Saturday, March 22, 2014

Lt. Gen. McInerney Says #MH370 Is In Pakistan

lt gen thomas mcinerney images google yahoo youtube

oped: Enough is enough folks...time to tune out the talking heads and listen to those who have real time experience in real life issues.. ratings I understand but fantasy for 15 minutes of fame only hurts real life conclusions and the ending of terrorism once and for all ...PC will be the death of us all! I stand tall with the General hello: Theory without Fact is Hypothesis...Fact without Theory is Chaos." What MSN is giving us is pure Chaos!

Gateway Pundit, by Jim Hoft:
Retired Lt. General Thomas McInerney was on America’s News HQ today to once again discuss his theory that missing flight MH370 flew to Pakistan.
McInerney and LIGNET Intel Group still believe the plane flew to Pakistan.
paki flight
Langley Intelligence Group Intel Group released a second report Friday on the missing plane.

As the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 drags on without a trace of wreckage at sea, the likelihood of foul play looms larger. One country keeps rising to the top of the list of suspects: Pakistan.
Ten days after the flight vanished, LIGNET learned that engineers at Boeing, the plane’s manufacturer, believed the missing aircraft was on the ground in Pakistan. For several reasons, including al-Qaeda’s presence there, historical attack patterns, corruption, weakness and terrorist sympathies at the highest levels inside Pakistan, that hunch may be right.

Lt. Gen. McInerney discussed why the plane flew to Pakistan.
“LIGNET put out a report, substantiated yesterday, that there sources got their information from Boeing sources, which is covert. Not that they got their information from the Boeing Company because they’re involved in the investigation, that the airplane was in Pakistan. That was confirmed by LIGNET on Monday and I got another source at LIGNET that confirmed it yesterday… I do believe that those people in Pakistan, in the ISI, those people who knew where Osama Bin Laden was and didn’t tell us. I believe those same elements could be involved with getting that airplane into a Pakistan air force base.”

I want a Retro America...Yes Indeed No more Village idiots !!!!

.Happy Days when kids were kids and adults were adults...never equals...Kids, self included had to earn more rights & freedom...and it worked just fine! No more progressive crap "It Takes A Village" way just great parents not sickos! cue:  

High School Senior Could Lose Army Dream Because Of Pocket Knife

jordan wiser
The “zero tolerance” policies upheld by public schools today do not appear to revolve around any sense of reason or practicality.  To most of us, they seem absurd and insane.  How many children need to be accosted for making pretend guns out of pop-tarts or having a pocket knife in their car before school officials realize how ludicrous their philosophy is?   However, I would point out that there is a perfectly rational explanation for such uncompromising zealotry, and that there is indeed logic behind the madness.
Zero tolerance methods act as a form of conditioning; a way to terrorize your children into accepting an anti-gun, anti-weapon, or anti-self defense mindset.  I would also suggest that these policies are being encouraged amongst public schools at the federal level.  Take note that after Sandy Hook, there was an explosion of strange stories involving school students punished for simply playing imaginary shooting games or fashioning a gun shaped item out of something harmless.  This occurred all across the country in multiple states, leading one to suspect that the crackdown is not random, and that there is a program at play.  Sadly, there is very little that can be done from within the system to alleviate the destructive nature of public schools.  Most of them rely heavily on federal funding just to stay afloat.  The only recourse is for liberty minded people to pull their children out of these corrupt institutions and homeschool them. 

Brandon Smith, Associate Editor
An Ohio high school student has already been jailed and kicked out of school for having a pocket knife in his car, and now he fears he could lose his dream of serving in the Army.
Jordan Wiser, a student at Ashtabula County Technical School in Jefferson, is finishing up his senior year from home after school officials searched his car in December and found the folding knife and an Airsoft gun. School officials called police, who charged him with illegal conveyance of a weapon onto a school ground based on the three-inch knife.
“I declined to allow them to search myself or my car and that I wanted to talk to my lawyer or my father,” Wiser told “They told me it wasn’t an option.”
Wiser, an EMT trainee who hopes to become both a police officer and a soldier, spent 13 days in the Ashtabula County Jail following the incident. The knife, which Wiser said is part of his first responder’s kit and can be used for slicing an accident victim’s seatbelt, was found tucked inside his EMT medical vest in the trunk of the car. The Airsoft gun, which fires non-lethal pellets, was not illegal and was used by Wiser in a shooting club he belongs to, he said.
School officials told that possession of the pocket knife was a violation of the school’s zero tolerance policy for bringing weapons on campus and that based on a message he posted on an online forum, they had probable cause to search Wiser and his car. They also insisted Wiser consented to the search.

“When we asked, he had said, ‘okay,’” school Superintendent Jerome Brockway said.
Brockway said the district is obliged to motion for expulsion once a student is found with banned items on campus, and said the student handbook states that officials have the right to search a student and his or her vehicle if they have probable cause.

Oath Keepers: Ares Armor vs. Illegal ATF Raid

Quick Links
Ares Armor  
Illegal ATF Raid
UPDATE: Stewart Rhodes interviews CEO Dimitrios Karras - March 18, 2014

Stewart Rhodes interviews Ares Armor CEO Dimitrios Karras

TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor
SUBJ: Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE
DATE: March 12, 2014

Sir or Ma'am,

Last week the BATFE Raided EP Armory based on a determination letter that had deemed the 80% Polymer product to be a firearm. The determination letter that the BATFE used to obtain warrants against EP Armory is based on incorrect information about the manufacturing process. The BATFE has been notified of their error and the incorrectness of their determination based on this error. 

This week on Monday, March 10th the BATFE threatened to raid us even though they are fully aware that their determination letter is factually incorrect. They requested that we turn over a list of every customer that had purchased a polymer lower from us and turn over the remaining inventory that we have.

Our customer's privacy is of the utmost importance to us. I cannot in good moral conscience turn over a list of names to the BATFE just because they unduly threaten us with an unjust raid based on information they KNOW TO BE FALSE!

For the time we are SAFE! We were granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the BATFE on March 11th. The following is the declaration that I made during the process of obtaining this TRO:

Declaration of Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor
In regards to the events surrounding Ares Armor's interaction with EP Armory's products and the threats made towards Ares Armor by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE.) The following declarations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I, Dimitrios Karras, state:

1. During a meeting with the BATFE around the end of 2012 that was unrelated to EP Armory's product, the Agent that was present very strongly requested that I turn over Ares Armor's customer list. He intimidated me with the possibility of criminal charges if he was not satisfied. This was the first attempt the BATFE made to intimidate Ares Armor into turning over private customer information.

2. An 80% lower is an industry term for an unfinished receiver that is not considered to be a firearm.

3. EP Armory manufactures an 80% lower receiver made from polymer.

4. Ares Armor purchases and then resells many products one of which is the 80% Polymer Lowers that are made by EP Armory.

5. In the regular course of business I have seen many different 80% AR-15 receivers.

6. EP Armory's product is no different than standard 80% receivers that are sold openly and that the BATFE has consistently determined to not be a firearm. EP Armory's product is in compliance with previous BATFE Determinations and is not a firearm.

7. The BATFE has Raided EP Armory based on incorrect information about EP Armory's manufacturing process. The determination letter written by the BATFE incorrectly classified the EP Armory product as a firearm based on faulty information. The BATFE was under the impression that EP Armory was making a firearm and then reverting back to the 80% stage by filling in the fire-control cavity. At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this "core" specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm.

a. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-3. The BATFE has consistently determined that the machining operations that cannot be performed in order to not be considered a firearm are as follows:

1. Milling out of fire-control cavity.
2. Selector-lever hole drilled.
3. Cutting of trigger slot.
4. Drilling of trigger pin hole.
5. Drilling of hammer pin hole.
b. EP Armory's product is consistent with the BATFE's many previous determinations.

c. At no time during EP Armory's manufacturing process are any of the aforementioned 5 operations in a state that could cause a reasonable person to believe that EP Armory's product would be considered a firearm.
8. The BATFE has been appropriately informed of their mistake. However, even though they have no determination that is based on fact, they are knowingly using their fiction based determination to intimidate Ares Armor with threats in order to inappropriately gain access to information that is private and should be protected.

9. I received communication on or about 3/10/2014 from our legal counsel (Jason Davis) that the BATFE was in the process of obtaining a warrant against Ares Armor based on their incorrect determination of EP Armory's Product. I was advised that the BATFE had offered to forego obtaining a warrant if Ares Armor was willing to:
a. Hand over all of EP Armory's 80% Lowers.
b. Turn over Ares Armor customer's private information to the BATFE.
In exchange for turning over our customer's private information the BATFE said that they would not "raid" Ares Armor's facilities and would not pursue "criminal" charges. This made me feel as if I was being extorted. I agreed to their terms in order to delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law.

10. I have been unjustly threatened with raids and criminal charges in an attempt by the BATFE to obtain information that is private and protected. The BATFE has expressed interest in obtaining Ares Armor's customer list in the past and is now attempting to strong-arm us with undue threats based on information they know to be incorrect.

11. I am now in constant fear for the safety of my employees, my customers and myself.

Executed March 10, 2014 Oceanside, CA

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dimitrios Karras

Welcome Back, Carter!

Back to the future with Barry! CNN flunks science. And: farewell, Fred! All this, plus, school, Chicago-style! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It's The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!

Obama At Columbia Story Explains Arrogant Attitude..was rarely seen!

I told you so.
Thirty years ago, Barack Obama, my Columbia University Class of ’83 classmate, was rarely seen. Thirty years later, he can’t be bothered to attend national security meetings about a crisis that could lead to World War III.
Some things never change.
You might ask, “What do Obama’s college days have to do with his Presidency today?” The answer is everything.
By college, a person’s personality, attitude and behavior is usually fairly well set. That’s why Obama’s Columbia days tell us so much about his behavior as President today.
What do I know about Obama at Columbia? Nothing. I never met him. As I’ve reported countless times, I was a political science major and pre-law at Columbia from 1979-1983. Even though I thought I knew everyone in the political science department, neither I nor any of my friends at Columbia ever met or saw Obama there.
At the 30th class reunion last May, I tracked down legendary Columbia history professor and Presidential historian Henry Graff. For 46 years, all the American political leaders who attended Columbia were in Professor Graff’s classes. Not Obama. Graff never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.

The problem is Obama defenders and the media (I know, they’re the same) interpreted what I said wrongly. I never said Obama didn’t attend Columbia. I said he was never in class. I said while it was strange only one or two students, one professor and one foreign exchange student (who was his roommate off campus) claim to have ever seen him at Columbia, they prove he most probably attended the university. I’m sure he wouldn’t be the first college student to rarely, if ever, attend classes. I said he was like “the ghost of Columbia.”
What it means is simple. Obama is exactly the same today as he was as a student at Columbia thirty years ago: arrogant and egotistical. He’s either too lazy, or he thinks he’s too smart, to have to actually do the work expected of him. Nothing has changed in 30 years.
I’m sure he was rarely ever in class at Columbia because he had more important things to do. Besides, he already knew everything. Obama has always believed Obama is brilliant and better than the rest of us. What more could Columbia teach him?
It’s the same today. He rarely attends important meetings. In the past two weeks, he’s skipped two national security meetings focused on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a crisis that could lead to World War III. Yet our President chose not to attend.
Do you think this is conservative propaganda or exaggeration? Hardly. Obama’s absence from both national security meetings was reported by many media, including Reuters.
Why did Obama skip the first meeting? He chose to attend a White House Film Festival. Just like during his days at Columbia University, Obama had more important things to do.
Even if Obama isn’t impressed by Russia’s invading Ukraine, certainly he finds America’s jobs crisis important, right? Wrong. Obama could find no time to meet about the sky-high unemployment in America either. Even leftist Huffington Post reported in July 2012 that Obama had not convened a meeting of his jobs council in six months.

POLITICO updated the report in January 2013: Obama never bothered to convene one meeting of his own jobs council in a full year, even with unemployment and underemployment at crisis levels.
Even more remarkable, within two weeks of that story, Obama closed down his jobs council — with 12 million Americans still counted officially as unemployed.
With more than 92 million working-age Americans not working, and men suffering the lowest workforce participation rate since record-keeping began, Obama thought it unimportant to even continue having a jobs council.
So what was important in Obama’s life? Golf and fundraisers., the nonpartisan fact checker, confirmed our President golfed 10 times and attended 106 fundraisers during just the original six-month period when he could find no time, or interest, to attend even one meeting of his own jobs council. Can you imagine the updated numbers for the full year?
And where was he the night of the Benghazi attack? Both Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified Obama was absent that night.
Four brave Americans died while Obama was “absent.” What could be more important than a U.S. consulate under attack with American lives at stake? What could be so important that Obama never checked in to ask a question or discuss a rescue attempt from 5:30 p.m. Eastern time until the next morning (when everyone was dead)?
Just like his college days, Obama believes he’s too gifted to do the actual work of President. He’s just too busy to have to worry about unemployed Americans. He’s just too important to have to bother to check in every night. Those are all things only “the little people” have to do.

History will show that George W. Bush, the man the leftist media painted as “arrogant, elitist and out of touch,” played 29 rounds of golf as President, until quitting in August of 2003 out of respect for the troops in harm’s way.
Meanwhile, Obama, “the man of the people,” has played 163 rounds of golf and counting, while America is at war, while Russia threatens World War III, while the economy is in shambles, while millions of people have given up hope of ever working again, while record numbers of Americans are living in poverty, while black unemployment is double that of white and while food stamps, welfare, disability and all entitlements soar to record levels.
Nothing has changed since Columbia University — not Obama’s personality, not his attitude, not his behavior.
We have a President who thinks of himself as too smart, too gifted, too important and too busy to give a damn about his job, or the economy, or the American people — either that or he does care. And he’s not in our corner. I’ll let you decide.

Holder and Mueller Spent $7.8 Million on Personal Travel

 fbi director robert s mueller iii right and attorney general eric ...

Federal officials and employees have never been shy about mixing personal travel with official business and sticking taxpayers with the tab.
Last summer, an internal audit revealed that top executives at the Internal Revenue Service were spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars commuting to Washington from their homes across the country, instead of living in D.C.
Related: IRS Travelgate--Executives Flout Tax Rules
Then a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) showed that many of these top executives who travel extensively for work are skirting the law and not paying income tax on their hefty travel reimbursements, as ordinary Americans are required to do.
Now we learn that Senior Justice Department officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and former FBI Director Robert Mueller used federal aircraft for hundreds of personal trips that were not properly reported, according to a report by Congress’s nonpartisan Government Accountability office issued this week.

GAO found that Holder, Mueller and other Justice Department executives took 395 unclassified, non-mission flights between fiscal years 2009 and 2001. GAO determined that the flights cost taxpayers $7.8 million. But the General Services Administration, which oversees such trips, did not require documentation because of a GSA reporting exemption that covers intelligence agencies, even in cases of unclassified personal travel.
The GAO report states that the reporting exemption applied to the FBI and other Justice Department agencies contradicts decades-old executive-branch requirements, specifically guidelines established by President Bill Clinton and the Office of Management and Budget. The report said GSA “has not provided a basis for deviating from executive branch requirements.”
Related: What Eric Holder Got Right and Wrong About Big Banks
“Specifically, executive branch documents—including Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126, OMB Bulletin 93-11, and a 1993 presidential memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies—require agencies to report to GSA, and for GSA to collect data, on senior federal official travel on government aircraft for non-mission purposes, except for trips that are classified,” the report stated. “Identifying an adequate basis for the intelligence agency reporting exemption or removing the exemption from its regulations if a basis cannot be identified could help GSA ensure its regulations for senior federal official travel comply with executive branch requirements.”

The findings were released on Thursday and came out nearly 19 months after Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas and other Republican lawmakers began questioning Holder’s use of an FBI jet for travel unrelated to Justice Department work. On security grounds, the attorney general is required to use non-commercial flights – and has access to Defense Department jets. But he and other DOJ officials must reimburse the government for personal trips – which they did not in the trips cited in the GAO report.

Related: More Federal Workers Abusing Government Credit Cards
The lawmakers said at the time they requested the GAO review they were concerned that Holder’s use of FBI aircraft, which is supposed to be reserved for the agency’s own operations, could hinder the agency’s operations. Since the FBI always has to have a plane on standby for emergency purposes, the agency has had to lease another aircraft while theirs was being used to ferry Justice Department officials, the lawmakers said.
The new report doesn’t provide any details on the personal travel by Holder, Mueller and others uncovered in the investigation.
GSA officials have promised to eliminate the intelligence exemption applying to non-mission, unclassified travel. The agency also plans to begin documenting those trips in its regular reports on travel by senior federal officials. The Justice Department hasn’t responded to a request by The Fiscal Times for a comment on the report.

Israel steps up talk of threat of force on Iran

FILE - In this Sunday, July 16, 2006 file photo an Israeli F-16 warplane takes off to a mission in Lebanon from an air force base in northern Israel. ...

JERUSALEM (AP) — A rising chorus of Israeli voices is again raising the possibility of carrying out a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in what appears to be an attempt to draw renewed attention to Tehran's atomic program — and Israel's unhappiness with international negotiations with the Iranians.
In recent days, a series of newspaper reports and comments by top defense officials have signaled that the military option remains very much on the table. While Israeli officials say Israel never shelved the possibility of attacking, the heightened rhetoric marks a departure from Israel's subdued approach since six world powers opened negotiations with Iran last November.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been an outspoken critic of the international efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran. He has spent years warning the world against the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and fears a final deal will leave much of Iran's nuclear capabilities intact. 

But since the global powers reached an interim agreement with Iran last November, Netanyahu's warnings about Iran have been largely ignored. A frustrated Israeli leadership now appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to take a tough position in its negotiations with Iran.
A front-page headline in the daily Haaretz on Thursday proclaimed that Netanyahu has ordered "to prep for strike on Iran in 2014" and has allocated 10 billion shekels (2.87 billion dollars) for the groundwork. Earlier this week, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon hinted that Israel would have to pursue a military strike on its own, with the U.S. having chosen the path of negotiations. And the military chief, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, said this week that Iran "is not in an area that is out of the military's range."
An Israeli military strike would be extremely difficult to pull off, both for logistical and political reasons. Any mission would likely require sending Israeli warplanes into hostile airspace, and it remains unclear how much damage Israel could inflict on a program that is scattered and hidden deep underground. In addition, it would likely set off an international uproar, derail the international negotiations and trigger retaliation on Israeli and U.S. targets.
Yoel Gozansky, an Iran expert at the Institute of National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank, said the comments were meant as a wake-up call to the world. 

"It was in a coma. It has awoken suddenly," he said of the military-option talk. "Someone has an agenda to bring up this subject again, which has dropped off the agenda in recent months, especially after the deal with Iran."
Netanyahu has long been at odds with his Western allies over how to dislodge Iran from its nuclear program. He has called the interim agreement a "historic mistake," saying it grants Iran too much relief while getting little in return, and fears a final agreement would leave Iran with the capability to make a bomb.
Israel believes that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, a charge Iran denies. Israel says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, citing Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, its development of long-range missiles and its support for hostile militant groups.
During a swing through Washington early this month, Netanyahu tried to draw attention to the Iranian issue in stops at the White House and in an address to AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group. Israel then engaged in a six-day PR blitz when naval commandos seized a ship in international waters that was carrying dozens of sophisticated rockets Israel said were bound for militants in the Gaza Strip and sent by Iran. The effort was capped by a display of the seized weapons. 

But beyond placid acknowledgments from world leaders, the ship's seizure did little to change the course of negotiations with Iran.
Netanyahu said the world's indifference to the naval raid was "hypocritical," and he lashed out at Western leaders for condemning Israeli settlement construction while ignoring Iran's transgressions.
Netanyahu's past warnings have been credited with bringing the Iran issue to the fore and galvanizing world powers to take action on the nuclear program. He made headlines in 2012 when he drew a red line on a cartoon bomb during his speech at the U.N. General Assembly.
Yaakov Amidror, who recently stepped down as Netanyahu's national security adviser, said the threat of a military strike is a real possibility.
"We aren't playing a game of neighborhood bully. This is a stated policy of the state of Israel and has been made clear ... to anyone who meets Israel's representatives." 

But if Israel is trying to raise the alarm again, the move comes at an inopportune time. The urgency of the Iran issue has taken a backseat to more pressing international crises, namely Russia's annexation of the Crimea peninsula. With world powers charging forward with negotiations with Iran, threats from Israel are likely to be ignored at best. At worst, they could alienate Israel's closest allies.
Gozansky said the renewed threats were largely empty because if Israel carried out a strike with diplomacy underway, it would be seen as a warmonger out to destabilize the region. But he said the threats could nonetheless serve as leverage on Iran while it conducts talks. Netanyahu has suggested that may be the case.
"The greater the pressure on Iran," he said in his speech to AIPAC, "the more credible the threat of force on Iran, the smaller the chance that force will ever have to be used."

Friday, March 21, 2014

Be Sure To Stay Away From These Politically Correct Beer Companies

oped: Given that 1-3 % of the world wide population is of the LGBT bent then add in approximately 25% of the population who sympathizes with or supports this community..that is a grand total of 28% of the market.
This means these companies alienated 72% of the Market by going PC...Not a smart move for companies who love their big profits...I for one will no longer buy their beer I will stay local and Micro Breweries who need the market and produce equally good beer!...I suggest everyone else do the the infamous French Queen said..'Let them eat cake" 


It seems like every year, Catholics are threatened by various homosexual groups because they have declared war on our religion (and the secular world helps them any way they can.) This year, the phonies who sell beer have joined them.
Subgroups within the homosexual community take the occasion of St. Patrick’s Day to try to force Catholics to violate deeply held religious doctrines against the celebration of homosexuality. They delight in their attempts to pressure the organizers of St. Patrick’s Day Parades around the country to allow them to march under a banner proclaiming their sexuality.
As often as they are turned away, they reappear the following year.
They never want to hear the Catholic side of the argument. They will not allow that because they think St. Patrick’s Day is a day to get drunk and puke up green beer.

The homosexual groups who want to make Catholics bow to their wishes don’t want to accept that St. Patrick’s Day is a celebration of how a lowly slave returned to the land of his captivity and preached the good news of the Gospel to his former captors. They don’t want to hear that Patrick is a beloved figure in Irish history.
These things are understandable because these groups are selfish and don’t care about the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Their mere finding that Catholic doctrines are offensive is enough to get them the support of the secular world.
Nevertheless, this year has brought a new wrinkle to the “allowing gays to march is a celebration of their civil rights” argument.
The Guinness, Sam Adams, and Heineken beer companies have decided that the religious rights of Catholics must be submerged to accommodate the commands of their homosexual customers. Hiding behind politically correct principles that require the rejection of religious doctrines, especially those held by the Catholic Church, these companies have withdrawn their sponsorship of the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York. Ironically, this is not a bad thing.

In doing so, they have voluntarily unmasked themselves as nothing more than beer mongers not the least bit interested in Catholic values. They have thus made it easier for future parade committees to make the case that St. Patrick’s Day Parades are not drunken orgies but reaffirmation of the greatness of St. Patrick and his importance in the history of the Catholic Church.
This is a very good thing. We should all drink a good riddance toast to these phonies and advise them not to let the door hit them in the butt on their way out.
Now we are a little freer to be who we are: Proud Catholics who love St. Patrick.

Beijing hotel workers already 'fed up' with Michelle Obama entourage !

oped: what a sick family this is...Royal welfare at it's worse...she be flaunting her fake wealth in China and Barry be playing golf pretending to be a pro! #Impeach 

by: By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor

Beijing hotel workers already 'fed up' with Obama entourage in 3400-square-foot, $8,350-per-night suite inconveniencing 'pretty much everyone' – and the first lady's mother is 'barking at the staff'

  • Michelle Obama, her daughters and her mother Marian Robinson are staying in a sumptuous presidential suite at a Beijing Westin hotel
  • Mrs. Robinson has been 'barking at the staff since she arrived,' a hotel staffer said, adding that 'we can't wait for this to be over'
  • Secret Service agents are monopolizing elevators and booting high-paying guests from their rooms to occupy a block of space near the first lady
  • Both front and back doors of the hotel are blocked off, with Chinese and U.S. security agents screening everyone who enters
  • Ordinary Chinese describe Mrs. Obama and her family as kind and gracious, but hotel staff are 'fed up' 

  • Michelle Obama and three of her family members are staying in a $8,350-per-night Beijing presidential suite, but despite a 24-hour butler and other perks that come with the lodging, her entourage has inconvenienced 'pretty much everyone' and made the hotel staff 'fed up,' a well-placed hotel staffer has told MailOnline.
    The sumptuous pad at the Westin Beijing Chaoyang hotel – its website calls the room 'an oasis of comfort – is a 3,400-square-foot masterpiece including a private steam room, 'corner sofas with silk pillows,' and in-room dining for six.
    But the Obamas' stay has already affected staff and guests at the hotel, with the Westin front-desk veteran alleging that Mrs. Obama's mother Marian Robinson has been 'barking at the staff since she arrived.' 

    A senior hotel staffer said Marian Robinson (L), Mrs. Obama's mother, has been 'barking at the staff since she arrived at the hotel
    [A senior hotel staffer said Marian Robinson (L), Mrs. Obama's mother, has been 'barking at the staff since she arrived at the hotel] 

    Government security forces from both China and the U.S. started Thursday to screen everyone who entered the building, including paying guests, setting up checkpoints that resemble those at airline concourse entrances.
    The Secret Service's monopoly on the hotel's highest floors has meant the Westin had to boot guests with previous reservations out of their executive-level rooms.
    Secret Service agents are also monopolizing hotel elevators long before the Obamas need them, added the staffer, who identified himself as a member of the concierge staff and spoke English during a phone call on Friday.
    'Many of them are Asian, too, or Americans who are Asian, so you know our guests don't understand.' 

    'We can't wait for this to be over, to tell you the truth,' he said in a sudden hush. 'We entertain many important people here, but this has been, I think, very different.'
    The first lady's press secretary, Joanna Rosholm, declined to comment.
    The Westin Beijing Chaoyang's 'oasis' presidential suite isn't the only part of the hotel that the Obama's have monopolized: Their Secret Service contingent has allegedly bumped some high-paying guests from their rooms
    The Westin Beijing Chaoyang's 'oasis' presidential suite isn't the only part of the hotel that the Obama's have monopolized: Their Secret Service contingent has allegedly bumped some high-paying guests from their rooms

    A U.S. Secret Service spokesperson promised answers to MailOnline's questions but didn't provide any in time for publication. The agency generally does not speak publicly about security arrangements for the officials it protects.
    A spokesman for Starwood Hotels, which owns the Westin chain, referred questions to Secret Service.
    Ordinary Chinese who have met the American first lady have described her in media reports as approachable and friendly, and the hotel staffer agreed.
    'The first lady is gracious, and the girls are lovely,' he said.
    The Westin employee and another colleague said Sasha and Malia Obama have been on their best behavior because Mrs. Robinson has kept them on a short leash. 

    They emphasized that they have had a disappointing experience with the protection detail that accompanies Mrs. Obama everywhere.
    Wealthy hotel guests bumped from their reserved rooms into other less-luxurious accommodations have inundated the front desk with complaints.
    As a condition of the first lady staying at the Westin, the Secret Service blocked off all the rooms near the presidential suite..
    The Washington Times reported Thursday that an entourage of about 70 people is accompanying the guests of honor to China at taxpayer expense. 

    More guards than guarded? The two first ladies (front) strolled through Beijing's Forbidden City with their protection details close at hand
    [More guards than guarded? The two first ladies (front) strolled through Beijing's Forbidden City with their protection details close at hand]
    The White House has taken pains to frame Mrs. Obama's trip as a cultural journey rather than a political one, but taxpayers are paying through the nose for it nonetheless.
    China News Service described the first lady on Friday as 'Mrs Diplomatic,' and the Xinhua news agency dubbed the trip 'an unprecedented and historical moment in the chapter of China–U.S. relations.'
    The trip won't come cheap.
    Judicial Watch, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., reports that it cost more than $11 million for President and Mrs. Obama to travel to Africa for Nelson Mandela's memorial service in December.
    The first couple were in Africa for less than 13 hours.
    The Obamas' 2013 visit to Africa, a longer affair, reportedly cost Americans more than $100 million.more:   

    See More Photos:

Holder Denies Cruz's Request for Special Prosecutor in IRS Targeting

oped: Let's have a look at Eric Holder 1973 
, Eric Holder Participated in ‘Armed’ Takeover of Former Columbia ...

By Cathy Burke and Greg Richter
Attorney General Eric Holder has denied Sen. Ted Cruz's demand for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS's targeting of tea party groups – a rejection the Texas Republican is slamming as "the height of hypocrisy" by the Obama administration.

The tea party favorite had called for the appointment on Jan. 22, writing the nation's top prosecutor that it had been eight months "since both you and President Obama professed outrage at the IRS's wrongful conduct," and yet no legal action had been taken.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

But in a March 10 reply, the Department of Justice curtly asserted "such an appointment is not warranted" because the case doesn't present a conflict of interest, adding that
"career prosecutors and law-enforcement professionals" were conducting the probe.

"The Department remains committed to integrity and fairness in all of its law-enforcement efforts, without regard to politics," the letter stated. It was signed by Peter Kadzik, principal deputy assistant attorney general. 

Republicans have pointed out the investigator in the Justice department probe is a partisan donor to President Obama and Democratic causes.

On Wednesday, Cruz shot back at the Justice department rejection, calling it "the height of hypocrisy for the Obama Administration to claim that the investigator leading the investigation into the IRS's illegal program has no conflict of interest."

Dodgy Eric Holder meme | quickmeme

"Sadly … Eric Holder has chosen to reject the bipartisan tradition of the Department of Justice of putting rule of law above political allegiance," Cruz said, citing attorneys general who've named special prosecutors to investigate Watergate under President Richard Nixon and the Monica Lewinsky scandal under President Bill Clinton.

Jay Sekulow, lawyer for the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing 41 groups targeted by the IRS, told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that Holder's rejection showed "the federal government has no interest in investigating the truth here and to find out exactly what happened."
Eric Holder Has Enough Time To Investigate George Zimmerman

Sekulow noted the president had told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly there wasn't a "smidgen" of corruption by the tax agency — but should have said nothing because of an ongoing investigation.

"But he didn't say that, and I've got 41 clients that are in civil court," Sekulow said.

"None of this is adding up, and I'm not shocked that the special prosecutor was denied," he said. "Disappointed, but not shocked."

Civil litigation will go on, he said.

Cruz's call for a special prosecutor has not been the only one.

In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal Wednesday night, House Oversight Committee member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also demanded a special prosecutor be appointed.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

LBJ: "I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

 by Allen West

On March 20, 1854 the Republican Party was established in Ripon, Wisconsin. Referred to as the GOP or Grand Old Party, it established for one reason: to break the chains of slavery and ensure the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be for all Americans.
The Republican Party was created to achieve individual freedom. Then, as now, the antagonist to the Republican party has been the Democrats, the party of collective subjugation and individual enslavement — then physical, now economic.

The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans. The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans. Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”
Republican President Eisenhower ordered troops to enforce school desegregation. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen enabled the 1964 civil rights legislation to pass, in opposition to Democrat Senators Robert Byrd (KKK Grand Wizard) and Al Gore, Sr.
As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.
Yep, and who are the real racists? So far, thanks to a Republican Party that is ignorant of its own history and gave up on the black community, Democrats have 50 of those 200 years under their belt.

Continue Reading:

Connecticut Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti: Stop The Liberals Here And The Nation Will Follow

Connecticut Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti: Stop The Liberals Here And The Nation Will Follow
[Visconti (right) attending a Connecticut gun rights rally in April 2013.]
Recent national election cycles have proven that conservatives have a big problem recognizing the difference between candidates who adroitly pander and those who are truly dedicated to Constitutional leadership. But in regions of the country where liberal policy triumphs, knowing the difference is key to restoring the voice of the robust but underrepresented conservative populations that exist outside of leftist power centers.
Joe Visconti, 51, a candidate in the 2014 Connecticut gubernatorial race, believes that his State is the perfect place to demonstrate on the national stage the difference electing a true Constitutional conservative can make in areas long-dominated by misguided liberal leadership.
“What happens in Connecticut gets exported everywhere in America,” Visconti said in an interview with Personal Liberty. “So the line in the sand is in Connecticut.”

“Republican Gadfly”
Visconti, who lives just miles from the State capitol in Hartford, is no stranger to Connecticut’s liberal politics.
Between 2007 and 2009 Visconti served as a council member in West Hartford, a town he once described as “the liberal capital of the world.” It was there that the gubernatorial candidate said he learned to recognize ways in which he could work with Democrats to further his conservative goals instead of taking a combative approach that would get him shut out of the conversation.
During the 2008 election for Connecticut’s heavily Democratic 1st Congressional district, Visconti mounted a GOP challenge against incumbent Representative John Larson.
To say the candidacy was a longshot would be an understatement. The one-year councilman not only lacked name recognition, but was vying for support in a district that had not elected a Republican in almost 50 years.
But for Visconti, the challenge wasn’t just about getting elected. He wanted to do more than complain about the liberal policies he believes are leading the Nation toward ruin.
He wanted to send a message.
“He’s part of the establishment that needs to go,” Visconti had told a reporter at the Hartford Courant at the beginning of his candidacy.
Reading archived news reports about the race makes clear that it was really a surprise to no one when Larson handily swept up 70 percent of the electorate to Visconti’s 28 percent.
If Visconti were a politician, the defeat might have signaled that Connecticut isn’t really the best place for a conservative with little name recognition to dabble in electoral politics. But researching his past political endeavors and speaking with gubernatorial candidate Visconti makes clear why one unfriendly Hartford-area scribe repeatedly referred to him as a “Republican gadfly” in long-forgotten pieces about his early dealings with his local town council.
Visconti isn’t a politician — he’s a fed-up conservative trying to set an example for his similarly-frustrated compatriots.

Running for Governor  
On April 4, 2013, the same day that Connecticut’s Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law a comprehensive gun control bill which effectively abrogated residents’ 2nd Amendment rights, Visconti officially joined a crowded GOP field seeking to unseat the Democratic incumbent in 2014.
“I am the guy,” Visconti told Personal Liberty when asked if the timing of his joining the race was symbolic of his support for the 2nd Amendment. “I wear a gun, for thirty years I’ve worn a gun.”
Visconti said that after 40 years working as a construction contractor and his previous ventures in electoral politics, he was content to spread the conservative message as a Tea Party activist in a harshly liberal area. But when the Connecticut legislature’s harshly anti-2nd Amendment bill — described by the candidate as a knee-jerk response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook that did much to target gun rights and little to limit gun violence — was signed into law, he decided he had to run for Governor.
“The day he signed it, I went right across the street … to the Secretary of State’s office,” he said.
Jumping in the race so quickly does pose some difficulties for the candidate, not the least of which is the lack of the information usually gleaned from the exploratory committee that’s usually formed ahead of high-profile races. In a State like Connecticut, funding is also a major issue for anyone vying for office from the outer edges of the political establishment.
Visconti doesn’t seem extremely worried about the unconventional beginnings of his bid for for the governorship. He reasons that his “live off the land” approach could appeal not just to voters in his State, but to people all over the Nation who want to see a conservative underdog topple the establishment of a liberal stronghold.
And so far, he hasn’t been wrong.

“We were hoping to nationalize this issue and it’s going good,” Visconti relayed. “We got money from sixteen States in the last two days, which is great … We’re looking for a lot of people with a little money to help us.”
Prior to and throughout the past year of campaigning, Visconti has become something of a national figure in pro-2nd Amendment and liberty circles as a result of his efforts to spread the message about the over-reach of Connecticut’s gun law. There are several videos floating around the Internet of him appealing to lawmakers at different levels of government to think about the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment’s inclusion in the Constitution.
Most recently, Visconti appeared in a YouTube video with a Connecticut resident whose words went viral throughout the conservative blogosphere last year, when he told Connecticut State Senator Leonard Fasano and State Representative Dave Yaccarino — both Republicans who voted for the bill — that he would not comply.
“[If] you’re going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk,” resident John Cinque told the lawmakers at a packed hearing in New Haven.
“I tell everybody I’m not complying,” Cinque went on. “I can’t — you have to be willing to stand up and say no. And there are a lot of us who are going to say no.”
After the video of Cinque’s remarks took off online, he said a police officer from his hometown of Branford reminded him of just how serious the threat posed by the political attack on the 2nd Amendment was in Connecticut.
Officer Joseph Peterson, evidently relishing the potential power to kick in otherwise law-abiding citizens’ doors because of a failure to comply with the government’s demand that guns (and magazines) be accounted for, remarked on Facebook, “I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.”

Cinque is not alone in his civil disobedience with regard to the Connecticut gun regulations. Connecticut news reports last month indicated that only about 50,000 applications for the certificate of registration now required for so-called assault weapons had been filed, meaning as many as 350,000 Connecticut gun owners have decided to become felons under State law rather than register their weapons.
The figures elicited an editorial from The Hartford Courant that seemed to advocate the sort of response that Officer Peterson would enjoy:
"Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law."
Visconti said that he understands the decision of Connecticut gun owners not to comply with the unConstitutional legislation, but because the State has “the most liberal media in the country,” he doesn’t expect the newspapers to agree.

He also noted that some Connecticut residents are not outright disobeying the law. They’re “playing chicken with the police” by taking advantage of a portion of the legislation that allows for restricted firearms to be destroyed but provides no requirement of proof.
Because of his candidacy, Visconti said that he has taken the steps to comply with the State’s gun laws by declaring magazines for his Berretta 380, which were over the 10-round threshold imposed by the legislation.
“I wanted to go through the process,” he said. “For me it wasn’t about disobedience, because I’m taking a political course.”
Part of taking the law on from a political standpoint means that Visconti can’t advocate for disobedience — but he wants gun owners in Connecticut and all over the Nation to know that supporting his candidacy is a step in the direction of restoring the 2nd Amendment.
If elected, Visconti’s power to completely repeal the law would be limited unless the State Legislature first voted for a repeal. But he said he has a plan to incrementally reverse portions of the legislation using executive power while working with the Legislature to address the mental health and safety concerns not addressed in the legislation. If the Legislature put a repeal bill on his desk, however, Visconti said he would sign it without hesitation.
Visconti makes it clear that he is not a one-issue candidate. His platform includes tax reform, parental education rights and Common Core opt-out options, State spending reductions and pro-business energy initiatives. But he also knows that the Connecticut gun law is his best bet for harnessing “organic outrage” throughout the State and getting the support of Connecticut’s underrepresented rural population.

A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Visconti and other GOP gubernatorial contenders trailing behind Republican Tom Foley, who lost the last Governor’s race in the State to Malloy.
The poll also notes that the “rest of the GOP field are virtual unknowns with 72 percent to 89 percent of voters lacking enough information to have an opinion.” Quinnipiac also found that, while 57 percent of voters aren’t actively opposed to the State’s new gun law, 36 percent say it goes too far and 55 percent believe it does little to make the State safer.
If that sounds like bad news for Visconti, perhaps it’s not. He can increase his name recognition by discussing better alternatives to gun control laws that many Connecticut residents have still not embraced. And that, combined with the support from gun owners both in- and out-of-State who are motivated to do whatever is necessary to restore the 2nd Amendment, could be enough to get the longshot contender the keys to the Governor’s office.

Colorado Conservation Easements: The Rape And Pillage of Landowners

colorado state capitol denver
... cattle near eads colo aug 23 2012 like many ranchers who s grasslands
The US~Observer has recently started an investigation into what is obviously a scheme to fraudulently obtain ranchers’ and farmers’ property for nothing or next to nothing by using controversial conservation easements. From what we know so far, the major players in this scheme are the State of Colorado, brokers and land trusts made up of or directed primarily by attorneys. At the time of this writing, the US~Observer believes that the ultimate goal of the perpetrators is to get control of the ranchers’ and farmers’ land, which includes water, mining and development rights.
This process in the State of Colorado concerning conservation easements began in 1999, when the land developers asked certain attorneys to design a State bill that would allow tax deductions and tax credits to be generated in exchange for landowners to donate all or portions of their property to go to conservation easements, reportedly to preserve the land for “ranching, farming, and open space,” thereby preserving natural resources. This bill was introduced at a time when the State enjoyed a surplus of tax revenue.
However, in the mid-2000s and later when the economy began to take a downturn, the State began seeking additional or new tax revenues, even if it meant double-crossing people who had legally and honestly availed themselves of tax incentives offered earlier by the State.
A decade later, the State of Colorado is now on a relentless mission, with the “behind the scenes” help of other entities, to recoup tax credits, plus multiple years of penalty and interest, from landowners who legitimately took advantage of the scheme established by the State Legislature. The ruse the State is using is that the lands that were appraised by “State-licensed” appraisers at the land owner’s expense are actually of zero value. How’s that for pure insanity!

In one case, involving one family and three separate, contiguous conservation easements, the Internal Revenue Service calculated their 2003 conservation easements to have at least 87 percent of their appraised value. But officials within the State of Colorado — particularly the executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue (CDOR), Barbara Brohl, and State Attorney General John Suthers — are virtually ignoring the IRS. Brohl and Suthers are promoting this insidious injustice, even in light of the fact that the Colorado statutes (2003-2007) identified that the IRS regulations were the only standards that applied to Colorado conservation easements. And they simultaneously argue that statutes enacted from 2008 to 2013 apply retroactively to the “open space” donations made between 2003 and 2007.
Amazingly, Governor John Hickenlooper settled his own personal conservation easements with the IRS in the midst of his gubernatorial campaign, and the CDOR accepted “his” IRS settlement. In other words, it didn’t attempt to monetarily rape and pillage Hickenlooper, like it has approximately 600 ranchers and farmers throughout the State. Go figure! Hickenlooper is Brohl’s boss, and he obviously has great influence over Suthers.
Hickenlooper could have ended the abuse and financial destruction of ranchers and farmers at any time during his tenure of office. But he has remained mute, seeming to enjoy Colorado’s stolen benefits, as well as his enhanced connections to high-dollar interests.
Property owners, financially devastated by their participation in the conservation easement program, have done everything strictly by the book and at great expense:

  • Costs and professional fees to establish the conservation easements.
  • And expending exorbitant attorney fees to defend their “open space” donations.
What the State is doing to them is absolutely unconscionable. And the arguments being used by the State and certain attorneys can be described only as an egregious abuse of power — an outrageous story of David and Goliath.
The US~Observer is preparing an in-depth article on this issue for our April edition wherein we will be naming the main culprits and their true motives.
Anyone with information on Colorado’s conservation easements or any of the players involved is urged to call Lorne Dey at 720-231-2038 or email