Tag Archives: Obama Administration

Obama Goes After Whistleblowers With A Vengeance

By Suzanne Eovaldi

barack obama angry picture3774 Obama Goes After Whistleblowers With a Vengeance

“You should be afraid,” says a twenty-four-year veteran officer of the U.S. State Department who is facing job termination for writing a book about what really went on in the Iraq war years. He has been stripped of his security clearance and diplomatic credentials. Blogging on TomDispach.com , Peter Van Buren is warning that President Barack Obama is “declaring himself above the law; he decides himself who lives or dies by death by drones.”  This state department veteran writing in the liberal leaning Mother Jones Journals, is revealing yet another non-reported story about the Obama Administration.

An award-winning documentary producer James Spione goes on to point to Americans that “whistleblowing in the age of Obama is very troubling because the law is being selectively applied!” Continuing in the Mother Jones article are troubling incidents of being harassed on the job, serious charges of retaliation, even threats to one’s life.

Thomas Drake, a whistleblower who felt Obama’s sting, said, “This makes a mockery of the entire classification system where political gain is now incentive for leading and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution.”  Reporter Van Buren calls out selective leaking such as the Stuxnet Worm being dispatched to throw a monkey wrench into Iran’s nuclear fuel centrifuges allegedly being done at the President’s own directive! “Also drone attacks and kill list leaks were attributed directly to WH sources.” And who can forget the bold manipulation of facts surrounding the bin Laden raid appearing at very opportune political timing for Obama? Never mind that telling of classified and sensitive details very well could have been a major factor in the murders of nearly twenty SEALS and other American soldiers a short time later.

Now another glaring example of whistleblowers being attacked comes from the environmental green propaganda machine being unleashed to do Obama’s far Left attack on America, her citizens, and her once free land. “Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions.” 

The Townhall article questions whether or not some U.S. bureaucracies are “manipulating science to advance political agenda?” Here think global warming and carbon tax schemes which the new Obama regime tried along with Al Gore to foist on Americans soon after taking office the first time. Germany’s highly skilled propaganda czar Joseph Goebbels is quoted as stating: “Suppress the truth if it contradicts objectives of propaganda. If truth is important for the State to stop dissent, the truth is the state’s greatest enemy.” Observing what our newly re-elected President does to whistleblowers and truth tellers who rub him the wrong way will give us clues about how he will be treating each American citizen in the months and years to come.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Obama Administration: Playing Sports Is Now A Civil Right

By Lee Igel, Contributor by Arthur R. Miller, Arthur L. Caplan, and Lee H. Igel The NYU Sports & Society Program The United States Department of Education has released a guidance requiring schools to make “reasonable modifications” to include students with disabilities in mainstream athletics programs or provide parallel options. That may sound like just another boring piece of paper that oozes off the desk of a government bureaucrat on any given day. But this is very different. The guidance proclaims that access to interscholastic, intramural, and intercollegiate athletics is a civil right.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Video: Congressman: Why Is The US Giving F16s To Egypt?

By Daniel Noe

Rep. Louie Gohmert wants answers…

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Clinton Takes One For Her Team

By Breaking News

Hillary Clinton on the Hill Clinton Takes One for Her Team

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. There were more questions than answers.

Rather than provide new insight into the attack, Secretary Clinton simply reiterated what previous Administration witnesses had testified to in previous hearings. She highlighted the findings made by the Accountability and Review Board and took responsibility for the failings of the State Department to prevent the deaths of the four Americans killed in the attack, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Yet despite being asked repeatedly about the rapid deterioration of security in North Africa and the Sahel, and the implications for U.S. national security, Clinton defended the Obama Administration’s narrative that al-Qaeda is “on the run,” with one caveat, that international terrorists are broadening their focus to targets outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Read More at heritage.org . By Morgan Lorraine Roach.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

An Open Letter To Sheriff Joe Arpaio

By Brian Reilly

Dear Sheriff Arpaio:
In a recent interview with Mike Broomhead on KFYI 550 AM in Phoenix, Arizona, when asked about a possible firearm confiscation law coming from the Obama Administration, you stated: “I may not enforce that federal law.”  Unfortunately, the word “may” puts us in the ambiguous realm of “you may or may not” enforce a federal firearm confiscation law.  That, coupled with your comment that you would be purchasing semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons for your department, gives one additional pause for concern as to how these weapons are going to be used.  Yes, you said they would be used against the “bad guys.” But one has to wonder: who will you consider to be the “bad guys” in an Obama federal gun confiscation scheme?
You said that you have taken an oath numerous times to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.  I believe that you have a true love for the U.S. Constitution and for the God given freedoms that it recognizes and guarantees.  I do believe that the citizens of Maricopa County deserve a more definitive answer as to where you and your office stand regarding a potential federal firearm confiscation order from the Obama Administration.  Without equivocation, will you enforce or ignore a federal firearm confiscation law by the Obama Administration?
I have included an incomplete list of county sheriffs who have, without equivocation, stated that they will abide by their oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic and will support the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. They will not participate in any federal gun confiscation scheme.  As the Toughest Sheriff in America, I believe that your name and your office should be at the top of the list of sheriffs who will honor their oaths to defend the people’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I would encourage you to clear up this ambiguity at your earliest convenience in an M.C.S.O. Press Release.  The citizens of Maricopa County have a right to know exactly where you stand on this issue.
Respectfully,
Brian Reilly
Sun City West, Arizona

1. Jackson County, Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman

2. Linn County, Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller

3. Madison County, Idaho Sheriff Roy Klingler

4. Crook County, Oregon Sheriff Jim Hensley

5. Douglas County, Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin

6. Curry County, Oregon Sheriff John Bishop

7. Livingston County, Missouri Sheriff Steve Cox

8. Smith County, Texas Sheriff Larry Smith

9. Josephine County, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson

10. Madison Count, Alabama Sheriff Blake Dorning

11. Larimer County, Colorado Sheriff Justin Smith

12. Charleston County, South Carolina Sheriff Al Cannon

13. Morgan County, Alabama Sheriff Ana Franklin

14. Houston County, Alabama Sheriff Andy Hughes

15. Gilmer County, Georgia Sheriff Stacy Nicholson

16. Pine County, Minnesota Sheriff Robin Cole

17. Grant County, Oregon, Sheriff Glenn Palmer

18. Coos County, Oregon Sheriff Craig Zanni

19. Johnson County, Missouri Sheriff Charles Heiss

20. Martin County, Florida Sheriff Bill Snyder

21. Siskiyou County, Califorhia Sheriff Jon Lopey

22. Humboldt County, Nevada Sheriff Ed Kilgpore

23. Stanislaus County, California Sheriff Adam Christianson

24. Grant County, Oregon Sheriff Glenn Palmer

25. Lawrence County, Missouri Sheriff Bard DeLay

26. Shasta County, California Sheriff Tom Bosenko

27. El Dorado County, California Sheriff John D’Agostini

28. Tehama County, California Sheriff David Hencraft

29. Lassen County, California Sheriff Dean Growden

30. Del Norte County, California Sheriff Dean Wilson

31. Modoc County, California Sheriff Mike Poindexter

32. Mendocino County, California Sheriff Thomas Allman

33. Plumas County, California Sheriff Greg Hagwood

34. Humboldt County, California Sheriff Mike Downey

Read More: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/list-of-sheriffs-standing-up-against-obamas-gun-control/31948/

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Obama Regime Can’t Decide If Al Qaeda Is Involved In Terrorism

By Jim Emerson

Terrorist Obama Regime can’t decide if al Qaeda is involved in terrorism
Al-Qaida in Algeria

The Republic of Mali is a landlocked nation in Northwestern Saharan Africa. Mali is divided into eight regions and has a population of 15 million. The main sources of income for the nation are fishing and agriculture though it is one of the largest producers of gold on the African continent. Since 1992 the country was stable until a coup d’état in March 2012 removed the government and suspended the constitution, claiming that the nation’s President did little to quell a rebellion by a separatist group which was sidelined by al Qaeda trained Islamic terrorist Ansar Dine and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The goal of these organizations was to turn Mali and Algeria into Sharia compliant Islamic republics. Being so close to Libya and Egypt it would be safe to assume that they were getting assistance from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The French

Seeing the possibility of Mali falling into the hands of al Qaeda the French launched Operation Serval to assist Mali’s interim government and restore democracy in the embattled nation. Unlike the Obama Administration, France sees an al Qaeda controlled North Africa as a perfect spot from which to launch multiple 9-11 attacks with impunity against western nations. (2)(3) France has deployed troops in the region and is providing air support. Algeria–which has an aggressive anti-terrorism policy–allowed the French to use their airspace against the Islamists in Mali. France has had some success against the Islamists in the Southern region of Mali but the area of the groups control extends to the North and into Southern Algeria. French involvement has been effective in halting a terrorist takeover of Mali. The Islamists had to retaliate.

Algeria

Al-Mulathameen Brigade (Masked Ones), a sub element of AQIM, are known for smuggling drugs, weapons, people and kidnapping—in short, for being good Muslims. (4) Their plan was to attack a soft target and grab as many western hostages as they could at the Amanas natural gas installation. There were plenty of westerners there to be had! It’s likely that the group wanted to initiate a hostage standoff to persuade France to leave Mali and force Algeria to close its airspace to western nations. But before they could get their demands out to the western press, Algeria exercised its own anti-terrorism policy and attacked the facility killing several terrorists and hostages. (At of the time of this writing it is unknown how many and who were killed). There were no negotiations.

The terrorists were seeking publicity, hoping to force France to leave Mali and deter any future opposition to their Jihad. They believed their message would inspire home grown Islamists in western nations who would commit terrorist attacks against their own government in retaliation. The terrorists failed and the world is standing by Mali and Algeria. And the Obama Administration? It is trying to decide if this was a terrorist action!

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People

By Macon Phillips

When we launched We the People, none of us knew how popular it would be, but it's exceeded our wildest expectations. Through the past year, interest in We the People exploded and we're closing in on 10 million signatures.

When we first raised the threshold — from 5,000 to 25,000 — we called it “a good problem to have.” Turns out that “good problem” is only getting better, so we're making another adjustment to ensure we’re able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve.

Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration. This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.

In the last two months of 2012, use of We the People more than doubled. In just that time roughly 2.4 million new users joined the system, 73,000 petitions were created and 4.9 million signatures were registered.

We the People Participation Growth (January 2013)

As we’ve seen overall use skyrocket, more petitions are crossing the threshold — and doing so much more quickly.

In the first 10 months of 2012, it took an average of 18 days for a new petition to cross the 25,000-signature threshold. In the last two months of the year, that average time was cut in half to just 9 days, and most petitions that crossed the threshold collected 25,000 signatures within five days of their creation. More than 60 percent of the petitions to cross threshold in all of 2012 did so in the last two months of the year.

It's wonderful to see so many people using We the People to add their voices to important policy debates here in Washington and bring attention to issues that might not get the attention they deserve. This increasing adoption strengthens our resolve to build new features, including an API that would allow other popular online petition platforms to integrate with our official one. To that end we’ve released the source code to We the People and would love to connect with any enterprising engineers who want to help out.

Here’s a quick overview:

We the People Overview (January 2013)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House

Empire Responds to White House on Death Star

Last week the Obama Administration, in a grand show of humor, responded to an online request to have the United States military build a Death Star. The online petition is a part of the administration’s citizen feedback initiative: We the People.

Essentially, constituents are invited to file petitions on WhiteHouse.gov, and when one reaches 25,000 signatures or more, the White House is required to respond. One such petition, “Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016″ (not surprisingly) reached nearly 35,000 signatures. Paul Shawcross, Chief of the Science and Space Branch of the White House Office of Management and Budget, responded with a Star Wars fancentric denial entitled: “This isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For.”

Continue reading…

Source: FULL ARTICLE at IGN Movies

Video: Obama Lied, Americans Died

By Kris Zane

Part 2 of Western Journalism’s video series on the Obama Administration’s and Senate’s Report on the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Click here for Part 1.

The Obama Administration’s “Benghazi Accountability Report” was a sham that didn’t actually answer any questions; didn’t address why four Americans were left to die; didn’t address the entire “protest turned violent” over an anti-Muslim video lie, or where exactly Obama supposedly got this information; and, despite the term “accountability” in the report, didn’t actually hold anyone accountable.

The Senate’s Report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” shows that there was no evidence of a “protest turned violent” over an anti-Muslim video; shows that Obama left Americans to die while he twiddled his thumbs; and actually answers many questions regarding exactly what occurred on September 11.

But it doesn’t go far enough.

Congressman Frank R. Wolf, along with over twenty-five co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, have introduced House Resolution 824 to create a Special Committee to conduct a real investigation into the attack on the Benghazi consulate in order to find out what really happened in Benghazi and what  Barack Hussein Obama is hiding.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Barack Obama 6 SC The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down

It’s even worse than we previously thought. A retired four-star admiral is now claiming that Barack Obama intentionally conspired with America’s enemies to stage a bogus attack and the kidnapping of an American ambassador so he could “negotiate” the release of a “hostage” and bolster his mediocre approval ratings just prior to the election!

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Some will say that Admiral Lyons’ accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree; that’s exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.

Moreover, we firmly believe the problem with Admiral Lyons’ assertion is that he is only scratching the surface; the full and complete truth may be much, much worse.

Benghazi-gate is not about a bogus YouTube video series of lies. It’s not about the Obama Administration’s foreign policy ineptitude. We are dealing with something much more sinister… something potentially treasonous… and the following questions, posed in an article in The New American, go to the heart of the matter:

1.       ”What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?

2.       Did that half-baked scheme to arm Jihadist leaders, who… had previously fought U.S. troops in Iraq, contribute to the attack, as countless experts and officials have suggested?

3.       What was actually going on at the compound in Benghazi, which, as the report states, was never a “consulate” despite establishment media claims?

4.       Was Ambassador Stevens recruiting and arming Jihadists and terrorists to wage war on the Syrian regime after what Obama called the “success” in Libya, as a growing body of credible evidence suggests?

5.       Why did the administration claim for so long that the attack was just a “protest” over a YouTube video gone awry, even when it knew definitively that was not the case?

6.       Was the lack of security at the compound a political ploy to conceal the extent of the lawlessness and utter chaos left in the wake of Obama’s unconstitutional “regime change” war on Libya, as even members of Congress have alleged?”

It’s clear. Benghazi-Gate is only a small piece of a much larger operation, an attempt to conceal what The New American calls “the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists and self-styled al Qaeda terrorists.”

Prior to the election Barack Obama continually told us that “Osama bin-Laden is dead and GM is alive”; but the sad truth is that Osama bin-Laden’s organization is alive and well, and the Obama Regime may be giving aid and comfort to this terrorist network.

And prior to the election, Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera pontificated that Republicans shouldn’t “politicize” Benghazi-gate. Swaggering onto the set of Fox and Friends, Rivera bloviated: “I think we have to stop this politicizing.” And Rivera issued the following veiled warning to Republicans: “Do we want to try and influence the election with a tragedy that happened in North Africa?”

Ironic, isn’t it? Barack Obama played politics with the lives of Americans; like Rivera, the media covered Obama’s rear and threatened to accuse anyone and everyone who mentioned it of “playing politics.”

Weak-willed Republicans apparently took Rivera’s threat to heart as Rivera also said that Republican Senators John Barrasso, James Inhofe, and Bob Corker, who all sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “all agree that the supercharged atmosphere around the story — prudence dictates that these hearings be postponed until” after the election.

Well, the election has come and gone. Congress now has no excuse. The American people needed the truth before the election; but now that Obama is back in the White House, real conservatives must demand answers.

The American people deserve to have those questions answered; and moreover, the American people deserve justice.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Video: Napolitano: Obama Wants To Go Beyond Current Gun Control Proposals

By Daniel Noe

Last night on Fox News’ Special Report, Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed with host Bret Baier that the Obama Administration wants to go further in restricting the Second Amendment than the current proposals they are floating to the press.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Black Conservatives Ask Supreme Court To Invalidate Section 5 Of Voting Rights Act

By Breaking News

Supreme Court building 2 SC Black Conservatives Ask Supreme Court to Invalidate Section 5 of Voting Rights Act

Legal Brief Argues Voting Rights Act’s Selective “Preclearance” Restrictions are Outdated, Onerous and Being Abused by Obama Administration

Court Asked to Make Nearly 50-Year-Old Civil Rights Law Applicable to 21st Century America

Washington, DC – As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the constitutionality of “preclearance” standards in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Project 21 black leadership network has filed a legal brief with the Court arguing that the Department of Justice is using an obsolete portion of that law to justify a race-conscious administration of justice and to obstruct voting laws in affected states and localities.

“[S]eparate-but-politically-desirable is no more compelling an argument than separate-but-equal,” says the brief, which criticizes adherence to outdated rules apparently for political reasons.

Project 21 legal experts are available for comment about the brief, the overall problems with preclearance rules, the politicization of the Obama Justice Department and why the Court needs to rule against Section 5 enforcement.

“I agree with the petitioner’s argument that the Justice Department — under the leadership of Eric Holder — has engaged in aggressive enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “And since Congress failed to act on ways to modify the law for modern day standards, local and state governments have been left with the only remedy available — the Supreme Court.”

In the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Shelby County officials want the Court to invalidate “preclearance” standards imposed on specific states and localities by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Due to reports of discriminatory behavior during the 1964 elections, states and localities covered under the Act are required to obtain federal approval for all voting procedure changes. This requirement, imposed 48 years ago, was intended to be temporary.

Although preclearance standards were considered to be an “extreme temporary measure” when adopted, Congress has repeatedly failed to address changing demographics and the evolution of American society during reauthorizations of the Act.

As noted in Project 21′s brief: “Section 5… is not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution… [N]ew circumstances now place even covered jurisdictions well ahead of where non-covered jurisdictions were in 1965, and provide an ongoing political check against backsliding. The urgent necessity for extreme measures such as preclearance is thus well past, and such legislation is no longer appropriate.”

The brief points out: “That Section 5 has become a tool for requiring racial classifications and race-based redistricting illustrates how far this remedy has fallen from the more noble purposes that animated it in 1965.”

Shelby County officials are suing to end the onerous process of applying and waiting for federal approval of even minor and popularly-supported actions related to the voting process. The lawsuit is not meant to have the Court overturn the Voting Rights Act in its entirety, but merely remedy the “dramatic upheaval to the relationship between the federal government and the states” caused by Section 5′s preclearance mandate.

Noting how Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being used by the Obama Administration to pursue policies meant to promote political power based solely on racial identity, the Project 21 brief states: “[The Justice Department‘s] vote-dilution views and conduct actually treat block voting somewhat schizophrenically. Block voting by minority groups, for example, is effectively favored and encouraged, and if successful would be taken as evidence that discrimination has been defeated… That the identical conduct by non-minority voters is deemed as evidence of unconstitutional discrimination requiring congressional remedy shows the contradictions.”

It is also asserted in the brief: “Section 5 itself is now a central tool for institutionalized racial discrimination at the command of the [Obama Justice Department] itself.”

The Obama Administration used Section 5 as a tool to block voter ID, which it opposes, in 2012, even though the constitutionality of photo ID was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County.

“Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure that all Americans had access to the ballot. The Obama Justice Department’s abuse of this authority to favor his political allies makes a mockery of the Voting Rights Act,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former congressional leadership aide and constitutional law professor. “Either these abuses must be ruled illegal or the preclearance standards must be struck down.”

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for nearly two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Photo Credit: Laura Padgett (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism