SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: locogringo who wrote (1675)2/27/2013 1:23:37 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

Read more: businessinsider.com

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on " Morning Joe" today, saying he's exhibiting a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'" Woodward said.

"That’s a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time," he said.

Woodward's harsh criticism came after he stirred controversy last weekend by calling out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Read more: businessinsider.com



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)2/28/2013 9:00:57 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
Ovomit was in since regan and bush.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)3/1/2013 12:48:28 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
20th Anniversary of the Seige of Waco


San Antonio Express-News ^ | Feb 28, 2013 | Susan Weems



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)3/1/2013 8:19:27 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
WASHINGTON MOCKS WOODWARD...

Press turns on one of their own...

Andrew Sullivan: He's 'a liar'...

Reporter: 'People Waiting For Woodward To Die'...

WASHINGTON MOCKS WOODWARD...

Press turns on one of their own...

Andrew Sullivan: He's 'a liar'...

Reporter: 'People Waiting For Woodward To Die'...



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)3/2/2013 2:39:09 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
WaPo: Another two Pinocchios for Obama’s Janitorgeddon


Hotair ^ | 03/02/2013 | Ed Morrissey





To: locogringo who wrote (1675)3/6/2013 3:23:38 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced an amendment to the fast-moving continuing resolution spending bill that would bar funding for President Obama’s golf outings until the White House reopens for public tours.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)10/24/2014 1:06:52 PM
From: joseffy4 Recommendations

Recommended By
Blasher
DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck
Id_Jit
locogringo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
12 Straight Years of Liberal Governments made Canada a rat’s nest for Jihadists

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/24/14 | Judi McLeod


Too bad part of Trudeau’s being “authentic” and “being yourself” includes his hanging out at Mosques.

Any day now Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be blamed by the lib-left and their running dog media hacks for this week’s terrorist attacks in Ottawa and Quebec.

That’s because the lib-left, who always throw politics rather than effective stopgap measures at Islamic terrorism—which they refuse even to name—will move quickly to blame the terrorist attacks on Canada’s participation in the current combat mission in Iraq.

The lib-left will do this even though there is documented proof on the books that terrorists in droves had swarmed Canadian borders long before Canada even joined Barack Obama’s Coalition of the mildly willing performing dubious airstrikes against ISIS:

“In fact by 1998, every major terrorist group in the world was operating in Canada. Former CSIS director, Ward Elcock stated that, “with perhaps the singular exception of the United dStates, there are more international terrorist groups active here than any other country in the world.” (Stewart Bell. ‘Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism Around the World’ (Canada: Wiley & Sons, 2007):

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)10/30/2014 9:11:04 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
DOJ Convenes Grand Jury For Zimmerman Civil Rights Case

Legal Insurrection ^ | October 30, 2014 | Andrew Branca


The Orlando Sentinel newspaper today reported that the Department of Justice has assembled a Federal Grand jury to meet next week to hear testimony about whether George Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin’s civil rights on the night that Zimmerman ultimately killed Martin in self-defense.

It was only last month that the Washington Post reported that unidentified Federal law enforcement officials thought it very unlikely that federal charges would be brought against Zimmerman, due to insufficient evidence. Indeed, despite having dozens of FBI agents interview scores of people regarding Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin, not even a smidgen of racism was uncovered in Zimmerman’s past or in the particular events surrounding his self-defense shooting of Martin.

Indeed, quite the contrary: what evidence was uncovered with regard to race showed the opposite of racial animus. For example, Zimmerman and his wife tutored black school children. Zimmerman’s elderly black neighbor testified at his trial (by television, due to severe illness) in glowing terms about Zimmerman’s kindness towards her. One of Zimmerman’s college professors, a black Naval officer, also spoke glowingly about him, and noted that Zimmerman had told him he’d planned to become a prosecutor someday. When a local black youth was beaten by the son of a local police official, Zimmerman organized the community to rally in favor of accountability.

There is little indication that any new credible information has appeared. The only witness on record as being scheduled to appear before the Grand Jury is the Frank Taaffe. Taaffe styles himself as a “friend” of Zimmerman’s, a claim for which there seems little actual support. Taaffe also seems to be an anxious attention seeker, having somehow extended his 15 minutes of fame in the aftermath of Zimmerman’s trial to the current day. The Orlando Sentinel piece reports that Taafe:

believes Zimmerman was motivated by race the night he followed then shot Trayvon in 2012. Taaffe cites a phone conversation he had with Zimmerman in the days following the shooting but before Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder.

That purported phone conversation revealing grounds for a federal civil rights prosecution would have occurred in early 2012. The credibility of Taaffe’s claim is considerably reduced by the fact that for some reason he never thought to mention this call to anybody until two years later, in early 2014. Indeed, Taaffe was among those interviewed by the aforementioned FBI agents in the aftermath of the shooting, and yet never thought to make mention of this incriminating phone conversation with Zimmerman.

The timing of this announcement must also be seen in light of the upcoming election, which polling suggests will be an utter political catastrophe for Democrats. One reason for this is that the turnout among black voters–who typically vote ~95% for Democrats–is expected to be very low compared to the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 when Obama was on the ticket. Might this sudden announcement of a Grand Jury targeting Zimmerman for civil rights violations be an effort to show the black community that Democrats are attempting to do something positive for this traditional Democrat constituency?

Interestingly, with the Grand Jury scheduled for next Wednesday, the day after the election, there will be no opportunity to evaluate the seriousness of this Grand Jury hearing until voting has been completed. Convenient timing, for some.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/7/2014 1:08:39 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
This election revealed how disconnected the Democrats and their media lapdogs are from the American people.

They really did not expect to lose that many seats.

How could they not know that the wheels were coming off when the American people realized that President Obama had lied to them about Obamacare?

Obamacare is the Democrats’ and the left-wing media’s Waterloo. It is human nature for people to not support anyone or anything that adversely affects them or their family (regardless of political party, race, or gender).

The Democrats’ own Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, called a cancer patient who complained of losing her doctor due to Obamacare and others who had similar horror stories liars from the Senate floor and later claimed he did not say it.

Did that not give pause to anyone in the Democratic Party? Did the Democrats and President Obama not think that the black community would finally get tired of being ignored while other groups seem to get the first black president’s attention? How long did Democrats think that they could use race- and fear-mongering to rally black Americans while ignoring their high jobless rate?

More importantly, the Democrats and President Obama should have known that his most loyal constituents would see his amnesty stance as betrayal. A black man called the Rush Limbaugh show and had the following to say about President Obama and the black community:

CALLER: Okay, good. Well, first of all, what I want to say is, thank you for everything you've done and everything you're doing, because you're doing this for the black people, too. Big time for the black people. And I want to say this. And, you know, I wish they would stop calling this man -- I can't call him no president -- this man in the White House, the first black president, because he's not the first black president. He does not have the same bloodlines that blacks in America have. His bloodline is totally different from ours, in the way he is going about California, I'm talking about like Riverside, San Bernardino, Fontana, Ontario, LA, Bakersfield, everywhere blacks, no work, 'cause all the jobs he gave to illegal immigrants. They got the jobs, and they got the money.

RUSH: You know, I have been waiting for somebody like you to say something like this. And the idea -- what you're basically saying is that he's not got a civil rights linkage in his life, the civil rights coalition or past, he's not down for the struggle. He comes from a different experience.

CALLER: That's right.

RUSH: And he's taken jobs away from you people by opening up immigration, and that's gonna lower wages for everybody, for illegal immigrants, and you're basically saying he's got no loyalty to us.

CALLER: He don't. You know, they want to say in Washington that we took impeachment off the table because he's the first black president. Well, he's not the first black president 'cause the first black president is yet to come, and he is not. And impeachment is what black people want. They want him out of the White House.

This election reveals that the relationship between the black community and Democrats has been damaged. .

Read more: americanthinker.com



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/14/2014 1:03:19 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/17/2014 2:08:03 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Jan 2010, Gruber Washington Post and NY Times op-eds advocated for Obamacare, without having disclosed to his editors that he received nearly $400,000 from the administration to produce an “objective analysis,” that would be used in promoting the legislation.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/18/2014 11:05:51 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
CNN Describes Muslim Terror Attack on Synagogue as Israel Killing Palestinians

.......................................................................................
FrontPage Mag ^ | 11/18/2014 | Daniel Greenfield


CNN hits a new low with its reporting on the latest Muslim terror attack with the murder of four Rabbis, three of them Americans, killed by two axe-wielding murderers, in a synagogue while at prayer,

.

First there’s a description of the Israeli police shooting and killing “2 Palestinians” when the police had fired in self-defense at the terrorists who had just perpetrated four brutal murders.

As Honest Reporting shows, not only did CNN respond to a terrorist attack on Jews by interviewing a member of the racist PLO terrorist group, but its website and broadcast listed the two Muslim terrorists alongside their Israeli victims as casualties of the attack.

Meanwhile part of its broadcast also claimed that the attack was really an attack on a mosque.

The Chryon beneath that meanwhile states, “Israeli police shot, killed 2 Palestinians who had knives, hatchets.” That is technically true, but it also leaves out the massacre that they just committed.

CNN also unilaterally transformed a synagogue into a mosque.

It’s the sort of thing you expect from Al Jazeera.

But just as a reminder that there are worse news networks out there than the BBC, here’s what happened when an Israeli minister tried to show a photo of one of the murder victims on the BBC, which spent quite a lot of time broadcasting a non-stop broadcast feed of Gaza casualties.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/23/2014 10:04:53 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama's Legacy (and Europe's)

by Guy Millière • November 23, 2014 at 5:00 am

It is difficult to think that President Obama — or leaders in Europe — want their names to go down in history as the fools who actually legitimized a rogue entity such as "Palestine" or enabled Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But just as Neville Chamberlain is looked on as the biggest laughing stock in history for promising "peace" with Hitler, so can Obama's legacy be that of an even bigger fool. Chamberlain, after all, did not have a Chamberlain to warn him.


Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, meets Rami Hamdallah, Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, on November 8, 2014, in Ramallah. Hamdallah recently honored a pair of suicide bombers who murdered 16 people, saying "God grant them His Paradise". (Image source: EU)

On October 30, when the Swedish government recognized "the State of Palestine," Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said she thought that the decision "shows the way" to other European governments.

It seems she is right. Even earlier, on September 30, French President François Hollande declared that "France will soon recognize a Palestinian state." French Socialist representatives are presently working on a text along those lines. And on October 13, the British Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of the official recognition of "Palestine", even if the vote was non-binding.

But non-binding votes can easily lead to binding decisions.

Sure enough, true to Wallstrom's prediction, on November 18, the Spanish parliament did the same thing — on the same day as a murderous terrorist attack on Israeli civilians praying at a synagogue in Jerusalem.


Continue Reading Article

credit fubho



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/23/2014 12:21:55 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
slowmo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Benghazi Annex Security Team Members Disagree Forcefully with House Intel Committee Report
.................................................................................................................................................
Kris Paronto: I looked Mike Rogers in the eyes and said, "If we would have not been delayed we would have saved the ambassador's life and Sean Smith's life."


by Paula Bolyard November 22, 2014
pjmedia.com



Saturday on C-SPAN’s Book TV, CIA Benghazi annex security team members Kris Paronto and Mark Geist answered questions about a report released Friday by the House Intelligence Committee on the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012. The two former CIA contractors pushed back forcefully against parts of the the committee’s conclusions about the night that Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in Benghazi.


The report by the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, concluded that “the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi” and that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night.”

The committee “found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.” The report, according to the House Intelligence Committee, is meant to serve as the “definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during, and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans” so that the American public can separate “facts from the swirl of rumors and unsubstantiated allegations.”

Kris “Tanto” Paronto, co-author of the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi, reacted to the report on Twitter Friday night and Saturday morning, prior to the C-SPAN interview:

During the Book TV interview, Paronto and Mark “Oz” Geist, who also co-wrote the book (along with Mark Teigen, who attended the interview but did not appear on camera), explained that it took them over an hour to get to the consulate from the time they heard about the attack. Asked why it took so long for them to reach the scene Paronto said, “That’s the million dollar question.”

Paronto stood by the claim made in the book that they were ordered to stand down, a claim that was disputed in this week’s House Intelligence Committee report.

“We were told to stand down. We were delayed for approximately 27 minutes on our compound,” he said. “We do not know, as far as outside of our chain of command outside Libya, where that came from. We know that the stand down orders and the waits and the delays came from Libya. Came from chief of station, chief of base. Whether it came from anybody higher, we don’t answer that. We don’t know. And we’d like to know, but we have no idea.”



A caller from Sanford, Florida, accused the men of lying about the Obama administration to boost book sales, saying that House Intelligence Committee report proved they were not telling the truth.

“Ma’am,” Paronto said, “during the House intel subcommittee I looked at Mike Rogers in the eyes and I said, ‘If we would have not been delayed — which, we were delayed three times — that we would have saved the ambassador’s life and Sean Smith’s life.’” He added, “Why he came out with the report, I don’t know what to tell you on that. You’re going to have to ask him. What we said in the book is what happened on the ground and that is the truth.”

He insisted to another caller that they were the ones who knew the truth about what happened on the ground that night. “Whether [the House subcommittee] wanted to believe us or not, that’s up to them,” he said. “But there were no other people on the ground but us that night and our stories haven’t changed. They haven’t wavered. So if the subcommittee or whoever else wants to come out and say things that doesn’t represent the book, you know, have them on the show and ask them.”

“All we’re going to do is keep telling what actually happened that night,” Paronto told the caller.

Geist said that while the hearings that have taken place to date have been very useful, the investigation is far from complete and more must be done to determine what happened “so we don’t repeat” what happened. “The only way to do that is to kick that horse until it’s down and we’ve still gotta do that because we haven’t reached the full complexity because not everybody that was on the ground there has been talked to.”

Book TV host Peter Slen asked Paronto and Geist what they would have done differently the night of the attack in Benghazi if given the opportunity.

Paronto said he would have disobeyed orders earlier and left for the consulate. “If I had control of the supporting elements or had the ability to contact them, the supporting elements would have been there sooner,” he said. But as far as the tactical movements of his team, he said he believes they did everything correctly from a military perspective. “That’s why we were able to save lives and we were able to fight off an extremely large force,” Paronto said. “The mistakes that we made on our end — and I do take responsibility, whether people say I should or not — us not leaving early enough and us not being able to save the ambassador’s life. I take that personally.” He repeated that not leaving soon enough — not disobeying the stand-down order — was their biggest mistake. “I don’t know if everyone else agrees with that. It keeps me up at night.”

Geist agreed. “Whether it was not our job to protect the ambassador, he’s an American serving in an area of operations that we — when we’re there we feel that we’re responsible, probably for any other American that’s there,” he said. “And the fact that we couldn’t get over there quick enough, I think was probably one of the biggest things.”



Geist added that the HPSCI report said that the chief at the base was relying on Libyans to asses the tactical situation, a decision with which he disagreed. “Well, I’m not going to depend, personally, I’m not going to depend on a Libyan or a third country national or somebody else to do that.” He said that he preferred to rely on highly trusted Americans, noting that between the six security contractors involved in Benghazi, they had over 100 years of experience in war zones around the world. “Tyrone Woods, he was with the most elite of military forces — with the SEALS — a number of different teams. He had retired from that. He had been an instructor at BUD/S,” he said. “Tanto with his experience, John (Tiegen) with his — all of us. I mean, if you have a guard dog are you going to let the guard dog do his job or are you going to hold him back and tell him he can’t?”

Geist also thinks U.S. assets around the world should be better protected. He said the U.S. should ensure that any facility we have overseas has the assets available to protect itself “because you’re always going to have that unforeseen.” In addition, he said, there should always be a response team or plan in place. “The best thing to do to keep Americans alive overseas is make sure you have a strong presence and you’re putting up that bigger defense and you don’t look like the victim or look like the person that’s going to go down without a fight.”

Paronto agreed that more should have been done to protect the consulate in Benghazi and that more should be done going forward to protect U.S. assets overseas. “You either defend your keep and you make sure you have it properly defended or you pull up chops and you leave,” he said. “And we were kind of stuck in the middle. It was halfway. You can’t do that. You either show the big force or you’ve gotta leave. If we’re not going to fully secure our facilities overseas like they should have been, then we probably shouldn’t have been there.”



A caller from New Jersey asked the men how Hillary Clinton’s “what difference does it make” statement during her Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony made them feel.

“Angry,” Geist said. “No matter what context you put that statement in from somebody at that level within politics, it always makes a difference. If you don’t find out the truth about what happened you can’t evaluate what you did right and wrong and it angered me very much.”

“It angered me as well,” said Paronto. “People died. A UN ambassador at a high level and then our friends died. It is a huge difference when Americans die on foreign soil, so context or not, it was still an incorrect statement and it still makes me angry today hearing that.”

He said he thinks he speaks for the rest of the team when he says it makes them more determined to get the real story out about the night of the attack “and not be swayed or bullied to not continue to put the truth out there.” He said that every time he hears Clinton’s statement it makes him want to dig his heels in so everyone knows that “what happened on that night matters.”

“You’re in charge. You’re a leader. You don’t say that about military personnel when they die, especially the way they died, or when you lack support, when we didn’t have the support we needed over there,” Paronto said.

Asked by a caller what they’re doing now Paronto said, “We’ve had to resign. It kills us. I miss the job immensely.”

He and Geist both defended their decision to write the book and tell their story, insisting it was not for financial gain.

“I have my own business on the side. I don’t need the book selling money,” Paronto said. “We didn’t do this to sell a book. We did it to tell the truth. We also deployed for a year after that waiting for the administration or somebody to come forward and tell the truth, which they didn’t and we made a decision as a team to come forward and tell the truth.”

Geist added, “Had we stayed working, we would be able to make more working than we would selling this book. We did it to honor the four guys that died there because they weren’t being honored.”

After the interview Paronto made some even stronger statements on Twitter, letting everyone know that the story about what happened in Benghazi that night will not die with the House Select Committee report.







To: locogringo who wrote (1675)11/23/2014 12:52:43 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Four Year-Old Boy Attacked in New Zealand for Wearing Yarmulke
..................................................................................................................................................

Boy slapped by grown man "of Middle Eastern appearance, who fled the scene laughing

Auckland officials vow to stop hate crime.


By Tova Dvorin: 11/23/2014
israelnationalnews.com

A four year-old Jewish boy was attacked by an anti-Semitic thug in New Zealand - the latest such incident in a wave of anti-Semitism in the country.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the boy, who was walking home from preschool with a friend and his brother, were approached by a man "of Middle Eastern appearance", said to be in his twenties, who slapped him - hard - in front of the boy's mother. He was apparently targeted because he was wearing a yarmulke, or Jewish skullcap.

According to New Zealand Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman, the man then left in a car with four other men - while laughing.

The attack evoked a sharp response from race relations commissioner Dame Susan Devoy.

This is the latest in a distinct trend of anti-Semitism in New Zealand, according to the Herald, which has risen in the island nation along with the rise of hate crime against Jews worldwide.

Anti-Semitism has become so problematic that the Race Relations Commission met regarding the issue over the summer.

"In August the Human Rights Commission met with and issued a statement supporting Jewish Kiwis after leaders reported a spike in anti-Semitism," it stated.




To: locogringo who wrote (1675)12/9/2014 2:31:53 PM
From: joseffy3 Recommendations

Recommended By
John
Qualified Opinion
Shoot1st

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 

“She Couldn’t Breathe” – The Brutal Murder of 19 Year Old Jessica Lane Chambers…. (With Video)

.........................................................................................................................

December 9, 2014 by sundance
19-Year-Old Jessica Lane Chambers was brutally murdered in Mississippi two nights ago.

Unfortunately the details of her murder are so horrific to comprehend they make the current racial anxiety in the headlines seem small, yet also potentially more explosive.

…When the fire department got there, she was walking down the road on fire. […] They squirted lighter fluid down her throat and in her nose…

Yes, Jessica was white; and no, by all accounts her killer(s) were not



She wasn’t just attacked, beaten, and burned alive – she was brutalized beyond all horrific imaginings. When you identify what took place, and contrast her horrific murder against the current national dialogue, you can also understand why the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (MBI), and all Mississippi politicians, will most likely lead the media to bury this story as quick as possible.

Thanks to President Obama and AG Holder’s intentional use of racial division to advance their political goals; and against the faux racial outrage of Mike Brown and Eric Garner political narrative, the national anxiety around race in general, and racial crime specifically, is tenuously high.

High, and more unstable than recent memory.

If the facts, the gruesome and horrific facts around this story, were to hit the Mainstream Media, Mississippi might well burn. Jessica Lane Chambers suffered a similar fate as another buried and brutal murder story, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

However, unlike when Channon and Christopher were murdered this time there are already protests in the streets – the Christian/Newsom horrific murder was buried at a time when the consequences of discussion were far less.

So it can be expected that all efforts will be deployed to hide and then diffuse the truth of Jessica’s murder. Which leads to the discussion: If we don’t tell this story, who will?

The early reports of Jessica’s death include:

MISSISSIPPI – […] Jessica Chambers, 19, was found burning near her car that was also engulfed in flames. She was flown to a hospital in Memphis but later died. Early autopsy results reveal that Jessica died from severe burns that covered 98 percent of her body.

Her father, Ben Chambers, said investigators told him his daughter was set on fire.

“When the fire department got there, she was walking down the road on fire,” he said. “Only part of her body that wasn’t burned was the bottom of her feet.”

He continued as he held back tears, “They squirted lighter fluid down her throat and in her nose, and apparently they knocked her out. She had a big gash on top of her head.”

In her last breaths, she may have sent investigators down her killer’s trail. (LINK)

However, what you won’t see in that report, or any report, is the race of her attacker(s). One of which, according to exhaustive social media, is already in custody. There are no official accounts of any suspects in custody, and the media narrative is generally explaining the events, however according to her social circle one suspect is in police custody.

Jessica was trying to exit a relationship with a black boyfriend, who, again according to social media accounts, had been abusive to her throughout their relationship. From Jessica’s perspective it was over, however apparently her ex did not accept her leaving.

The identity of the ex-boyfriend is well known to the surrounding multi-cultural community, which is PC code-speak for “the non-white friends and social network” who knew her.

theconservativetreehouse.com




To: locogringo who wrote (1675)12/12/2014 4:14:38 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Hollywood Executive Grovels for Sharpton and Jesse Jackson
...............................................................................................................
Amy Pascal (Sony Pictures) Calls Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson: "I Want to Accept Responsibility"

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hollywood Reporter ^ | December 11, 2014 | Tatiana Siegel





To: locogringo who wrote (1675)12/17/2014 2:31:18 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
isopatch

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Obama’s Amnesty: How They Voted vs. What They Said

...........................................................................................
Heritage Action ^ | December 14, 2014 | Dan Holler



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)12/20/2014 3:53:12 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
In the commercial and political relations of the Cuban regime and the U.S. there are several priorities to be concerned with.

1st. Cuba has defaulted in all his international financial deals and Castro encourages other Third World nations to follow his example. Why are we going to sell to someone without the expectation to ever be paid. The American taxpayers should be aware that they are the targets of the scam by which the multinationals sell to Castro whatever he needs and we, the taxpayers, end footing the bill. Castro for 42 years has been with commercial ties with over 150 nations. Now when he has exhausted the patience of nations fool enough to have given him credit, Castro’s puppets in the media, the congress in cahoots with some greedy commercial circles are trying that the American taxpayers shoulder the heavy burden of subsidizing his regime to the tune of 9 billion dollars.

2nd. The American companies cannot make business legally with Cuba without violating several American laws.

A.- Trading with the Enemy Act.

B.- U.S. Commercial Embargo Against Cuba.

C.- Helms- Burton Law.

D.- Involvement in bribes in commercial dealings with another nation. :

E.- Involvement in slave labor of foreign workers in connivance with the local authorities.

3rd. Cuba is, and has been a terrorist state for 54 years, and counts with advanced chemical, biological and cyber warfare capabilities aimed against our country. The cooperation between the Cuban regime with Iraq and Iran in the chemical and biological research is well known.

If we are involved in a worldwide war against terrorism, Cuba at 90 miles from our coasts should be a prime target in that war; so, those involved in appeasement policies towards Castro and in the promotion of the lifting of the commercial embargo against Cuba are in fact aiding and abetting our worst enemy.

The British intelligence recently made public the relationship between Castro and the terrorist guerrillas of Colombia, IRA, and Chilean terrorists. The socialist administration in Chile has expressed their deepest concern to Castro. The Cuban dictator, as usual, disregarded Chile's official inquiry into the matter and denied that any of those Chilean terrorists had ever been in Cuba, although there are phone calls that were intercepted between them while in Cuba and their relatives in Chile.

We have to wonder why Obama unconditionally surrendered to the Cuban Communist thugs endangering the security of the U.S.?



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)3/3/2015 9:47:14 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Bibi at the Barricade
...............................................................
Townhall.com ^ | March 3, 2015 | Cal Thomas


The White House opposes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to Congress, but not because the speech has political implications, coming as it does just two weeks before Israel's March 17election. If the administration truly had political concerns it would not have dispatched a team of Obama loyalists to Israel to help defeat Netanyahu.

No, many believe the real reason the administration opposes Netanyahu's speech is because he will tell the truth about Iran's nuclear threat and the administration wants to cover up what could ultimately become a very bad deal. Iran wants nuclear weapons.

And yet the U.S. is promoting the fiction that despite past behavior and the apocalyptic statements by its leaders, Iran will agree to stop its nuclear program. It will not.

"Six powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- are negotiating with Iran toward an agreement to restrain Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for easing economic sanctions," writes Reuters. "Netanyahu has spoken scathingly about a possible deal and says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state." Netanyahu is right.

Iran cannot be trusted to honor any agreement. Iran wants to become a global player. It wants Israel gone. No agreement meant to hamper either goal will have any lasting effect. Netanyahu's defiance of American dictates has precedence.

On June 7, 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the destruction of the Iraqi Osirak reactor just before it would become operational.

The attack occurred three weeks before Israel's June 30 election. There were the predictable denunciations from all quarters about how the attack would hurt the "peace process," which has never existed, but privately Reagan administration officials were said to have cheered Israel's actions.

President Obama and the State Department are on the wrong side of history and public opinion when it comes to Iran and the threat it poses to global stability.

It isn't just American public opinion that mostly opposes the president on Netanyahu and Iran. Pro-U.S. regimes in much of the Arab world understand the existential threat they face against a nuclear Iran. These nations -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Oman, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt -- are regarded as apostates by Iran's theocratic rulers who view them as targets, not fellow Muslim neighbors, possibly because Iran has become the world's number one exporter of terrorism, including to these countries.

These nations are not convinced by the president's laughable contention that "the world is less violent than it has ever been." Compared to what? There are none so blind as those who will not see. The Obama administration should open its eyes to a world that is aflame.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)3/10/2015 9:41:15 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
DISASTER: Hillary said she emailed with Bill...
BUT spokesman claims he only has sent two in his life...
BOTH while president...



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)4/24/2015 12:20:44 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
MIT Students Claim Israel Celebration Makes Them Feel “Unsafe”
..............................................................................................................
Legal Insurrection ^ | 4/23/15 | Daniel Mael


On Thursday, the State of Israel is celebrating her 67th birthday. Naturally, pro-Israel college students nationwide have organized celebratory gatherings – ranging from guest speakers to culturally (read: food) oriented events.

On Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s campus, the planned celebration was not without controversy and dissent.

On April 20th, the student group Palestine@MIT issued an “ open letter” decrying an Israel Independence Day celebration scheduled to take place during SpringFest. Palestine@MIT went as far as to claim that the event makes them feel “unsafe.”

The Israeli Independence Day raises politically sensitive questions given that it just so happens to represent the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, also known as the “Nakba”. This is a day of extreme tragedy and traumatic loss for millions of people, including many students here at MIT. As Palestinians and supporters of Palestine in the MIT community, we are alarmed by the fact that the UA are endorsing this event, given that the UA represents us as well. We feel unsafe in an environment that celebrates a catastrophic day for one nation at an official school-wide capacity by a body that represents all students equally, with no regards or sympathy towards our tragedy.

We direct this message to the entirety of the student body with a request for change. We request the UA to detach the carnival from SpringFest, and to refrain from sponsoring and/or publicizing it at a school-wide capacity.

Palestine@MIT, promoting a narrative of victimhood, suggested that the celebration of Israel’s independence threatened their community standing.

If Palestinians are truly equal members of the MIT community, we expect this school-wide event to resonate that message. In a community that promised us a united mission, “one community, in service for all,” we trust that any event that may distress members of the community at least be detached from a UA-sponsored school-wide event that is meant for celebration.

Undergraduate Association (UA) President Matthew Davis took the “open letter” seriously and met with Palestine@MIT leaders and other student groups before issuing a response. On April 22nd, Davis sent an email to the entire MIT undergraduate student body explaining that the UA weighed dissociating from the event but after careful consideration, decided not to alter the arrangement.

Considering this discomfort for students, as well as a lack of publicity for an opportunity to participate in SpringFest and transparency concerning the calendar, Palestine@MIT requested that we remove the event from the SpringFest calendar. This morning, the Undergraduate Association (UA) Events Committee and I met with MIT Hillel, Friends of Israel and Palestine@MIT to discuss these concerns and our path forward. We wish to share with you the decision we made, and the reasoning behind it.

Every student group at MIT is recognized by the Association of Student Activities (ASA), and through this organization, all undergraduate student groups are recognized by the UA. Every recognized student group has the ability to apply for funds from the UA through the Financial Board, and is eligible for such funding as long as they are recognized by the ASA, with no other consideration.

As part of this, it is often the case that some student groups will be ones with which other undergraduates are uncomfortable, or may express an idea contrary to the opinions of others. In the course of history, it is often the case that such groups would not be allowed; moreover, it is often the case that those who hold a minority opinion, contrary to that of the majority, may have their opinion silenced either through the active suppression of the majority, or a lack of resources provided. Perhaps the most valued and intrinsic desire of every human being is to have a voice – to allow their ideas to be expressed. There are two courses of action the UA may take in regards to controversial groups and ideas – either recognize no groups, whether of the majority or minority opinion, if there is a hint of controversy, or recognize all groups equally, regardless of the popularity of their idea.

In these cases, consistent with what has been stated above, the UA has always taken the case of the latter, and recognizes all groups equally, so long as that group is recognized by the ASA and is operating consistent with MIT policies. The reasons for this are many – but perhaps most importantly, by recognizing all ideas and opinions equally, we are more able to allow a free expression of ideas, allowing undergraduates to be exposed to a wide range of opinions, and choose for themselves those of which they are for, and those of which they are against. At times, this will result in us feeling uncomfortable – and it is the challenge of every one of us to recognize why that is the case, and act accordingly. Please note that this freedom does not extend towards groups or events which are in violation of MIT policies, such as the MIT Nondiscrimination Policy.



As the Friends of Israel and MIT Hillel, the sponsors of the event, are ASA-recognized student groups, and their event is consistent with established policies, we have chosen to keep the event on the SpringFest schedule. Further, we do not feel that it is appropriate to derecognize their event, due to our failure to notify student groups of the opportunity to publicize. To do otherwise would set a precedent that would be contrary to the values expressed above, and, we believe, would ultimately be more harmful to all affected groups.

Unfortunately, this exchange is directly in line with the politically correct culture that is permeating today’s college campuses. All that it takes is a for a group or individual to claim that they feel “unsafe” and protection from campus administrations and student leaders is contemplated. Too often, comfort trumps intellectual inquiry.

Anti-Israel activists, along with other far-left interest groups on campus, specialize in a particularly troubling inversion of reality. While anti-Israel groups such as Student for Justice in Palestine (SJP) routinely chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and assert that Israel is guilty of being an apartheid state, the slightest challenging of the anti-Israel movement’s moral blindness is deemed offensive and worthy of widespread condemnation.

When the David Horowitz Freedom Center, through a poster campaign, accused the SJP chapter of UCLA of promulgating anti-Semitism and “#JewHatred,” group members complained that they felt offended. “These posters are a clear example of hate speech directed against Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as supporters of Palestinian freedom and equality,” the group said in a press release, according to the Daily Bruin. “They rely on Islamophobic and anti-Arab tropes to paint Palestinians as terrorists and to misrepresent Students for Justice in Palestine as anti-Semitic.”

The charge accuses those who challenge the anti-Israel campus narrative of being racist, bigoted and malicious. In reality, it is the anti-Israel students and groups that routinely promote intolerant narratives – as was the case at Vassar College when the SJP chapter shared Nazi propaganda.

Luckily for MIT, the UA did not relent in the face of student objections. But the challenge to Israel’s legitimacy cannot go unnoticed. Palestine@MIT reinforces the narrative of the far-left that Israel and Zionism are “unsafe” ideas from which students need protection. The very foundation of the Jewish State is rebranded as a genocidal, murderous endeavor.

Most disturbing of all? While the UA didn’t set the precedent of “derecogniz[ing]” the celebration of Israel’s birth, it did set the precedent of considering doing so.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)4/24/2015 12:28:21 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Actors quit L.A. 'Ferguson' play, question writer's motives
...........................................................................................................
LA Times ^ | 4/23/2015


Vactor Philip Casnoff hadn't read the full script yet when he arrived for the first rehearsal of "Ferguson," a play chronicling the shooting of Michael Brown by a Missouri police officer.

Casnoff thought he knew what the play, set for a four-day staged reading starting Sunday at the Odyssey Theater, would be about: the wilderness of testimony the grand jury navigated while investigating the day Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot the unarmed 18-year-old. Casnoff presumed a variety of viewpoints, the fog of truth.

Then he read the script, which tells the story that Brown didn't have his hands up and that he charged at Wilson.

It felt like the purpose of the piece was to show, 'Of course he was not indicted -- here's why.' - Philip Casnoff, former 'Ferguson' cast member

Now, in a case of art imitating life, the play is experiencing the kind of ill will and mistrust that erupted from the city it attempts to portray. Part of the 13-member cast is in revolt — Casnoff and four others have quit — as the playwright and actors are locked in a fundamental disagreement over how to tell the story of Brown's death.

Though the grand jury declined to indict Wilson after some witnesses and physical evidence supported his account of events, the tone of the play shocked some actors.

"It felt like the purpose of the piece was to show, 'Of course he was not indicted — here's why,'" Casnoff said. He said that after he learned who the play's author was, Casnoff, who describes himself as "very liberal, left-wing-leaning," thought, "Whoa, this is not the place for me to be."

Through testimony taken from grand jury transcripts, the play ends with a witness telling a prosecutor that Wilson was justified in killing Brown.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)4/24/2015 12:34:23 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Muslim Police Chief Refuses Pledge Of Allegiance, Fellow Officer Takes Action

.........................................................................................................................
Live Leak ^ | 4/24/15


With the Obama administration increasing the number of Muslim migrants into the U.S. comes the Islamization of the West — an intentional, gradual overthrow of democracy and freedom by using that same democracy and freedom that’s afforded to them.

Ironically, Muslims flock to Western countries and demand the laws be changed to implement Islamic laws that are already in place in their own nations. So, why do they feel the need to create yet another Muslim country when they already have over 90 across the globe?

Because their allegiance to Islam requires them to hold nothing above it, not only are Muslims compelled by Muhammad to force every nation to submit to Islamic law, they find themselves unable to commit their lives to serving an un-Islamic country, even if they are born there.


image: cdn.liveleak.com



This brings us to Miami Police College, where a veteran of the agency is under fire for what she chose to do during the pledge of allegiance.

Fraternal Order of Police President Javier Ortiz was livid after he witnessed assistant chief of police Anita Najiy disrespecting the American flag as she refused to put her hand over her heart during the pledge of allegiance.

“If you’re not pledging allegiance to the United States, my question is what country are you pledging allegiance to?” Ortiz told the Miami New Times. “Anyone who isn’t offended by that is not American, because when you become a U.S. citizen, you pledge allegiance to the .US.”

Ortiz claims that Najiy failed to display the proper courtesy and etiquette that “must be exercised when wearing a law enforcement uniform.”

Outraged by Najiy’s action, Ortiz sent a letter to Chief Rodolfo Llanes suggesting appropriate discipline, including her removal from a commander position. He adds that he believes Najiy’s behavior might be because of her religious affiliation, which he believes is Islam.

While Ortiz says that he doesn’t care what her beliefs are, he is upset at her behavior.

“The flag is a symbol of our country,” Ortiz continued. “What is the difference if I decide to light a U.S. flag on fire in a police uniform?” he said, stating that any form of disrespect towards the flag while in uniform should not be tolerated.

According to the department’s code of conduct, reprimand is in order for officers who do not salute the flag. A spokesperson for the Miami Police Department has assured that the matter is “currently under review.”

Police officers are not swearing allegiance to our government, officials, or even a political ideology, but the country itself. They are promising to honor our nation by defending her people, regardless of their political or religious affiliation.

In fact, Najiy has taken an official oath to “protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers.” Just as they are reprimanded for disrespecting the badge, which is a symbol of the force, Najiy faces punishment for disrespecting the symbol of the country she has sworn to defend.

So, why can’t Najiy swear allegiance to the country that affords her freedom of speech and worship? Because she has already sworn allegiance to Allah, who commands that his followers are to be an enemy of all unbelievers, especially as a nation.

Not only is a Muslim commanded to never take non-Muslims as friends, they are to make war with unbelievers. How can one pledge allegiance with a nation with which they are commanded to make war?


image: cdn.liveleak.com




While it’s still under speculation that Najiy is actually a Muslim, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if this was the reason for her lack of enthusiasm for the symbol of our nation for which so many patriots gave life and limb to defend.

If this is the case with Najiy, who is an assistant chief of police, would you really feel that she has non-Muslims’ and patriots’ best interests at heart during her service?

madworldnews.com




To: locogringo who wrote (1675)6/19/2015 6:01:50 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Woman Calls for Race War at Scene of Church Shooting

.............................................................................................................


by Lee Stranahan19 Jun 2015 1374

breitbart.com

CHARLESTON, South Carolina — During an interview Breitbart News conducted with people gathered outside the Mother Emmanuel American Methodist Church in Charleston, where Wednesday’s deadly shooting left nine black churchgoers dead, a woman called for a “race war” and discussed black anger.

The conversation is a snapshot of race relations in the Obama era, which has seen racial tension reach a boiling point unseen in America for decades.

Breitbart Texas editor Brandon Darby drew a heated reaction by asking, “What do you think the chances are that the guy who did this horrible thing was mentally ill?”

Sista Solove, offscreen, immediately responds, “Hell, no… Are all crackers mentally ill?”

Darby responds “What are you saying, ‘crackers?'”

As the man with the sign attempts to answer Darby’s question, Sista Solove again jumps in and tells Darby, “Cracka. You’re a cracka. Crackas. We niggas, y’all crackas, it’s what it is.”

The conversation took place five feet from what President Obama called “sacred space” in a speech on Wednedsay.

A few seconds later, after the man with the sign says he did not believe Charleston suspect Dylann Roof was mentally ill, Sista Solove expresses a theory that several African Americans in Charleston told us: that Roof “was sent” by white supremacists to do the shooting and to push black people out of town.

“He (alleged killer Roof) was sent. He was sent. The KKK ain’t nothing but the police with badges now. That’s all they are. They took their hoods off and they’re police. It was an inside job.”

The man with sign agrees, saying, “C’mon, man, he was sane. He knew what he was doing. He tried to free home.”

Sista Solove continued, “Everyone says it was a hate crime. No, he was a terrorist. The white man is a terrorist to black people. Period, point blank.”

Darby asks her “Do you think I’m a terroist?” and she responds “I don’t trust none of y’all. None of y’all.”

Darby asks why, and Sista Solove retorts:

“Because the Indians called y’all blue eyed devils. That’s what y’all are. Sorry. And praying to the white Jesus ain’t gonna save nobody, so these niggas need to off the AME and stop praying to white Jesus, because he ain’t coming.”

Darby then asks, “What do y’all think’s going to come from this?” and the woman responds, “Race war. Race war. Us against them.

The real question is, if it were the other way around, what would that be? (Laughs.) If a black person…if a NIGGA killed nine CRACKAS, he would be dead. We wouldn’t even be talking about his raggedy ass. Okay. But this cracka is, “Oh, he’s mentally ill. Oh, ya know, pray for him. Oh, they’ve got support systems for him.”

No, he has an agenda. There’s going to a race war because it continues to happen. So cannot go pray. You can’t be a child at a playground. You can’t wear a hoodie with Skittles. You can’t be black.

What’s a good nigga supposed to do, Massa? What’s a good nigga supposed to do not to get shot? That’s a good question, ain’t it?

Then Sista Solove delivers the academic Marxist message of “white privilege” that underscores the the current Black Lives Matter movement.

It’s called white privilege. You don’t understand where our anger comes from. No one gets it. Our history comes from our family telling us, ‘Oh, you can’t be black. Don’t do this, don’t go to that fountain, don’t do this’ and we’re still dealing with this shit. What are we going to do with the anger? What are we going to do with the anger? What do we do?

Darby empathizes, saying “That ‘keep your voice down’ thing…” and Solove continues, “‘Be quiet, don’t say nothing. Oh,no! Be a good nigger.’ You understand? And then when we voice our anger, it’s against each other. You understand? Because no one wants to listen to us.”

The same woman evidently accosted Don Lemon of CNN during a report from the Emanuel AME Church on Thursday morning, shouting “Report the real truth! We are angry! White people are terrorists!” and referring to President Obama as an “Uncle Tom.”



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)6/20/2015 6:35:23 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama Outed Active Israeli Iranian Spy Mission

.................................................................................
Arutz Sheva ^ | 20/6/15 | Mark Langfan

United States Congressman Louie Gohmert revealed Thursday that the Obama administration had “outed” an active Israeli spy mission in Iran. Israel, he said, had infiltrated Israeli spies into mainland Iran via cargo boats. He dropped the bombshell in a speech at EMET’s 9th annual “Rays of Light in the Darkness” gala dinner.

Rep. Gohmert, who is one Israel’s fiercest and truest friends on Capitol Hill, stated: “We are on the brink of disaster.”

He listed a stream of virulently anti-Israel actions taken by President Obama which included the “outing” of the Israeli spy mission, and the Obama Administration’s disclosing of possible use of Azerbaijani airspace by Israel.

Rep. Gohmert did not elaborate on whether Obama’s disclosure of Israeli covert operations had resulted in the capture or death of any of Israel’s Iranian spies.

Gohmert made clear, “the new gas chambers are called nuclear weapons. And, we can’t, can’t allow Iran to kill millions of Jews. They must be stopped!”

Rep. Gohmert's accusations are sure to add fuel to the controversy ignited by former Israeli ambassador to the United States, MK Michael Oren (Kulanu), that President Obama has purposefully destroyed the Israeli-United States relationship.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)6/20/2015 6:43:33 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Clare Lopez: Christopher Stevens was first American Envoy to Al Qaeda

The American Report ^ | June 20, 2015 | Editors


Barack Hussein Obama together with Hillary Clinton decided to aid and abet al-Qaeda terrorists and Libyan Muslim Brotherhood jihadists to overthrow U.S. ally Muammar Ghaddafi and replace all the secular leaders in the Middle East with sharia-compliant Muslim Brotherhood governments.

Former CIA Operations and Intelligence Analyist, Officer, Clare Lozez, says that “America has switched sides in the war on terror under Barack Obama.” She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Sharia,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch? Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

With the Muslim Brotherhood thoroughly infiltrated through the Obama regimeand other branches of the federal government, Lopez has come to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Al Qaeda = Hamas = Muslim Brotherhood = Hezbollah = Qatar = Iran.

Get it?

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren: Obama may reach out to Islam because 2 Muslim father figures abandoned him.

Do you get it now?

For a comprehensive, detailed, and sourced report on the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood see The Betrayal Papers.

Link to video: youtu.be



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)6/20/2015 7:12:47 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Obama's statement that mass shootings don't happen in other "advanced" countries is preposterous.



To: locogringo who wrote (1675)6/20/2015 7:23:06 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 16547
 
House Republican crackdown on bucking leadership continues...

New level of severity...