Triple Amputee Veteran to Obama: You Are "Clearly Unfit for Duty"

by Dr. Eowyn


Senior Airman, Brian Kolfage Jr., is the most severely wounded Airman in US history—a triple amputee.
On September 11, 2004, while serving his second deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Brian Kolfage lost both his legs and an arm when a 107 mm rocket exploded three feet from the Airman, throwing him into a wall of sandbags.
Kolfage miraculously survived the blast and after eleven months at Walter Reed Medical Center, he returned to serve in the Air Force at Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. Kolfage is no longer on active duty and receives monthly VA benefits compensation for the wounds he received serving our country.
Incredibly, Kolfage was informed last year by the Veterans Administration Debt Management Center that he would be back charged $4825.00 because, according to the VA, they had been overpaying Airman Kolfage for several years and they want their money back.


Brian Kolfage was awarded the Purple Heart 
Here’s Brian Kolfage’s letter to the POS on Presidents’ Day, February 17, 2014, pointing out Obama’s hypocrisy and privileged elitist upbringing and schooling.

My Open Letter to Obama on Presidents day.

I nearly died in a war that you and most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly, including the two presidents who came before you. Many citizens may not agree with waging war in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens, but it’s something that warriors like myself have zero control over. I joined to serve my country and to better my life. I’ve seen things that you could never imagine, and they have made me the person I am today.
Mr. Obama, even though we share extreme opposite views, we have one thing in common, we both attended school in Hawaii. However, that’s where the similarities end. You see, as you attended your exclusive, private school, I would ride my bike to Kaimuki High school in one of the roughest areas in Hawaii every morning and would ride past Punahou, the exclusive private school you attended. I would notice the Bentleys, Maserati’s, and fancy foreign cars that all the kids were dropped off in; wow it must have been extremely rough in Hawaii living that life, right? I could only imagine what it was like to have that kind of money. Fortunately for you, not many people are aware of the school and the upper classcitizens who attended it. The tuition to attend your exclusive, private school was more than it cost me to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the University of Arizona. You talk a big game when it comes to financial inequality, yet I’m quite sure you have no idea what it’s truly like to have sacrifice. You were one of the elitist children in Hawaii.
After High School, we each chose very different paths. You were able to attend Ivy League schools, and I sought out a military career to in hopes of earning a degree. What we have in life as children usually sets the tone for what we will face later in life that will make us successful. I worked to get where I am today, and YOU WERE HANDED IT….Mr. Inequality. 


I volunteered to go to Iraq on both of my deployments, and the second time I begged to go even after I wasn’t selected, which ultimately got me placed on the team where I would lose both legs and my dominant arm. I’ve never asked myself was losing 3 limbs in a war worth it, even though many Americans were against it.
I am frequently reminded of the many young Iraqi children who would beg me for water, food, and toys while I was stationed in Iraq. Children, who in all aspects made the poorest of poor American children look rich. You have no idea what it really means to be poor. It’s laughable that you, who would have no idea what it means to be poor would so frequently play the inequality card.
While I was in Iraq, our mission was to liberate the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant and that’s what we did. Never forget, it was your people who sent us there, like the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi & Carl Levin. However, since the day you busted onto the scene you’ve been talking about ending the war and pulling the troops out, not understanding the blood sweat and tears that so many Americans and Iraqi’s invested. And with complete disregard for every life sacrificed, every limb lost, and every broken family, you bailed on our mission to pursue an agenda that was completely centered on your re-election in 2012. If you didn’t bail on Iraq you were worried that you may not get re-elected and that’s a fact. Just before elections on Oct 11, 2012 you said “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Look at Iraq now, they are in shambles and the Al Qaeda flag is flying freely. Clearly, you’re unfit for duty as a Commander in Chief. You put your own agenda ahead of America’s agenda, and now you have single handedly ruined and destroyed nearly everything we gained in Iraq. It clearly means nothing to you, because the only thing that you’ve personally invested in that country was a promise to bail on them. However, people like me gave limbs, friends have died, and we’ve watched families destroyed by war’s aftermath. 


I’m not placing blame on you for the war, I’m placing blame on you for destroying what we’ve worked so hard to build. You’re not a leader, you’re a community organizer. A leader would have stood up regardless of the situation and put America’s agenda first and that is ensuring a secure Iraq even after 10 years of war. But, you placed Barack first, just as Robert Gates confirmed in his new book. I can’t help but think of those poor kids who I gave water and toys to 11 years ago. They’re probably 15 or 16 years old now, and I can only imagine what it’s like for them to have their nation being torn apart yet again; all because of your poor leadership qualities. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, its water under the bridge. We went there, we waged war, and we not only owed it to our KIA’s but we owed it to the citizens of Iraq. We invaded their country and turned it upside down, and you bailed on them. You bailed on our soldiers and you’ve wasted every death and every limb, it’s all for nothing. And to make matters worse you blame others for your failures
You’re just another elitist rich thug who’s pretended to live the rough life growing up in the inner-city. You’re only worried about your own agenda and furthering your party instead of taking care of Americans. Your inability to be a leader at some of the most critical points has caused both of our wars to fail. You’ve been a joke to most of our veteran community and we have no faith in your ability to lead.
Senior Airman Ret Brian Kolfage USAF
Interestingly, Kolfage’s letter posted on Secrets of the Fed received 1315 thumbs up and 3130 thumbs down. I gather from some of the comments I’ve read that the thumbs down votes are by readers who think the United States should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.
See also:

• “After thousands of U.S. soldiers paid with their lives, Iraq again descends into violence,” Sept. 23, 2013.
• “Left-wing trolls launch vile attack on Iraq war veteran and triple amputee,” Examiner.com, Feb. 7, 2014.
• Brian Kolfage’s page on Facebook.

H/t FOTM’s Wild Bill Alaska.
~Eowyn

#IRS #DOJ #BLM #FastandFurious #Benghazi #Obama et al

This just about sums it up...comments anyone?

The Tea Party is Far from Dead -- in North Carolina or Anywhere Else

via: EIB Web
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Some election news out of North Carolina.  You know I don't get involved in primaries. I never have gotten involved in primaries.  From my standpoint, it's always been a -- not losing proposition.  It's just policy-wise, basically driven by my instincts, stay away from primaries.  So I didn't talk much about what was going on in North Carolina, and there was a lot going on in North Carolina. 

North Carolina is thought to hold the key election determining who will control the Senate, the Republicans or the Democrats, particularly the Kay Hagan race. So there was a big election this past Tuesday, and there was a Tea Party candidate that a lot of people supported who got handily defeated by what is considered to be an establishment toady.  And that may not be quite an accurate representation. 
I know some Tea Party people.  The Tea Party, by the way, is not a party.  It's a name.  The Tea Party is a coalition of grassroots activists that have just come together.  There is no official Tea Party.  They're idea people and they're not totally unified on everything, but they're identifiable as people who are fed up with the establishment of both parties, including the Republican Party. 

They're fed up with the spending.  They're fed up with out of-control-Washington.  They're fed up with growth of government.  They're fed up with that.  This Senate race in North Carolina, I talked to a lot of people who would call themselves Tea Party people or sympathizers who were not particularly in favor of the supposed Tea Party candidate there.  But that's not the race in North Carolina that's really explanatory.
The media is taking that Senate race in North Carolina and, predictably, they're running with the news that the Tea Party's dead, that it doesn't exist, that all these powerful people came out and endorsed this candidate, and they went down in flames.  It's the end of Ted Cruz. It's the end of Mike Lee. You Tea Party people may as well just give up and either join the Republican Party establishment or shut up and go home.  I mean, that's the tenor of the coverage, and it's actually quite different.
There happened to be another election in North Carolina on Tuesday that is far more representative than the Senate race was.  And that was North Carolina Third District, where the incumbent is a Republican, Walter Jones.  The Democrats and the establishment types in the Republican Party went in there, there was a combined one million dollars spent on a single district race to get rid of the 20-year incumbent, Walter Jones, and they failed.  And that is the true indicator of the strength of the Tea Party and of, I would say, the weakness of the establishment. 

The Republican establishment wanted to get rid of Walter Jones because he went against the leadership on the debt limit vote and a couple of other really defining things.  So the leadership, quite naturally, was out to get him. The Democrats piled on, they wanted his seat, and it went up in flames.  Walter Jones held on.  Let me read you an account.
"In a race that saw big outside money spent by 'independent groups,' the Washington establishment suffered a defeat. I am not talking about the GOP primary for the US Senate race to face Sen. Kay Hagan, which, by the end, was not really competitive."
This is Francis De Luca, by the way, writing the piece here in Civitas.  "I am talking about the 3rd Congressional District in eastern North Carolina.  The incumbent, Rep. Walter Jones Jr., defeated challenger Taylor Griffin in a race that saw Griffin’s D.C. and New York allies independently spend more than a million dollars to defeat Jones. This does not count the money Griffin was able to raise for his campaign from the same well-connected crowd of insiders, enabling him to out raise Jones in the final reporting period. By the way, a million dollars goes a long way in the Eastern North Carolina media market."


That's a lot of money for one district.  And I'll guarantee you Walter Jones was supported by Tea Party voters, and he won.  "Proportionally, more money was spent in the 3rd District primary than was spent on the US Senate primary when compared to candidate spending. The disparity is even greater when you factor in the cost of the 3rd District media market versus the cost of statewide media buys. This is not an indictment of independent expenditures or of more money in campaigns. In fact, campaign spending of all types is good -- it drives turnout. In the 3rd District, the turnout was up over 60 percent from the primary in 2010. That meant voters learned more about both candidates, and they preferred the incumbent to the Washington insider."
The incumbent, again, had fallen out with the Republican leadership, Walter Jones. "Why did this race attract such big money in a primary?" when everybody was focused on the Senate race?  By the way, Kay Hagan doesn't have a prayer, I don't think.  But it's early.  Too much of anything can happen, but as I say, this November is gonna be huge.  If just half of the lies of Obamacare had been known, this wouldn't be a wave election.  We'd be talking about the Democrat Party funeral.  It's one of the up sides there is in all of this. 

"Why did this race attract such big money in a primary? Walter Jones is a 20-year incumbent, first getting elected to Congress in 1994 after having served multiple terms in the state legislature. Jones has had a record that can best be described as independent. He is solidly conservative on social issues." A social issues conservative won!  They tell you that can't be done, either.  "He has opposed increasing the debt limit and the bailouts Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis."
So he's conservative on the financial side as well.  This last, by the way, is why the leadership is unhappy with him.  "What appears to be his biggest flaw to his colleagues in D.C. (but not his voters) was his falling out with the House leadership. This resulted in his being removed from his seat on the Financial Services Committee. He was one of several GOP members removed from committee assignments immediately after the 2012 elections," 'cause he was considered to be -- well, not traitorous, but he had strayed from the shackles of the leadership. 

"The 2014 campaign against Jones looks like an attempt to send a message to other potential House GOP --" this is what's key about it.  We're told that the Tea Party House Republicans don't have a prayer because of what happened in this Senate race.  We're told the media's got the Tea Party buried and these Tea Party House freshmen and other young Turks that are Tea Party, "You guys, your days are gone, the Tea Party's finished."  And the point here is that this campaign against Walter Jones looked like an attempt to send a message to other potential Republican renegades, that the leadership and the D.C. establishment could come after you and beat you, and they did, but they didn't.
They came after Walter Jones with big money, and they failed.  And I think that race is a little bit more indicative, A, of the strength of the Tea Party, B, public moods and attitudes, and a predictor of future elections in North Carolina than what happened in that Senate primary.  The establishment's guy in North Carolina, Tillis I think was his name, he didn't even get 50%, with all the backing that the D.C. establishment and the consultant class, he didn't even get 50%.  It was pretty split. 

"The other interesting story in this election battle was the fascination of the media and lobbyists in D.C. with this race. This probably is a direct result of Griffin’s having operated in the bureaucratic, media and communications circles in D.C." So don't allow yourself to be deflated by whatever the media coverage is out of North Carolina.  It's not all bad.  And, in fact, there are a whole lot of positives to take from it, if you are inclined to want to take a positive.  Some people think that's missing reality and so forth. But I'm telling you, they came after Walter Jones big time 'cause he just angered the leadership, and they threw a DC establishment inside-the-Beltway guy at him, and the Republican establishment was aligned with the Democrats trying to get rid of Walter Jones, and they both failed, with a million dollars, in a single congressional race.
Walter Jones, known for bucking the leadership on the debt limit. Known to be a prominent social conservative.  Violated every tenet.  There's no way this guy should have won. If America has become what they want you to believe it has, there was no way Walter Jones wins, and he did. 
END TRANSCRIPT

Why Democrats Are So Scared of Benghazi

They insist we don’t need another committee to investigate the attack—but they’re really afraid of the incompetence the truth will reveal.

I read with interest my Daily Beast colleague Michael Tomasky’s column Wednesday, in which he asserted that the establishment of a Special Select Committee to investigate Benghazi is nothing more than bulls**t. Putting aside that disrespectful characterization of a search for truth and accountability for an attack in which four Americans lost their lives, I’m troubled by the motivation of many on the left, who have sought to demonize anyone who questions the narrative the Obama administration has spun for nearly two years.

I concur with our colleague Kirsten Powers, who writes that the glib, evasive, and arrogant posture of the White House and the president’s supporters has brought about the present Benghazi inquiry. The American people were told repeatedly in the days and weeks following the attack that it was the result of an offensive video‚ an assessment the president and secretary of state surely knew within hours was far from the truth.
Rather than level with the American people and admit what senior administration officials knew—as well as taking steps to protect our diplomatic assets abroad—the Obama administration stuck with the line that GM was alive, Osama bin Laden was dead, and al Qaeda was on the run. It was hard to square that circle when the Libyan prime minister and our deputy chief of mission in Libya immediately asserted that Benghazi was a preplanned terrorist attack.

Continue Reading: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/why-democrats-are-so-scared-of-benghazi.html

All Tweet, No Action #POTUS

"Nigerian girls inspire international action,” reads the headline on the front page of the May 7 Washington Post. But nowhere in the story will you learn of any action actually being taken to rescue the 276 Nigerian girls abducted over three weeks ago by the Islamic terror group Boko Haram. You find reports of “an international uproar” and “a growing outcry,” of comments by President Barack Obama and phone calls by Secretary of State John Kerry, of warnings by U.N. officials, of a letter from all 20 female U.S. senators, which, according to one signer, “is the beginning of sending a very powerful signal,” and of possible preparations for a “team of specialists” to possibly go to Nigeria to possibly help the Nigerian government possibly do something.

In sum, you find what you so often find when you observe modern liberalism: “the sorry spectacle of justice without a sword or of justice unable to use the sword.”

The plight of the Nigerian girls also inspired former secretary of state Hillary Clinton to take “action,” in the form of a much-reported tweet:

Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls

Let us pause to note the near-perfection of the “Bring Back Our Girls” hashtag. “Our Girls” nicely captures modern liberalism’s cloying faux-universalism. “Bring Back” epitomizes the pseudo-tough use of the imperative voice—but with no assumption of responsibility for action by the speaker. The tweet commands, “We must stand up to terrorism.” But does the former secretary of state have any actual suggestion for action? Or are we to stand up for a while, and then sit back down? 

After all, as the intrepid Josh Rogin reported in the Daily Beast: 

Continue Reading : http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/all-tweet-no-action_791176.html

The Peace Officer Code: "To serve and protect"

[ Officer Gaetano Acerra]
oped: Now this is a refreshing story about a Police Officer who takes his oath of office serious and abides by the Peace Officers Code...we have been seeing way to many stories nationally about police abuse and Swat units within way too many Law Enforcement agencies...We need a return to a little more Andy Griffith and rid our departments of Rambo types! 

via: Officer.com
A Sumter, S.C. police officer recently went above and beyond the call of duty for a 13-year-old boy.
Last month, Cameron Simmons called police because he was upset after fighting with his mother and didn't want to live in the house with his family, according to WIS-TV.
Watch the Video
Officer Gaetano Acerra responded to the call and tried to talk to him.
"I said, 'You have it good, you have a roof over your head,' " Acerra told the news station. "I told him I would try to help him out, and here we are now."
The officer brought him home, but soon realized some of the boy's hardships. Simmons didn't have a real bed or furniture for his bedroom.
"My heart went out for him. I thought the little things that he needed I could give him; to make him a happier kid."

A few weeks after the call, the officer showed up at Simmons' home with a truck-full of gifts including a bed, TV, desk, chair and a Wii game system that someone donated after hearing the boy's story.
Simmons, who was sleeping on an inflatable mattress, told Acerra that because of the new bed his back won't hurt anymore and was grateful for the gifts.
Acerra gave the boy his cell phone number and plans to bring him more furniture, including a dresser and a mirror.

WIS-TV tracked down the officer and the boy after seeing of a photo of the two that Acerra's older brother, Ferdinando, posted on Facebook.
"I didn't do this for publicity or to get people to notice me," Acerra said. "I did it because I could. It was the right thing to do and I think people should do things like this."

BREAKING NEWS: FBI investigating Bundy supporters in BLM dispute

By George Knapp, Chief Investigative Reporter

LAS VEGAS -- A dramatic development in the saga surrounding rancher Cliven Bundy, the FBI has entered the case.
The 8 News NOW I-Team has learned that FBI agents have started an investigation into the events surrounding a potentially deadly showdown one month ago.
It is one thing for Cliven Bundy and his supporters to square off against an assortment of Bureau of Land Management employees. It is quite another when the FBI enters the picture, and that is exactly what has happened.
The I-Team has confirmed that FBI agents have launched a formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations that culminated with a dangerous showdown on April 12, and the first people to be interviewed by FBI agents are Metro Police, starting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillispie.

Federal employees suspended their roundup of Cliven Bundy's cattle, following a confrontation outside the BLM compound near Bunkerville. At the urging of Metro Police, Bundy's cattle were released, but BLM's new director announced the matter wasn't over and would be resolved, one way or another. We now know what that means.
Last week, the I-Team talked with Metro officers who intervened to protect the lives of federal employees from the 400 or so Bundy supporters and armed militia members. Officers told the I-Team they feared for their lives that day because of the assembled firepower, and because many in the crowd had pointed weapons at officers, taunted them, told them they should be ready to die.
Assistant Sheriff Joe Lombardo, who was left in charge of the Metro contingent by Sheriff Doug Gillespie, told the I-Team that such alleged behavior would be the subject of a criminal investigation.

"The federal authorities are conducting an investigation and I am pretty confident it is going to go into the future," Lombardo said.
"(Would there be consequences for somebody there on video tape, on a news camera pointing a gun at a Metro officer, pointing a gun at a federal ranger?) Yes, there is definitely going to be consequences, definitely. That is unacceptable behavior. If we let it go, it would continue into the future," Lombardo said.
The I-Team has learned that Lombardo was interviewed by FBI agents earlier this week. The first person to be questioned by the FBI team was Lombardo's boss, Sheriff Gillespie.
The sheriff confirmed to 8 News NOW that he was asked about what he saw the day of the showdown, whether guns were pointed at metro officers. He declined to say what he said to the agents.
FBI agents also spoke to an entire squad of Metro officers, who were on the scene to act as a buffer between the crowd and the BLM. Bundy supporters have insisted in emails and calls to 8 News NOW that no one in the crowd pointed weapons at BLM or Metro, but officers told the I-Team that is exactly what they saw, that many with guns set up behind women and children.

"It is not a rumor. When we first got out there and made a left to divide I-15, that is all you saw. You saw kids and women and horses in the backdrop and then men with guns, laying on the ground, in the back of pickup trucks. We're going, 'wow, this would never happen in Las Vegas,' But it was there. That is not a rumor. It is reality and I saw it with my own eyes," Metro Police Sgt. Tom Jenkins said.
Sgt. Jenkins has been interviewed by the FBI. A second squad is expected to be interviewed by week's end. The bureau does not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation but the I-Team have confirmed from multiple sources that a criminal investigation is underway.
It is illegal to point loaded weapons at federal agents, and most people know what would happen, if a suspect pointed a gun at a Metro officer in the Las Vegas valley.
Bundy supporters have been adamant in saying no weapons were aimed at the feds or police, that the BLM rangers were the ones pointing guns.
From the sound of things, they will be given the chance to prove those allegations because the FBI is coming their way.

Sen. Schumer emerges as surprise key player in Benghazi scandal

by:  Anthony Martin
In a surprise disclosure today that is sure to impact the scope and direction of the upcoming select committee's investigation into the Benghazi massacre, investigators say that U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. has emerged as a key player in the scandal. So far after a year and a half since the massacre took place, Schumer's name has never been connected to any of the events on the night a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were slaughtered by Islamist terrorists at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
But investigators now have poured over the White House visitors' log and discovered that Sen. Schumer signed into the White House on the night of the Benghazi attacks. Schumer logged into the White House at 5:30 p.m. on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012 and logged out at 11:59 p.m.
Schumer entered the White House at roughly the same time as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There is, however, some discrepancy as to the time line. It was previously reported that Panetta and Demspey met with Obama at 5 p.m. But it is easy to account for the discrepancy. Panetta and Dempsey were meeting in the Oval Office with Obama. Schumer, on the other hand, met with his chief of staff, Michael Lynch, at Democratic Policy and Communications Center, along with former Schumer Deputy Press Secretary Christopher Scribner, and Pete Rouse, Legal Counsel to the President.

Thus, one of the objectives of Schumer's visit to the White House was to gather his top aides for a meeting with Obama's Chief Legal Counsel. But why?
Further, investigators report that long after Schumer's meeting with Rouse he stayed in the White House until roughly midnight, long after all other parties in the West Wing had logged out. Again, why?
Answers are few at this time. But at the bare minimum it is safe to say that it is highly unusual for a U.S. senator to be at the White House until midnight on the very night that a massacre that killed Americans was taking place in a volatile region of the world. Schumer's presence does not pass the smell test.

Oath Keepers: A US Army Ranger Exposes Ryan Payne

On the Second of May, 2014, Oath Keepers noted in an email advisory for our membership and subscribers, about fifty-four thousand of them, that "...we think that the greater majority of militiamen and militiawomen serving there [at the Bundy Ranch] are tops. To you we say: You have our support and our gratitude for your sacrifice for the Bundy Ranch mission. Well done.  However, Oath Keepers suggests that you do question your leadership to be sure they are who and what they claim to be. We would especially encourage people to look into any claims about any specialty service in the military that any of the current leaders might claim."

 That is remarkable when we look into Ryan Payne - remember him? He is the little twerp who decided that Oath Keepers "deserted" our posts at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, that Oath Keepers are traitors and cowards, that Oath Keepers have committed treason, that Oath Keepers have stolen supplies or logistics, and that Oath Keepers gambled away thousands of dollars at the casinos up the highway from the Bundy Ranch. Yes, Ryan Payne said all that and more about Oath Keepers. And Oath Keepers said at that time that Ryan Payne was lying.  

Oath Keepers intuited that Ryan Payne is at best an avid liar and a liability by his behavior, posture, tonal inflections, and the asinine arrogance of his unchecked powers of narcissism.

Oath Keepers has been on a few rides in our brief sojourn in service to the Constitution. We've been all through the COINTELPRO / NSA / Intel Community / CIA-Wall Street-WDC /  Military-Industrial Complex mass-tandem of un-natural fate. We  notice that the scenes never change in the theater of the absurd. The government which sent an army down upon a bunch of American ranchers and cowboys in Nevada's desert has a long history of infiltrating American cultural segments, including since the 1990s their infiltration of as many of the militias as they could. No one disputes that, and government records reveal it to be true.  

Now at the Ranch we have a noisy and self-anointed puffed-up grandiosity in a small package strutting his war-plan command scenarios as if his dream-wish fantasy of warrior-like heroism were really more real than reality. And he wants Oath Keepers banned from the Bundy Ranch, on grounds of his allegations that Oath Keepers has committed treason etc.  Oath Keepers smells a rat. 

We have now been blessed by discovering the vetting work done by a US Army Ranger. Seems that our outspoken antagonist, Ryan Payne, has presented himself to the world as a Ranger, in various different places on the World Wide Web, and apparently intended to actually have people believe that he was really a Ranger. We can only guess that he has done this for political capital and influence over the proletariat.  He is now caught in that lie, and you heard about it first from Jim White at NorthWest Liberty News.   

Please read the emails between a *real* Ranger - Danny Harrington - and the US government Ranger school, as Danny Harrington sought to verify Ryan Payne's claim of being a Ranger. 

 http://northwestlibertynews.com/News/tabid/771/ID/1580/The-Best-Way-to-Anger-a-Ranger.aspx 

Here is James White's audio file of the interview with Ranger Danny Harrington

The Best Way to Anger a Ranger

 Please leave comments under our article at national, here:

 http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/05/07/the-best-way-to-anger-a-ranger/

The BLM: Scourge Of ‘Lesser Breeds Without The Law’

by William N. Grigg 
This article was originally published by Pro Libertate.
The conflict between the Bureau of Land Management and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has laid bare evidence of deeply entrenched institutional racism.
No, I’m not referring to Bundy’s awkward but earnest effort to encourage people of all ethnic backgrounds to seek an end to the suffocating embrace of government paternalism. I’m talking about the fact that the BLM is an enforcement arm of a regime that continues to treat American Indians as “heathens” and “savages” with no rights worthy of official recognition.
Like Bundy, Raymond Yowell operated a small cattle ranch in Nevada and refused to pay the Federal government grazing fees to which it is neither morally nor legally entitled. In May 2002, the BLM mounted a paramilitary operation to confiscate Yowell’s 132-head cattle herd for refusal to pay grazing fees. The rustlers then billed the rancher $180,000 and began to garnish his monthly Social Security check when he declined to honor their impudent demand.

Yowell, 84, is a former chief of the Te-Moak Band of the Western Shoshone tribe. His ancestors were among the signatories of the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty with the Federal government, which recognized the tribe’s sovereignty over a 24 million acre swath of Western lands the Shonshone called Newe Segobia, “The Land of the People of Mother Earth.”
As is the case with every such agreement, the Federal government acted in cynical bad faith, using the treaty to secure a foothold within a territory slated for assimilation into the continent-straddling behemoth being constructed through Manifest Destiny.
While demanding that the Shoshone refrain from interfering with telegraph lines and stagecoach routes, the Feds did nothing to discourage or deter illegal settlements on Shoshone land. In 1962, one year shy of the centennial of the Ruby Valley Treaty, the Federal Indian Claims Commission proclaimed that this pattern of Federally abetted “gradual encroachment” by Euro-American settlers and speculators had “extinguished” all Shoshone claims to their lands.
In the fashion of a rapist who offers to buy his victim breakfast in order to re-fashion his crime into a “date,” the Feds offered to “compensate” the Shoshones through a settlement amounting to 15 cents an acre. This figure was based on a valuation of the lands conducted in 1872 — long before the discovery of significant mineral wealth on the property, which included the Carlin Trend, which contain North America’s largest gold deposits.
The Shoshones refused to accept the Federal proposal. Those in charge of the land-grab bureaucracy replied with a “Sucks to be you shrug” and “paid” the money to itself, insisting that this bookkeeping feint somehow made the “transaction” legally binding.

At this point, it’s worth remembering this pious utterance by Commissar Harry Reid: “We can’t have an American people that [sic] violate the law and then just walk away from it.” This is precisely how the purulent regime Reid serves acquired its supposedly legal claim to lands in the State he supposedly represents.
The BLM was correctly described as part of a criminal syndicate in a Federal court ruling last year in the case of Nevada rancher Wayne Hage. The agency displayed its irrepressible criminal nature in its dealings with Yowell, conducting an officially licensed rustling operation in defiance of a Federal injunction that the Shoshone chief won through a pro se appeal. But the foundational assumption of Federal Indian policy is that Indians have no standing to assert their property rights. So Yowell’s legal victories did nothing to restrain official lawlessness.
“I looked at it as an illegal seizure,” Yowell said of the 2002 confiscation of his herd. “They took cattle without a court order. Now they are taking from my Social Security check.”
Before the BLM laid siege to his property, Yowell — like Bundy — made a futile appeal to his local sheriff for protection. For several years after the BLM stole his livestock and deprived him of his livelihood, the elderly rancher continued to petition the agency for relief.
“I kept writing letters to them saying I didn’t have a debt with them, that I never signed a contract,” Yowell observed in an Associated Press interview three years ago. “But they just ignored it. There’s no use talking to them.”
Yowell has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office is scheduled to file its response — most likely a motion to dismiss the petition — on June 4.

The regime has the luxury of time. It can continue mulcting the octogenarian victim’s Social Security checks while waiting for him to expire, along with the residual legal claims made by the surviving Shoshones.
From the regime’s point of view, all of this is a justified exercise of “plenary” authority over Indian lands obtained through conquest of an inferior race.
In the 1823 case Johnson and Gram’s Lessee v. William McIntosh, the U.S. Supreme Court held that while Indians “were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it,” they were denied clear title to their property — that is, the “power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased.”
Ownership of the land on which the Indians lived was supposedly transferred from them to the newly arrived Europeans through royal grants issued by monarchs acting on authority derived from the Pope. According to the court, those decrees by distant kings of whom the Indians had never heard were sufficient to “convey the soil as well as the right of dominion to the grantees.”
Henry Wheaton, who was the reporter for the Supreme Court at the time of that ruling, later wrote that the Indians tribes, as “heathens,” were “the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors” and that it was a “maxim of policy and of law, that the right of the native Indians was subordinate to that of the first Christian discoverer.” Arch-nationalist legal commentator Joseph Story elaborated on this idea, describing the Indians as “infidels, heathens, and savages [who] were not allowed to possess the prerogatives belonging to absolute, sovereign and independent nations.”

A brief filed on Yowell’s behalf observed that while cases subsequent to the 1823 Johnson decision “tended to omit explicit reference” to this doctrine of Christian conquest, its core precepts did occasionally bob to the surface. Thus in the 1877 Beecher v. Weatherby case, the court decreed that Indians should be dealt with in a fashion appropriate to “an ignorant and dependent race.” In 1946, the year Congress created the Indian Claims Commission to dispose of Indian land claims, Justice Stanley Reed batted away a suit filed by the Alcea Band of Oregon’s Tilamook tribe by breezily stating that “discovery by Christian nations gave them sovereignty over and title to the lands discovered.”
Nothing in the US Constitution justifies the institutionalized assumption that the Federal government had the right to act as “trustee” on behalf of its so-called Indian “wards.”
The Supreme Court struggled to find Constitutional warrant for that belief in the 1886 case United States v. Kagama. When the text refused to yield the desired outcome, Justice Samuel Miller (a Lincoln appointee, natch) threw up his hands and concluded that the plenary authority to regulate Indian affairs grew out of “the ownership of the country… and the right of exclusive sovereignty which must exist in the National Government, and can be found nowhere else.”
That ruling, one commentator wryly observed, introduced the “`it-must-be-somewhere’ doctrine of Constitutional interpretation.” Presumably, the power to treat Indians as dispossessed wards, like authorization for Obamacare, resides within the Constitution’s vast but inaccessible “Good and Welfare Clause.”

The “finders keepers” or “might makes right” approach to Indian affairs “has never been repudiated,” notes Yowell’s brief. “It is the continuing basis for all aspects of federal Indian law.” The Federal government insists that it is acting on “well-settled” legal principles. The brief ripostes that “slavery and racial segregation were considered `well-settled’ law, and were nonetheless subject to challenge as fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution and the principles of respect for human rights.”
About two years ago, the custodians of acceptable opinion held an orgy of outrage over a monumentally foolish essay published by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, in which the author defended the subjugation of the Indians as a legitimate exercise of “the right of conquest” by European settlers.
“The Native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality,” Fischer opined. Since Indians, on Fischer’s proudly ignorant reading of the relevant history, “resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition… for the light of Christianity and civilization,” their dispossession by the Federal government was not only defensible, but morally necessary.
Many of the same bien-pensants and self-appointed watchdogs who performed cadenzas of indignation over Fischer’s foolish little screed are prominent defenders of the BLM in its confrontation with Bundy, as the agency — following the same premises as those endorsed by Fischer — seeks to do to Bundy what it has done to Yowell, the Dann family and other members of the Western Shoshone nation who have sought to defend their lands.

The BLM is an indispensable element of the apparatus of dispossession that invokes a medieval doctrine of racial superiority and religious conquest to justify denial of Indian property rights. It continues to scourge people officially designated as “lesser breeds without the law.” And it enjoys the unqualified support of the same progressives who have dishonestly made Bundy a totem of intolerance.

Obama WH releases photo of Obama depicted as a king

via:  Michael Lotfi


Last year, United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized Obama for acting “like a king or monarch” as the administration threatened to bypass Congress on gun control. It seems as though the administration felt the title should stick.
The picture depicts “King Obama” sitting upon the “Iron Throne” at Kings Landing in the ancient kingdom of Westeros from the HBO hit series Game of Thrones. The photo looks as if it was lifted straight from The Onion. However, it is not. The image is a result of Obama’s speech at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner where he joked about enacting more executive orders. The administration took it upon themselves to create the photo of King Obama, and the official White House Twitter account sent out the tweet before last week’s episode aired.

Obama sits with the King’s crown in his hands and former King Joeffrey’s crossbow sitting on the coffee table. The tweet reads “The Westeros Wing.”

The Westeros Wing. #WHCD pic.twitter.com/wG4KbQ7BLn
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 4, 2014

The image is disturbing for multiple reasons.
First, those familiar with the series know all too well the nature of kings found within Game of Thrones. The kings have all been ignorant, insane and ruthless murderers, as Tywin Lannister, a central antagonist, puts it.

Second, why the president of a constitutional republic would find such an image appropriate is beyond understanding. Could you imagine if George Bush’s administration posted such a picture?
Finally, a crossbow sitting on the coffee table of the West Wing? Why didn’t the “most transparent administration in history” just photoshop a drone in? In the name of transparency, of course. Perhaps they will find this image more suitable for next week’s episode. 


Source

We now know where Obama was during Benghazi attack

by: Anthony Martin
As the House gears up for a special select committee on Benghazi under the direction of U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., information has been uncovered that will point the committee in the right direction when it seeks evidence on where Barack Obama was on the night of the attack. For eight months no one at the White House, or the State Dept., or the Defense Dept. has gone on the record to state what the president was doing as his Libyan ambassador and three other Americans were being slaughtered by terrorists. Obama himself has also managed to avoid answering that question.

But the evidence tells the tale. It all started last week when former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Bret Baier of Fox News that Obama was never in the Situation Room at the White House at all that horrific afternoon and evening. But he was, indeed, in the White House during the entire massacre. Where was he, then, if he was in the White House but was not engaged with military brass in the Situation Room attempting to figure out how the ambassador and others could be rescued?
Normally presidents go immediately to the Situation Room for briefings, updates, and strategy sessions with military and senior administration officials when there is a direct attack against Americans, particularly an American ambassador or other members of the U.S. government. The question is what military action, if any, would be an appropriate response to the situation at hand.

In the case of Benghazi, the major focus would be on rescue. After all, there was plenty of time to do so. The siege against the Libyan consulate lasted for at least nine hours. U.S. fighter jets could have been present on the scene flying over the consulate within three hours. Even if the ambassador himself could not have been saved, there was a chance at the very least. And the others, perhaps, could have been rescued before being killed. At least we would have tried.
But Obama was not a part of these discussions at all, at least not in the Situation Room. So, where was he and what was he doing? It is to be remembered that according to decades of White House protocol, military strategy and not politics are discussed in the Situation Room. Political strategy is conducted elsewhere, often in the family quarters.
At 3:40 p.m., Washington time, the number two man at the American embassy, who was in Tripoli at the time, was notified by Ambassador Stevens that the consulate was under attack. Shortly thereafter, the State Dept. was notified. By 4:05 p.m. the State Dept. issued an alert to all American embassies around the world that the Benghazi consulate was under attack. The Pentagon was also notified.

It so happened that the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, Gen. Carter Ham, was at the Pentagon when the news came in. Ham immediately notified the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey. At that point both Ham and Dempsey personally shared the information with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
At 5 p.m. both Panetta and Dempsey met with Obama at the White House for a meeting that had already been scheduled in advance. But the Libyan attacks took center stage, and Obama authorized Panetta and Dempsey to "take appropriate steps" to handle the situation. This would be the only time the two would have contact with Obama during the entire evening. They never spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at all.
By 7 p.m. EST the protracted attacks at the Benghazi consulate were still ongoing. And where was Obama? He was in the White House, for sure, but holed up in the family quarters where he then stayed for the rest of the night.

How do we know this information? Because at 7 p.m., according to White House phone logs, Obama called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from a phone in the family quarters. Obama was concerned about reports that Netanyahu felt snubbed by Obama, particularly given that it was so close to the presidential election, and Obama desperately needed to count on the Jewish vote.
At 10 p.m. Obama made another call from the family quarters at the White House. But no one was willing to admit that he did so. For five months there had been multiple denials that Obama made any more calls after his conversation with Netanyahu. Even Chuck Hagel denied flatly that Obama made this 10 p.m. call when asked about it during Senate confirmation hearings on Hagel's nomination to become Defense Secretary. Further, the White House had sent an official letter to the Senate stating that Obama had made no phone calls at all the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

But it would be none other than White House Chief Spokesman Jay Carney who would later let the cat out of the bag. During a news conference Carney stated that Obama was in touch with his national security team constantly throughout the night, and that he had called Secretary Clinton at 10 p.m. to "get an update."
Thus, the truth finally came out about the 10 p.m. conversation between Hillary and Obama. And why is that significant? Because shortly after that call, at roughly 10:30 p.m., Hillary issued a news memo on the attack which specifically blamed the massacre on an anti-Islamic film, an Internet video, made in the United States. She claimed that the inflammatory nature of the Internet video sparked outrage and spontaneous protests around the Muslim world. It was here, therefore, that the meme began that the consulate attack was spontaneous and perpetrated by protesters who had been offended by the film.
Yet no one at the Defense Dept., or the U.S. military, nor anyone on the ground in Libya had mentioned anything at all about a supposed violent spontaneous protest at the Libyan consulate. The CIA, which had operatives in the region, also confirmed that there had been no such protest in Benghazi against the film.

One thing, however, could be confirmed as early as 7 p.m. EST. The CIA and the U.S. military knew that this was a terrorist attack, pure and simple. And the group that claimed responsibility for it, Anshar al-Sharia, had direct connections to al Qaeda, which had not been decimated at all as Obama claimed but was still very much alive and well, operating through various and sundry localized terrorist groups going by various names. No one outside of Hillary and Obama had mentioned a single word about an inflammatory film in connection with the attacks. It was rank terrorism, period.
So, what was Obama doing throughout the night of Sept. 11, 2012 and likely into the wee hours of the morning on Sept. 12? He was developing campaign strategy in the family quarters of the White House, desperately attempting to figure out how to deflect attention away from his failed foreign policy and directing that attention sqarely to an obscure Internet video that no one had even heard about in Libya, much less seen.

The Chinese and the Jews

by Michael Ledeen 

Over the past couple of decades the Chinese have become more interested in the Jews.  Of late the Chinese regime has been bringing Jewish scholars and theologians to the People’s Republic to discuss Torah, Talmud, Mishnah and even some of the more mystical tracts.
Why?

It’s no surprise that China-Israel trade is increasing, nor that the China-Israel relationship has grown and deepened.  Israel may well be the most dynamic country in the world, bursting at the seams with high-tech startups, dazzling inventions–especially in military and medical technologies–and highly educated and talented people.

But I’m not talking about Israel here.  This is about the Chinese fascination with the Jews and Judaism, the religion and the People of the Book.
I’ve got a theory.  It’s based on some real history, some anecdotes from participants in those ongoing conversations, and my own views of how the Chinese think about the world.  Some of it will likely turn out to be fanciful, but it’s an important subject and it behooves us to ponder it.  David Goldman has done some first-class pondering already, as is his wont, and I’m hoping to add some context.

Back when the country’s greatest modern man, Deng Xiaoping, converted the PRC economy to capitalism, Chinese “social scientists” went to work trying to figure out what makes capitalists tick.  They were quickly baffled.  They kept running into problems; that “knack” we’ve got somehow eluded their new system.  After a while, they figured out that the capitalists’ success couldn’t be entirely explained by the nuts and bolts of the marketplace, or by institutions like private property, important though they were.  Yes, it would have been easier just to read Michael Novak’s magnum opus, but they got to his end place:  religion is an essential part of successful capitalism.
In their amazing way of organizing most anything, the Chinese launched churches, and of course millions upon millions of them attended Christian (mostly Catholic) services.  To be sure, the Party kept a suspicious eye wide open, and some of the churches were deemed too dangerous, even in the cause of Communism.  But on they went, convinced they were on the right path.  If anyone doubted it, they had mountains of research and even Tocqueville to justify the turn to religion.
After a couple of decades of this, there were still problems, and their social scientists took another look.  This time around, they found–surprise!–lots of Jews involved in capitalist enterprises, from banks to stock exchanges to corporations.  Indeed, the Jews had a history of doing it.  Maybe the Jews knew something the others didn’t?  Well, look at Israel…or New York…

And so they’re talking to Jews, not about capitalism but about Judaism.  State radio now broadcasts in Hebrew.  The Jewish experts who are brought to China find themselves speaking Hebrew with their Chinese interlocutors.  Chinese students can now learn Hebrew, and immerse themselves in Jewish studies (maybe they’ll give Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree sometime soon?).

If you grew up when I did, this will all remind you of jokes that used to be told in New York City.  I can’t repeat them here because political correctness forbids it, but they’re about Chinese people in New York who only speak Yiddish.
I wish them well, and I have a bit of advice for the Chinese quest for the secret of capitalist success.  First, the Jews do well at lots of things because Judaism is a quest for the right questions, not a canon of correct answers.  The constant questioning, and the resultant playfulness of Jewish culture, are central to our success.  This is hard for the leaders of the PRC to absorb, and dangerous to their political enterprise, even though in the long run it’s the only way they’re going to get away from the folly of attempting to maintain political control over a “free” economy.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt the Chinese have noticed that the world’s oldest man is a Jew living on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.  He drifted away from the faith for a long time, but has recently reembraced it.  He’s a scientist, he thinks the soul outlives the body, and he’s still asking questions.

With such evidence, I think the Chinese are going to continue their Jewish studies.  Maybe Shanghai will reestablish the thriving Jewish community for which it was known for so long…and if there start to be mass conversions to Judaism in China, it will be great fun to watch the response of the Jew-haters, won’t it?
Faster, please.

Greg Gutfeld Reveals How to Defeat the Hipster Elite

by
Helen Smith
I am reading Greg Gutfeld’s new book Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You. It’s a very funny book that looks at how our culture is infiltrated with those who think that being cool is the only way to be. The book’s premise is that being cool is not only annoying, it is dangerous. “We used to consider the right thing to do; now we consider the cool thing to do.” Rather than help parents through tough times, people adopt a tiger through the World Wildlife Fund. Rather than do anything hard, just do something cool, it is easier and gets one liked without sacrifice or risk.

According to Gutfeld, the cool conformists, mostly liberals, try to make you believe the following:

How do the cool enslave you? By convincing you that:
- If you don’t agree with them no one will like you.
- If you don’t follow them you will miss out on life.
- If you don’t listen to them you will die a lonely loser.

I laughed as I read this, thinking back to a few hipsters I had worked with once who told me that if I didn’t do what they wanted, I wouldn’t be invited to parties. I was dumbstruck. “Do I look like I care?” was all I could think of saying. But their behavior was intriguing to me, as well as a bit revolting. Who would respond to this type of incentive? Are they used to persuading people this way? If so, it must normally work. Why would anyone go along with this type of manipulation?

Gutfeld’s book explores why people desire so much to be cool and it seems to boil down to the fact that many people are conformists who would rather do something easy that makes them feel good about themselves than take a stand and risk not being liked: “Coolness is a replacement for a strong ego and operates as a safe ambivalent response to evil in the world. The result: We are left with a dreary planet of self-esteem sponges more interested in capturing the approval of phonies than actually doing something real or positive with their lives.”
My question is: Is being liked so important that people will risk everything this country used to stand for in order to be invited to the party?
*****
Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Not Liking Mexican Food is Racist According To Democrats

oped: I don't like all Mexican food...but I like some~What does that make me 1/2 racists? Progressives are looney and should be committed to a insane asylum . Being progressive is a mental disease and should be treated as such!

By Matthew Burke
One of the natural consequences of the Left’s obsession with abusing the race card, attempting to silence any opposition or disagreement with their communist, totalitarian ideas, is that eventually the terms “racist” or “racism” become marginalized and meaningless. Nothing is racist and everything becomes racist, while real racism, like Democrat leader Harry Reid’s assertion that Obama was electable because he didn’t have a “negro dialect,” goes untouched.

A perfect example of this is a video produced by Mark Dice, showing Obama supporters agreeing that if Republican John Boehner doesn’t like Mexican food, he must be racist and should be removed from office.

Of course, we have no idea whether Boehner really likes or doesn’t like Mexican food. That’s not the point. Dice creates the false story in order to gauge gullibility of people when confronted with a false racism assumption. It’s both hilarious and disappointing.  

Another Town Launches An Assault On Liberty

by Bob Livingston 
The elected class of Virginia’s most populous county is considering banning frequent and large gatherings at neighborhood homes by establishing zoning ordinances that place limits on “group assemblies.”
The ordinance, which is being discussed today in Fairfax, Va., would limit gatherings at residences to 49 people a day and allow no more than three such gatherings within any 40-day period. County Supervisor Pat Herrity says the ordinance is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
According to county “officials,” numerous complaints are lodged about group meetings in homes. Herrity says that by “numerous,” those “officials” mean six in the past year.
The ban would affect church groups, scouting organizations, family birthday parties and reunions, and even sports fans gathering to watch the next “big game.” Realtors fear it will also result in fines for them for holding open houses.

This is an egregious assault on property rights and the right to assembly. It is also another example of the tyranny of the minority.
Governments are instituted to protect private property and individual rights, as James Madison pointed out in his “Essay on Property.” He wrote: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.”
Arthur Lee of Virginia wrote in 1775 that right of property is essential to liberty. “The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.”

Unfortunately, courts are run by government employees who routinely rule in favor of government over the individual, as Michael Salman (and many others) have learned over the years. Salman, a Phoenix pastor, served 60 days in jail for holding Bible studies at his home that were deemed by the city a violation of various codes and zoning regulations.
Of course, property rights are virtually nonexistent anymore. No one owns property free and clear because an annual ransom (property taxes) must be paid to the king or the king will snatch said property and deed it to his friends. This has given rise to the belief by the king that he owns and, therefore, controls what you can and can’t do on your property. And when the king assumes such power, he believes he is then empowered to deprive you of your liberty in every way he desires.
H/T: Watchdog.org

With Alarmist New Report, Obama Environmental Agenda In High Gear

by Sam Rolley 
In an effort to create a catalyst for President Barack Obama to cement his legacy as the Nation’s climate-action executive, the White House released an 840-page alarmist National Climate Assessment (NCA) Tuesday, which will serve as a justification for the President to unilaterally impose harsh new Environmental Protection Agency mandates.
Obama vowed last summer that climate change would be a top-priority for his second term in the Oval Office. He’s now positioned himself to use his pen-and-phone style of governance to make good on the promise. With the release of its climate change assessment this week, the White House made clear that it is finished debating whether climate change is real.

“If you want to try to side with the polluters and argue to the American public that climate is not happening today, tomorrow and certainly in the future, that’s going to be a losing argument,” White House adviser John Podesta said during a press event earlier this week.
The President’s science adviser, John Holdren, also weighed in on the report that was created with the help of 300 climate experts working for 13 Federal agencies, calling it “loudest and clearest alarm bell to date.”
The report concludes that man-made global warming will cause sea levels to rise by between 1 and 4 feet over the next 100 years and spur increasingly devastating droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other storms.
According to the assessment, the rising sea levels and droughts are of particular concern because of rapid population growth in the Nation’s coastal regions and the arid Southwest in recent decades.
“After at least two thousand years of little change, sea level rose by roughly 8 inches over the last century, and satellite data provide evidence that the rate of rise over the past 20 years has roughly doubled,” the NCA continued.

“In the U.S., millions of people and many of the nation’s assets related to military readiness, energy, transportation, commerce, and ecosystems are located in areas at risk of coastal flooding because of sea level rise and storm surge,” the NCA added.
The report contends that the climate disaster can be averted only if mankind stops using fossil fuels, which provide 90 percent of the world’s energy.
The President’s plan to cut carbon pollution in the United States includes efforts that the White House has already tried with disappointing results and others that were halted by lawmakers earlier in Obama’s Presidency. Americans can expect the President to unilaterally revive Clean Air Act regulations that could make it very difficult for companies to produce coal-fired power by as soon as 2015.
In the past, lawmakers skeptical of global warming alarmism have enjoyed minor victories in keeping the Clean Air regulations at bay. But, according to Podesta, things will now be different.
“They’ll find various ways, particularly in the House, to try to stop us from using the authority we have under the Clean Air Act. All I would say is that those have zero percent chance of working. We’re committed to moving forward with those rules,” he said.

Coal is one of many industries the Obama Administration is intent on regulating more harshly in coming years.
“When it comes to the oil and gas sector, investments to build and upgrade gas pipelines will not only put more Americans to work, but also reduce emissions and enhance economic productivity,” the White House said with the release of the NCA report.
The Administration has hinted at forthcoming regulations that will affect things such as automobile fuel standards and the types of building materials Americans are allowed to use on new-construction homes by 2020.
As the Nation’s regulatory burden increases due to the President’s climate agenda, so will the amount of money the government spends on “clean energy” initiatives and other projects aimed at cutting emissions.
“President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget continues to further American leadership by investing approximately $6.9 billion in funding for clean energy technology programs,” the Administration said. “This includes investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies to clean coal.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy gets death threats for leading special panel probing the #Benghazi attacks

oped: Follow the blood stains re: The Clintons and Obama on their proverbial climb up the ladder of success ..do the google research and see all the deaths that followed!
Start here and continue the research: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2013/05/hillary-clinton-for-potus-2016-hell.html  

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/02/08/special-report-obamas-gay-lovers-conveniently-die/

Consequences....liberal style.

Via Politico:

The U.S. Capitol Police are investigating threatening emails against Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican recently tapped to lead a special panel probing the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

The investigation comes after POLITICO reporters and journalists at other outlets received two emails on Tuesday warning that Gowdy would be harmed because of his role in investigating the 2012 attacks.

The Capitol Police would not comment on the scope of the investigation but Officer Shennell Antrobus confirmed that there is “an active, open investigation.”

He Didn’t Survive the #VA HealthCare System in...

#Phoenix #Army #Airforce #Marines #Military #Veterans

Four empty souls on #Benghazi

Liberal Benghazi Deniers About to Face the Music

By Craig Andresen

As the house is set to hold a vote regarding the need for a special committee to further investigate Benghazi liberals from Capitol Hill to their pundits microphones are pissed. They mask their anger by directing it at the right side of the aisle and in the direction of those of us who have, since day one, called for such an investigation and justice for those killed some 20 months ago but, at whom are they REALLY angry and why?

First, I suspect they don’t care for the collective reflections they see in their own mirrors and staggering mountain of their own lies has become more than they have the capability to keep straight.

For the past week or so, we have been regaled with their sputtering utterances and faint echoes of Hilary’s “WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT…DOES IT MAKE???”

For instance…on the heels of such nonsense as calling those who stood with Cliven Bundy and chased a wad of heavily armed federal goons from Bunkerville without firing a shot nothing but “domestic terrorists,” ol’ crusty Harry Reid made THIS lame attempt at dismissing a further Benghazi investigation: “Republicans are showing yet again that they have nothing to offer the middle class. Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work.” 

Reid went on to say, “Republicans of trying to gin up yet another political food fight.”

“Another political food fight???” That’s what the murders of four Americans and this regime’s cover up, with Reid’s ample support is to him???

A political FOOD FIGHT??? It wasn’t some FOOD FIGHT that night in September of 2012 that took place in Benghazi. THAT was a TERRORIST ATTACK set up to silence our Ambassador and keep him from blowing the proverbial whistle!!!

In a herd of political asses from the left side of the aisle…

Harry Reid is the hole.

To begin with, Reid is the very one who has relegated more than 4 dozen bills, sent to him by Republicans in the house for the specific purpose of helping ALL Americans to shelves in the back closet of the senate that are dustier than he is, never to see the light of day much less a vote on the senate floor and it was Reid who shut down the 17% of government last year to punish mostly the middle class.

Next…it is Reid himself who has never offered so much as a cocked, eyebrow at the billions of dollars George Soros and other Midasesque socialists have poured into liberal campaigns but, Reid and others who attempt to demonize the Koch brothers HAVE gleefully accepted Koch dollars into THEIR pockets over the last several years and are unapologetic for it.

But to try and label a terrorist attack which took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, engineered by the very scum of the earth…al Qaeda…our enemy in a time of war that Obama, their grand leader, armed to the teeth as nothing but a “debunked right-wing conspiracy” and a “political food fight” smacks of utter desperation and the ramblings of a delusional mind. 

When Reid’s words failed miserably, the next to rush to an open microphone was none other than Nancy Pelosi…a woman so mind-numbingly bereft of reality she makes Alice in Wonderland seem to be somehow plausible.

Here was her take in the wake of Reid’s blathering bit of bombastic bullcrap: “What I will say is, again, diversion, subterfuge: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?  Whatever was in that — what I know of what I’ve read in the press about those emails was very consistent with what was put out there before. I don’t think there’s anything new there.”

There can be little, if any doubt why Pelosi wants to talk about anything other than “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,” and it’s not because she’s ‘late, she’s late, she’s late for a very important date,’ rather, it’s because the White Rabbit of vapidity knows full well that a special investigative committee stands the best chance of exposing the treasonous truth swirling around those whose asses she’s been kissing for some time now.

Furthermore, Pelosi has a full realization of what the truth would mean to the socialist ideology and her party’s chances in the upcoming 2014 midterms and the 2016 elections but to accuse Republicans of employing diversionary tactics in relation to a Benghazi investigation is paramount to accusing liberals of tolerance. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Recent revelations regarding the email now in evidence thanks only to a Freedom of Information Act law suit filed by Judicial Watch, a group that Harry Reid no doubt views as domestic terrorists that pinpoints the video ass covering lie directly to the oval office via Ben Rhodes, an Obama senior adviser along with testimony delivered to the house committee by retired Brigadier General Lovell exposing that AFRICOM stood ready to “run toward the guns” in Benghazi but never received the green light from Hillary’s Department of State and the Tommy Vietor slip up on Bret Baer’s show that Obama never WAS in the situation room during the attacks have shown beyond a doubt that the cover up of treason started as the attacks were still in progress.

Further to that point, it was Hillary Clinton herself who issued a statement blaming an innocuous You Tube video for the attacks at 10:06pm while the attacks in Benghazi raged on.

That which we are witnessing now is nothing more than the unraveling of lies told by those to whom the truth has never mattered coupled with desperation in trying beyond the realm of pipedreams to keep their socialist ambitions alive. They backed the wrong horse, engaged in the misguided notion that they could get away with anything and then, insanely attempted to provide cover for treason by ramping up their rhetoric and dismissing the facts.

The abject frustration regarding their now flailing attempts to relegate Benghazi to the trash heap of apathy came to full bloom last week when The Five’s Bob Beckel’s bloomers went into a ballistic bunch. 

Beckel is a case study in fist pounding frustration as the collective left throws a tantrum over the fact that those they have tried so long and so hard to portray as loons, the Conservatives, are once again being proved to be 100% correct.

What has the ilk of Bob Beckel and his comrades, press pass carrying members all of Obama’s lapdog liberal media so upset is that they sold their collective souls to a community organizer and with a song in their hearts and tingles running up their legs, have been willfully spreading this regimes propaganda and what little credibility they still think they have is swirling around the toilet bowl as the truth comes to light.

With the house seeking justice for those murdered in Benghazi, Trey Gowdy has now been tapped to head the house special investigative committee and there is nobody better to seek and expose the truth than this congressman and in absolute desperation to try and hightail it away from those truths, house liberals are now threatening to boycott the hearings. 

According to one liberal mouthpiece, “There is deep concern in the Caucus that participation in this sham committee, like the 2005 Katrina committee, would serve to legitimize what has and by all signs will continue to be a political operation,” and liberal congressman Adam Schiff backs such a boycott offering that the hearings “will be a colossal waste of time that doesn’t deserve to be treated with any credibility, given how much has already gone into investigating Benghazi.”

Those are but the whimperings of fools who have hitched their wagons to a Trojan horse running at full gallop toward the glue factory as they set the stage for a pathetic retort regarding soon to be exposed truths by making false claims that the investigation was one sided.

Let them boycott the hearings and watch from the sidelines as 20 months of their efforts to hide the truth and provide cover for acts of treason go up in smoke.

Benghazi was a setup, a hit on Ambassador Stevens because he knew too much…an exercise in treason as those in the highest offices…the white house, the State Department and the CIA colluded to arm the enemy in Libya and transfer those arms to the enemy in Syria. Then, in order to maintain their seat of power, this regime set forth on a cover up of their brazen acts and now, just as we Conservatives knew it would, it’s all falling apart.

It’s high time the liberal Benghazi deniers stand and face the music because…The truth shall be known.