upon, that was the beginning of the cover-up of Benghazi.

As the rubble in Benghazi was still smoldering, the President declared, on September 12, 2012, “We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” And then he was aboard Air Force One, off to Las Vegas, for a rally and fundraiser.

The immediate question, of course, is what Obama left behind in Washington D.C. that day. Increasingly, it appears that he left his underlings in Washington to work out the new and dishonest Benghazi narrative–the cover-up. The goal was to insulate the President from all this bad news–he had nothing to do with it. Isn’t it interesting, for example, that no photos were ever released of the President working on the Benghazi crisis on the night of the attacks? Nope, with the November election just six weeks away, the White House strategy was clear: The President was to kept far, far away from anything that might make the votes wonder if they had the right commander-in-chief.

Thus we come to the more important question–the ultimate question: What did the President know? (and when did he know it?)

Everything else, in the long run, flows from that. Obama might not know it or think it, but he is, as JFK said more than a half-century ago, “the responsible officer of this government.” That is, the President is primary in the Benghazi saga; inquiries into the role of anyone else–including the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton–are decidedly secondary or even tertiary. In an investigation such as this, we shouldn’t be looking to the capillaries, or even the arteries; we should be going right to the heart–Obama. If others wish to obscure his role, well, we must seek to clarify his role.

Yet even as we keep our focus on the President, we still have to understand how his men and women acted on his behalf.

The first document of the cover-up, of course, were those dozen-times rewritten Benghazi talking points, the ones that Susan Rice used to mislead the nation on September 16, 2012–five ways to Sunday, one might say. We might immediately note that the Mohammed video never appears in those “talkers.” It was only in the days to come that the blame-the-video narrative was repeated by not only the President, but also the Vice President, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and everyone else in the administration. So there’s a mystery to be unraveled? Who dropped the Mohammed video argument into the national dialogue?

So who was ultimately in charge of those talking points? Not Hillary Clinton, nor her State Department. Instead, the buck seems to have stopped at the White House–but nowhere near the President, of course.

Instead, it was a second-tier functionary at the National Security Council who took the lead. The key figure seems to be one Ben Rhodes, whose title is deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and speechwriting–which should be translated to, “spinning and talking-point massaging.” He was the main rewrite guy.

But here’s where the cover-up gets even more interesting. How so? Because, after all, Rhodes is not in charge of the NSC. And if the actual head of the NSC doesn’t leap to mind, well, that’s proof that the plan is working. What plan? The plan to keep Tom Donilon out of the news and out of the line of fire.

The Benghazi cover-up at the White House was, in fact, a double cover-up. As we have seen, the President was to be insulated from Benghazi. But so, too, was someone else. That someone else is Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser at the White House, who is, of course, Ben Rhodes’ boss at the National Security Council. So if Rhodes is doing something as vital as managing the Benghazi message, we can be reasonably sure that Donilon was all over it. We can be reasonably sure of it, that it, but what we can’t actually see it, because Donilon has chosen to become politically invisible. Yes, if you and I haven’t heard much of Donilon lately, that’s not an accident; even though he is very ambitious, he has always been a behind-the-scenes player. And he’s been very behind-the-scenes for these past eight months.

I consider Donilon to be the greatest spinner and string-puller working in Washington today, and those talents have been good for his career. He started out as a political hack who then parlayed those talents into a gig that made him millions at Fannie Mae . And while the Fannie scandal has destroyed many Beltway careers, and deservedly so, Donilon managed to worm his way up into the highest rung of US national-security policymaking.

Yet not surprisingly, Donilon’s rise has been terrible for the country. I have warned about Donilon extensively in the past, noting, in particular, his skill as a master-leaker and news master-manipulator. In particular, Donilon has been in the middle of the Stuxnet leaks from last year–the leaks designed to make the Obama administration look tough against Iran. And although many Washington leaders, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) were forthright in expressing their concerns about the leaks, and in suggesting that the White House was involved, nothing happened to anyone in the White House–certainly not Donilon. So perhaps that’s how Donilon developed the hubristic arrogance to think that he could leak and spin anything, even Benghazi.

As an aside, to see Donilon in action, we might take another look at that famous Sit Room photo from May 1, 2011. Look closely at the picture: Who’s the dominant figure? It’s not Obama; he’s hunched down on the side. No, the alpha male in the shot is the bluff fellow in the blue-green shirt, his arms sternly folded across his chest–Tom Donilon. These things don’t happen by accident; it’s Donilon, not the others, who runs the Sit Room, and he is smart enough to know where to stand. Does that seem petty? Sure it does. Is it petty? Sure it is. Welcome to Washington.

However, Donilon’s skills seem to have stopped there, with his ability to look commanding in a photo. By contrast, his command of American foreign policy and national security is considerably weaker–more like atrocious.

Donilon could have gone to the President after Benghazi and suggested that course-correction. Donilon could have said, “Mr. President, the situation has changed. You must face up to the challenge of terror and confront it head on.” Once again, not only would such a new and resolute course of action have been the right thing to do, but it would have proven to be, as a residual result, good politics for Obama, as well. Yet Donilon, whom I have known for 35 years, isn’t that smart. If he ever knew that JFK had said, in the wake of the Bay of Pigs back in 1961, “I am the responsible officer,” he obviously failed to grasp the positive impact of forthright candor.

Lacking any larger vision of his own job, Donilon just defaulted to what he knew best–conniving and cover-upping. And conniving and cover-upping not only for Obama, but also for himself. Instead, he was the offstage orchestra conductor, and the maestro; he orchestrated a campaign to of minimize, marginalize, misdirect, and mislead the country.

Yet even Donilon could also see that the Benghazi cover-story effort was not going to be a particularly happy experience for anyone. And so Donilon himself went underground–a hard feat for a national security adviser. Yet Donilon, the “invisible man” when he wants to be–and with the help of a dependent and subservient press–has so far gotten away with it. Thus it’s Ben Rhodes getting kicked around, not his boss.

If the only issue were who is getting credit when things are good (Donilon and Bin Laden), and discredit when things bad (Rhodes and Benghazi), then West Wing power games would be, well, a somewhat amusing little game.

However, as we know, the stakes are much higher than any mere game, In fact, the echoes between Benghazi and Watergate are eerie, indeed. Yet the stakes are, in fact, much higher because they go to not only the credibility of the presidency, but also to the security of the country.

Yet as we learned in Watergate–or should have learned, anyway–a complicated cover-up conspiracy cannot succeed. So Tom Donilon and his tactics are not only a cancer on the presidency, but they are also, by now, a threat to Obama’s credibility and legacy.

Most of all, though, Donilon and his ways, now metastasized across the federal government, are a threat to the United States of America.

***

Next: The Eerie Parallels Between Benghazi and Watergate

You can read Cadell’s very enlightening article in it’s entirety here:

………………………………

Yes, there is more than one scandal brewing in a White House cauldron of LIES! Let’s begin at the beginning. What was Amb Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place with little or no security just the bare minimum of locals providing protection?

In order to get to the bottom of this mystery, the daily news reports are forced to work backwards until they arrive at the beginning. In my opinion, we must establish why Christoper Stevens was asked to go to Benghazi (at the May 2012 Correspondent’s Dinner) by Obama? That answer has been bandied about in several reports but nothing concrete has yet been established except for the fact it was about GUNS- Were those gun made in the USA? Were they leftover guns from Kadaffi’s storehouse? Why was it imperative to use the Ambassador to collect those guns?  Obama asking him to accept the mission at the Correspondents Dinner? (these questions have yet to receive clear concise answers. So they remain at the forefront of our questions list until they are answered as the beginning of the ‘Benghazi Odyssey” of Chris Stevens.)

Here is a recent compilation posted in The New Yorker by Alex Koppelman, entitled “Spinning Benghazi”. I suggest you open the links (as you go) for the details before you continue reading if you are not aware of all the facts as this story is pieced together.

“Spinning Benghazi”

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

quote:

“The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.”

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

The New Yorker link

For reading about the incestual press aiding in the coverup read here:

http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/the-boston-marathon-bombing-was-an-indirect-blowback-from-benghazi/#comment-27669

Obama’s blood trail from Benghazi to Boston

If we persist on taking a myopic view of the incidents happening over the last seven months, we are missing the totality of the transformation of our country under a globalist agenda. I know, it’s as stretch taxing our minds connecting these dots but as painful as it has been for us over recent months, it must be done to understand the metamorphosis taking place in our country before our very eyes.

Are you still wondering why it seems there is no opposition to our democratically controlled government? Where is the outrage from Republicans over the safety of the country? Where is the deafening roar of outrage we heard during the Lewinski scandal?

Why the branding of Bill Clinton by Republican minions as unfit for the presidency shouted from the rooftops and the sordid details of the affair played out 24/7 on tv by Big media in special reports, as the country was in a state of so called peril, triggering the House of Representatives to call for Impeachment proceedings to begin immediately?

Was Bill Clinton guilty of attempting to shred and break the Constitution by taking our guns from our cold dead hands? Was he demanding citizens say nothing negative about the Irish out of fear we were offending their sensibilities or insulting their beliefs in their lifelong Catholic/Protestant religions?

Hardly- He had an affair people. Like so many members of Congress, the very people who condemned him. Later on one by one they confessed to their so-called youthful indiscretions..example [sic] House Manager, Henry Hyde.. (keeping a mistress and supporting a child out of wedlock.)

(the Clinton comparison is strictly for gaining a perspective to the current threats before us and the unrelenting undoing of our Constitution by Executive fiat)

What do the murders of four Americans in Benghazi have to do with the murders of three in a terrorist attack in Boston? Plenty, if you understand what you are seeing in the abstract expressionism of the Jackson Pollock painting is actually a blood trail, and the Pollock painting you are closely studying is an exact reproduction of one of his earlier works. It is a reproduction of a reproduction. We’ve seen this picture before, a bloodstained tangle of lies being sold to us as an artistic masterpiece. But you have to step farther back, not closer to the painting, to actually see the blood trail.

(the illustration at the link is a Pollack painting revealing traces of blood after a forensic examination by art experts.) I will defer to this article helping you gain a much wider perspective written by By Doug Hagmann @ Canada Free Press.

Read it until you realize we are under attack while we sleep- Benghazi and the Boston Bombings are the overt examples that have to be explained away by our government as diverse unrelated events that are unfortunate but do happen occasionally but under the watchful eye of Homeland Security “we will ensure they never happen again.”

Does anyone still remember the terror attack and murders of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? Does anyone still care?

In the wake of the bombings in Boston and amid information the government and media does not want you, the average American citizen to know, motive and causation make a lot of difference. Compare Clinton’s terse response to questions surrounding Benghazi with that of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whose testosterone levels rose sharply as she decided that she would not even dignify Congressman Jeff Duncan’s questioning last week about the reported involvement of a Saudi national identified as Abdulrahman Ali Isa al-Salami al-Harbi, a/k/a Abdulrahman al Harbi.

The Saudi connections

In the event you don’t recognize that name associated with the Boston bombing, the media initially reported that a Saudi national, later determined to be al Harbi, was under guard at a Boston hospital after being injured in the attack. He was seen running from the explosions and tackled by police a short distance from the bombing site. During the normal investigative process of al Harbi, investigators learned that he was reportedly the subject of an alleged deportation order under Section 212 3B Immigration & Nationality Act regarding “Security an”, but completely unrelated to Boston. To get on this list requires some pretty substantial evidence. To be removed from this list is practically impossible, short of detention or death.

Amid the flurry of media reports that followed, however, his name and status at the hospital were gradually and methodically being erased from news reports and people’s memories. An intentional government and media brown-out turned into a noticeable blackout, even while federal authorities were searching his fifth floor apartment at 364 Ocean Avenue, Revere, MA and removing various items for forensic analysis.

Before the last items were taken from his apartment, I am told, orders were given to immediately stop any investigation of al Harbi. Suddenly and inexplicably, al Harbi became off limits, and a few federal agents are angry and want to know why.

His status under Section 212 3B was reportedly rescinded about 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, and he suddenly enjoyed protective status on orders from the ‘highest levels of our government’, but not before Congressman Duncan had a copy of the 212 3B status of al Harbi. Additionally, it is reported, not only was the order rescinded, but his file was made to appear as if the order never existed in the first place.

According to sources close to this author, al Harbi became the primary focus of a high level diplomatic meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal on Tuesday morning, the day after the marathon bombing and the day before his status suddenly changed. The 10:00 am meeting was abruptly closed to the media with only minutes notice, something that rarely happens. The reason, according to sources with “knowledge” of the matter, is due to the classification of al Harbi as a person of interest in the marathon bombing and his status as a Saudi “elite”.

The aforementioned file alteration and status were changed following this meeting, and arrangements were reportedly made for him to leave the United States. As all of this reportedly took place in such a very short period of time, it is important to understand that the alleged changes had to have the approval at the level of the U.S. Secretary of State, or higher. It was done on behalf of the Saudis, with approval and direction from the highest levels of our own government. Why is this important to the events in Boston and Benghazi?

Benghazi to Boston: the Saudi agenda & shielding the truth

First, don’t get stuck in the minutia of al Harbi, just be aware of it and who is behind it. Instead, look at the larger picture. To be clear, al Harbi himself is not the main story here. It’s bigger than that, and the problem is that people are not thinking big enough. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in place to finish what was started long ago. Now, the players under Obama and a complicit press are shielding the truth from the American people. We are not being told the truth about anything, from Benghazi to Boston, and the common factor in all of this is Saudi Arabia.

Our intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia began in earnest (most recently) under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear by now that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one. We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Understanding this should explain that the right-left paradigm is a historical artifact, and provide prospective in terms of how the government is pushing this agenda towards completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within.

We’ve learned from the 2001 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to doing their dirty work. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, they have infiltrated many, if not all levels of our government. As stated, this did not begin under Obama, but was expanded under him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense? (do notice the lack of complicity and inclusion of one name…Clinton)

We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured operation.

Just as the situation involving al Harbi provides us with a window into this agenda, Benghazi provides us with that same window. Unraveling the truth from the lies in both instances will show just how deep the U.S. is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.

Remember this? Obama bowing to the Saudi King? Now you know why!

Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI KNEW the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, under the Obama regime, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.

Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East, and warned Obama not to meddle in the affairs of Syria, which he described as their ‘red line in the sand’. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is the backdoor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.

Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were the paymasters for this operation, but are duplicitous.

Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon to be China-with no peaceful end in sight as the U.S. continues to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the internationalists, the international bankers, and the global elite. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.

Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a sole Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of the Pollock painting. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.

The path to WW III

Like the Pollock paintings, people must be able to see the connections—the blood trails—that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists by our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and in some cases, siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or freeing people from oppression, but creating a new world order.

Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same template reproductions of the paintings, yet don’t recognize it.

We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.

The ‘elected’ are the ‘elect’ vying for a future seat at the global table. They are hidden amid the entanglements of the Pollock work. They are the very ones who will lead us into global conflict.

So when you see the next massive manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from the painting to identify. While we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions. That is assuming, of course, there is anyone left to ask such questions.

Step back and look at the larger picture. See the blood trail that extends among the continents.

It you want the Truth of what is happening to our country, you won’t find it on American TV. You will have to search out the Truth yourself from overseas reports or read here for new postings.

Filed under: Globalist Agenda, Terrorism, United States Tagged: Bill Clinton, Constitution, destroying the Constitution, Globalist Agenda, Terrorism ]]>

by JEROME R. CORSI

EDITOR’S NOTE: Barack Obama’s involvement in the DeMar Second Amendment case was previously reported in Chapter 7 of Jerome R. Corsi’s “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty.”

NEW YORK – Could real estate on American soil owned by China be set up as “development zones” in which the communist nation could establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work?

That’s part of an evolving proposal Beijing has been developing quietly since 2009 to convert more than $1 trillion of U.S debt it owns into equity.

Under the plan, China would own U.S. businesses, U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss.

Yu Qiao, a professor of economics in the School of Public Policy and Management at Tsighua University in Beijing, proposed in 2009 a plan for the U.S. government to guarantee foreign investments in the United States.

WND has reliable information that the Bank of China, China’s central bank, has continued to advance the plan to convert China’s holdings of U.S. debt into equity owned by China in the U.S.

The Obama administration, under the plan, would grant a financial guarantee as an inducement for China to convert U.S. debt into Chinese direct equity investment. China would take ownership of successful U.S. corporations, potentially profitable infrastructure projects and high-value U.S. real estate.

Jerome Corsi exposes the globalists’ plan to put America on the chopping block in “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty,” available at WND’s Superstore.

The plan would be designed to induce China to resume lending to the U.S. on a nearly zero-interest basis.

However, converting Chinese debt to equity investments in the United States could easily add another $1 trillion to outstanding Obama administration guarantees issued in the current economic crisis.

As of November 2012, China owned $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, according to U.S. Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board calculations published Jan. 16.

Concerned about the unrestrained growth in U.S. debt under the Obama administration, China has reduced by 97 percent its holdings in short-term U.S. Treasury bills. China’s holding of $573.7 billion in August 2008, prior to the massive bank bailouts and stimulus programs triggered by the collapse in the U.S. mortgage market, dwindled to $5.96 billion by March 2011.

Treasury bills are short-term debt that matures in one year or less, sold to finance U.S. debt. Holdings of Treasury bills are included in the $1.17 trillion of total Treasury securities owned by China as of November 2012.

In addition to a national debt in excess of $16 trillion, the U.S. government in 2010 faced over $70 trillion in unfunded obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits scheduled to be paid retiring baby boomer retirees in the coming decades, with unfunded obligations showing no sign of being reduced with Congress at a deadlock over reducing federal government spending.

Yu Qiao observed that if the U.S. dollar collapsed under the weight of proposed Obama administration trillion-dollar budget deficits into the foreseeable future, holders of U.S. debt would face substantial losses that the Financial Times estimated “would devastate Asians’ hard-earned wealth and terminate economic globalization.”

“The basic idea is to turn Asian savings, China’s in particular, into real business interests rather than let them be used to support U.S. over-consumption,” Yu Qiao wrote, reflecting themes commonly suggested by Chinese government officials. “While fixed-income securities are vulnerable to any fall in the value of the dollar, equity claims on sound corporations and infrastructure projects are at less risk from a currency default,” he continued.

The problem is that, in a struggling U.S. economy, China does not want to trade its investment in U.S. Treasury debt securities, with their inherent risk of dollar devaluation, for equally risky investments in U.S. corporations and infrastructure projects.

“But Asians do not want to bear the risk of this investment because of market turbulence and a lack of knowledge of cultural, legal and regulatory issues in U.S. businesses,” he stressed. “However if a guarantee scheme were created, Asian savers could be willing to invest directly in capital-hungry U.S. industries.”

Yu Qiao’s plan included four components:

China would negotiate with the U.S. government to create a “crisis relief facility,” or CRF. The CRF “would be used alongside U.S. federal efforts to stabilize the banking system and to invest in capital-intensive infrastructure projects such as high-speed railroad from Boston to Washington, D.C.
China would pool a portion of its holdings of Treasury bonds under the CFR umbrella to convert sovereign debt into equity. Any CFR funds that were designated for investment in U.S. corporations would still be owned and managed by U.S. equity holders, with the Asians holding minority equity shares “that would, like preferred stock, be convertible.”

The U.S. government would act as a guarantor, “providing a sovereign guarantee scheme to assure the investment principal of the CRF against possible default of targeted companies or projects”.

The Federal Reserve would set up a special account to supply the liquidity the CRF would require to swap sovereign debt into industrial investment in the United States.

“The CRF would lessen Asians’ concern about implicit default of sovereign debts caused by a collapsing dollar,” Yu Qiao concluded. “It would cost little and help the U.S. by channeling funds to business investment.”

Read more at:

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/01/china-poised-to-play-debt-card-for-u-s-land/#5iOitOcSUEubZkEX.99

……………………………

World View: Discussion of China’s Directive to ‘Get Ready for War’

by John J. Xenakis

This morning’s key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China’s strategy
• How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?
• China’s military strength
• The Chinese threat

My recent article “China’s directive to the People’s Liberation Army: Get Ready for War” was posted in several places and drew hundreds of questions and comments. In this article, I’m going to provide some responses.

I quoted Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, as advocating a short decisive war against one of China’s neighbors:

Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real.

This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia. We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel.”

One web site reader wrote:

“China might alternatively pick Vietnam as the dog to be killed. Vietnam does not have a defense pact with the United States and the U.S. might seek to provide only indirect assistance to Vietnam. Vietnam might also refuse to surrender and be impossible to pacify in a “quick war”.China could find itself at war with a minor power and not with any major power for a number of years.”

Another wrote:

“If China was going to war with anyone (and I do not wish war on anyone) I’d prefer they attack Vietnam. This wouldn’t suck the Western Allies in and it could teach China a good lesson of being bled dry by a tenacious enemy. This would be best case IMO outside of peace of course.”

This discussion highlighted something that hadn’t occurred to me before: That an attack on Vietnam is the “logical” choice for China. From China’s point of view, there would be several advantages:

• It would raise far less nationalism in the United States than would attacks on Japan or the Philippines.
• China has a score to settle with Vietnam, following the 1979 China-Vietnam war.
• The motive would be “kill a chicken to scare the monkeys,” as the old Chinese saying goes.
• It would assert complete control over the South China Sea.
• China claims that America has been a troublemaker in the South and East China Seas, because these countries have been confronting China in the confident belief that they would be defended by the U.S. If the U.S. does not defend Vietnam, then the other countries would no longer feel confident, and would no longer challenge China.
• It would scare Japan, so that China could take control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and Japan would retreat.

(The last reason, of course, is sheer fantasy, but it’s possible that Chinese hawks believe it.)

China invaded Vietnam in 1979 in a war where China was repulsed quickly. China made some serious mistakes in that war. Those mistakes would not be repeated in this crisis era.

It’s possible that a Chinese invasion of Vietnam would lead to President Obama’s “Neville Chamberlain moment.” But, as in that case, any later aggressive action by China would lead to full-scale war. Time Magazine

How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?

Some Chinese military planners believe that Americans will “run like rabbits” and not honor its mutual defense treaties, if China invaded one of its neighbors. A lot of commenters believe the same thing:

“The only reason the Chinese might think “Americans will run like rabbits” is because of this administration’s recent weak performance in the Middle East, and because of the tenuous U.S. (and Western) economy (both White House admins are to blame here).

Whatever one thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear to all foreign entities that America shows neither a principled and goal oriented interaction nor a policy engaged from a position of confidence (exerted quietly or visibly).”

I expressed the opinion that “President Obama would not have any choice if Congress declared war, which might happen within hours of any Chinese attack.” One reader responded:

“First, yes he would. He could dither on the deployments the way France and the U.K. did after Hitler seized Bohemia and Moravia and declared Slovakia a Protectorate, then dithered some more when Hitler declared war on Poland, launching a mighty Sitzkrieg offensive in the Pacific while saving the Blitzkrieg for the media and stump circuit.In the face of that, all Congress could do is impeach him, even while an attempt is made to repeal the 22nd Amendment so he can do nothing for even more [years].

Second, what if a declaration of war passes the House but not the Senate? Never mind the Chamberlain in the White House, Harry Reid could play his own version of Neville, and no war resolution would ever reach the floor of the Senate.

What exactly would happen if Congress “couldn’t” decide?”

Dithering would be a high-risk political strategy for the President and a Democratic Senate. When Neville Chamberlain promised “Peace in our time” after meeting with Hitler, he was doing something that seemed perfectly reasonable on that day. And yet, Chamberlain has been damned by history as the man who appeased Adolf Hitler. President Obama would risk being damned as a modern day Neville Chamberlain who appeased the Chinese.

China’s military strength

There were widely varied opinions about China’s military strength:

“A nuclear holocaust might be a tad bit premature. We’re not really sure what China’s nuclear capability is, specifically their ability to hit the US. Couple of points:Until the 1990s, their primary nuclear target was the Soviet Union. China is notorious for stockpiling archaic military equipment, even if it doesn’t work.

Even if Obama’s military and nuclear cuts hit before any war with China, our nuclear capability far exceeds theirs. The Chinese government knows this.

China probably has around 500 – 600 nuclear weapons and enough materials to build another 400 over a few years. But the US is not China’s only target. Some of those weapons have to be kept aimed at India and Russia, both nuclear powers. Many of China’s warheads are mounted on train-track based launchers that are pointed north, northwest. China would be risking a Russian retaliatory strike by launching those warheads.

Many, as high as 20%, of China’s warheads are gravity bombs designed to be dropped by late WWII style bombers.

China does not have force projection capabilities. They have one carrier in partial service and with a small air wing. They have no long range amphibious assault ships. They cannot establish a perimeter line, like the Japanese, that could keep US forces away from mainland China. And China does not have the nuclear ability to knock the US out of any fight. They can position diesel electric subs at choke points in an attempt to ambush US carrier groups. That does nothing about the USAF and China would be gambling their entire sub force.

A far more realistic scenario would be a Chinese invasion of easier targets in the region. Picture The Philippines, Okinawa, and/or Taiwan. If the US intervened, China would use a limited number of nuclear weapons on nations that could provide the US with military bases, specifically Japan. Hitting Japan would have the bonus of hitting the US economy. China will be betting on the US not retaliating with nuclear weapons if the US is not the target. China would then fortify their gains and simply wait for the US to go bankrupt. Once that happens, China would be free to begin expanding its control throughout the remainder of South East Asia and the Pacific unopposed.”

Another reader pointed out:

“Based on what we know, the DF21 “carrier killer” missile shown in the photo has never been tested on seaborne targets.”

However, one more reader said that China’s military capabilities are far more advanced than we realize:

“What most people don’t realize is that most of China’s infrastructure is dual-use civilian/military. That is, every train, plane, truck, railway, road, you name it, is designed for military use, as well as civilian use. For example, in a matter of weeks, all of China’s shipping -ALL of it- can literally be plugged into the military command and control system and converted for military use. This incluse ‘plug and play’ cargo, missile and weapons systems for their cargo ships and civilian aircraft.In short, they held an arms race…and no one else showed up.

What set them off was America’s victory in the first gulf war. They paid attention and began to redesign their entire military and civilian infrastructure. They also reworked their military philosophy. For over twenty years, they’ve been preparing to fight America in a war.

A probable naval scenario: Imagine a cargo ship loaded with disposable anti-ship missile platforms. Precision guided missiles. Thousands of them. Imagine a US navy task force on the receiving end of five thousand precision guided missiles.”

China is known to be planning “asymmetric warfare,” attacking America’s weak points by unconventional means. According to one reader:

“Our key vulnerability is cyberattack. We’re still not doing as much as we should to protect ourselves, but we’re finally taking action and it looks like some of our leaders are realizing how dangerous it is. That’ll be the primary method to take down our capabilities. I would say it would set us back at least a couple months, probably longer than that. Their optimum time to strike in that theater would be in the near future.Our satellites will be the next mode of crippling us. I read in the 2007 about their anti-satellite and I’d bet that by now they’ve got hundreds of anti-satellite missiles ready for use. It won’t take more than a day or two.”

See also “14-Oct-12 World View — Huawei scandal exposes potential ‘Cyberwar Pearl Harbor’ from China” from last year.

The Chinese threat

There were some skeptical remarks, like:

“With the coming soft or hard landing in China’s economy, using war with a small neighbor, is a sure fire way to divert the attention of the common person. Look at Argentina did during the Falkland Island war and ready to do it again. Only a mistake or believing their own public relations spin will start a war between the US and PRC.”

However, the most skeptical remark of all was simply:

“This is a completely uninformed and ridiculous article.”

I knew I would get this kind of criticism, and that’s why I put in links to several Chinese and American sources, so that readers could verify the information for themselves. However, I would add that comments like this usually come from someone who couldn’t even find China on a map, let alone have a clue what’s going on in the world.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers mocked and ridiculed two sets of people in the 1930s: The ones who, like Herbert Hoover, believed that “prosperity was just around the corner,” even though the Depression kept worsening, and the ones who ignored the dangers in Europe and simply took “Peace in our time” for granted. When I was in school, I never understood how so many people could be so obviously wrong. Now that the same thing is happening today, I realize that there are many people who simply can’t deal with the anxiety, and are willing to believe almost anything.

I’ve been writing about the coming war with China for almost ten years now. What has been apparent all along is that China isn’t even bothering to hide their intentions. It’s not like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin may bash and scorn the West, but the days of “We will bury you” are long gone.

But the Chinese vocally threaten war somewhere almost on a daily basis. They have a very different world view that we have. In 2007, I quoted Sha Zukang, the Chinese U.N. ambassador, who said, “one INCH of the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people.” With 1.5 billion people, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost has no choice but to view people as interchangeable and expendable cogs in a massive wheel of agriculture and industry. China has made this clear repeatedly. I believe that it was Lao Tzu in “The Art of War” who said that in a war the side with the advantage is the side that isn’t afraid to die, and the Chinese aren’t afraid to allow millions of their people die if that’s the way to achieve victory.
Permanent web link to this article

breitbart.com

IS THIS MORE LIP SERVICE OR TRUE GRIT?

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

(RELATED: Levin: If Obama sidesteps Congress on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment)

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.

The freshman congressman, who served one term in Congress in the mid-1990s, further labeled the possibility “an existential threat to this nation” because, he said, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from tyranny.

“Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans.”

“If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.
Daily Caller

STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES:

…………………………

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 08:58 AM EST

Obama reportedly considering 19 executive actions on gun control

The President is making other plans as Harry Reid says an assault weapons won’t pass the Senate

By Jillian Rayfield

As things begin to look more dire for potential gun control legislation passing through Congress, Obama is reportedly weighing 19 different executive actions he can take to implement new gun laws.

Congressional Republicans have signalled that passing certain types of legislation won’t be easy, and the president of the NRA said over the weekend that it doesn’t think an assault weapons ban will make it through Congress. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has his doubts, though added that there may be other laws that can pass. “Is it something that can pass the Senate? Maybe. Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it,” Reid said in an interview. “So I think there are things that we know we can do.”

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said Joe Biden told lawmakers in a briefing on Monday that there are “19 independent steps that the president can take by executive order.”

From the AP:

Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.

And from the New York Times:

Lawmakers and other officials said that the president could use a public event as soon as Wednesday to signal his intention to engage in the biggest Congressional fight over guns in nearly two decades, focusing on the heightened background checks and including efforts to ban assault weapons and their high-capacity clips. But given the difficulty of pushing new rules through a bitterly divided Congress, Mr. Obama will also promise to act on his own to reduce gun violence wherever possible.

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

See Link for all 4 photos

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.

As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court’s decision to review Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.

On Feb. 15, all nine justices will hear arguments on whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.

The Supreme Court’s website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz’s application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.

Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama’s passport records.

It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama’s.

passport records.

On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:

The case . . . provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS.

Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.

The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 petitions annually in regular conferences. About 100 are selected for further judicial consideration. In this filtering process, the votes of four justices are needed to advance a case. On her website, Dr. Taitz argues that Obama has used false identification, an alias, a fake Social Security number, forged birth certificates and Selective Service applications. [ See a comparison of a regular birth certificate versus one submitted by Barack Obama in this photo. ]

Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama’s claimed Social Security number (042-68-4425) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.

This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery.

The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as “unworthy of further discussion”. Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama’s first inauguration as the nation’s 44th chief executive.

A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama’s birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team’s conclusion that Obama’s birth certification is “definitely fraudulent”. After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.

In April 2011, the White House retracted the Hawaii certificate and replaced it with a long form version. Around the same time, business tycoon Donald Trump sent a team of investigators to the state of Hawaii to question Obama’s real place of birth.

Said Trump:

He [Obama] spent $2 million in legal fees trying on to get away from this issue, and if it weren’t an issue, why wouldn’t he just solve it? I wish he would because if he doesn’t, it’s one of the greatest scams in the history of politics and in the history, period. You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country. Right now, I have real doubts.

The issue gained steam in the midst of a highly contentious election year as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gained favor among the voting public. In May 2012, the president’s former literary agent Acton & Dystel produced a previously unpublished leaflet stating that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. The promotional booklet was written in 1991 when Obama was at Harvard Law School. It was intended to be part of an Obama autobiography but the project was cancelled.

In Oct. 2012, just days before November presidential elections, Mr. Trump offered to donate $5 million to Obama’s chosen charity if the commander-in-chief would disclose his college and passport records. Trump had hoped that the disclosures would shed light on where Barack Obama was born, his citizenship status, and whether or not he was admitted to college and law school as a foreign exchange student. President Obama ignored Trump’s challenge in media interviews and refused to release the requested records.

However, comedian Bill Maher did issue a challenge to Mr. Trump to produce his birth certificate in exchange for $5 million donated to the latter’s favorite charity. Maher made the offer on Jan. 7 on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno”. On Tuesday, the real estate tycoon produced a birth certificate showing that he was born in New York City. Trump’s lawyer then issued a letter asking the HBO host to make good on his $5 million offer.

Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump’s birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. Please remit the $5 million to Mr. Trump immediately and he will ensure that the money be donated to the following five charities in equal amounts: Hurricane Sandy Victims, The Police Athletic League, The American Cancer Society, The March of Dimes, and The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

LINK

BEFORE THE ELECTION, OBAMA VOWED HELPING SANDY HOOK VICTIMS WITH FEDERAL AIDE… The Bill crafted by Republicans became so top heavy with “pork” it died before it came up for a vote.  Not even attempt from Obama at a special Executive Order to help these poor people out. He got their vote…  nothing in it for him at this point in time…

IT’s VACATION TIME!… Yahoo!

Barack Obama proves once again he has absolutely no shame.  Puffing his chest out and claiming a fiscal cliff victory and a “balanced” approach that raises taxes without reducing the size of government, Barack Obama then zoomed away aboard Air Force One to return to Hawaii and the golf course – at an estimated cost of $3 million dollars just for the flight to the American taxpayer.

Air Force One is known to cost about $180,000 an hour to fly. Based on an estimated 18 hours roundtrip flying time for the jet between Washington and Honolulu, the travel cost alone of Obama’s decision to return to Hawaii amounts to around $3.24 million. And that doesn’t include the price tag for the massive security operation required to move the president or the cost of the cargo plane that follows Air Force One around.

…The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million.  LINK

LIE #2

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/senate-passed-deal-means-higher-tax-on-77-of-households.html

LIE #3 A WHOPPER!

Senate Report Confirms Obama Lied When He Linked Benghazi To Mohammed Film On September 18th…

(CNSNews.com) – Three days after CIA and State Department eyewitnesses reported on Sept. 15 that there had been no protest in Benghazi, Libya, before terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA facility there on Sept. 11, President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney both publicly linked the attacks, which killed four Americans, to protests against an anti-Muslim video that had been posted on YouTube.

Carney did it at the White House press briefing on Tuesday, Sept. 18, and Obama did it later that same day in a taped interview with David Letterman.

However, according to a new report by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, personnel working at the CIA “Annex” in Benghazi on Sept. 11 reported on Sept. 15 that there had been no protest in Benghazi that day, and State Department security personnel who survived the Benghazi attacks told FBI interviewers on Sept. 15 and Sept. 16 that they, too, had seen no evidence of any protest before the attacks.

At the White House briefing on Sept. 18, Carney said that there was a protest in Benghazi on Sept. 11 against the anti-Muslim YouTube video and that the attacks there were “sparked” by protests. Obama, appearing on David Letterman’s show that same day, instantly referred to the video and called its maker a “shadowy character” when Letterman asked him what had happened in Benghazi . . .

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/02/senate-report-confirms-obama-lied-when-he-linked-benghazi-to-mohammed-film-on-september-18th/

……………………….

Filed under: "FOOL ME TWICE", 2012 Election, Global News, Obamanation, United States Tagged: Barack Obama, United States, Vacation time ]]>