Monkeyshines: Ahmadinejad in Space? (Open Thread)

© Miri WTPOTUS February 04, 2013

Baker - Copy

News from or about Iran caught my eye today.  First, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, unafraid of martyrdom, has proclaimed:

I am ready to be the first human to be sent to space by Iranian scientists.

I’d like to see him get his wish.

BANG, ZOOM! Straight to the Moon!

You may recall that the Iranians claimed recently to have sent a monkey into space and recovered it unharmed.  Whoops!  No surprise.  It was alleged to be a hoax, but now they claim they just made a “mistake” with the photos: [emphasis added]

Last week, Iran’s state news agency broadcast images of a monkey astronaut they claimed was sent up to suborbital flight, more than 70 miles above Earth’s surface. But shortly after Iran announced the mission, several observers pointed out that photos released of a monkey being prepped for launch did not match the monkey that was presented later, post-flight, in a custom tuxedo. The preflight monkey had light-colored fur and a red mole over its right eye, while the monkey in the tuxedo was dark-colored and unblemished.

On Saturday, Iranian space official Mohammad Ebrahimi told the Associated Press that the light-furred monkey shown in the still photos was one of the alternate monkeys, not the one that went up in the capsule.

They put the monkey in a custom-made tuxedo!  This would be funny if it didn’t serve to hide their probable ulterior motive: to develop space weapons.  EMP, anyone? Meanwhile, Obama dithers.

But if talks with Iran seem a long shot to produce peace, the Obama administration appears to be less worried about war than it did just a few months ago. Current and former senior administration officials privately say the threshold for military action is high. Foreign diplomats in Washington say that after three years of tough talk the administration is showing a softer face ahead of the talks. They read the appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State and the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, both of whom were critical of the war in Iraq, as signs the administration is not in a hurry to go to war again in the region. On Feb. 2 at the same Munich conference [Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akhbar] Salehi spoke at, vice president Joe Biden said the U.S. would consider one-on-one talks with Iran, last offered in 2009 but then abandoned in the face of Iranian intransigence.

Next up:  Malcolm X’s grandson was arrested by the FBI, on his way to Iran:

Malcolm X’s grandson and Muslim civil activist, Malcolm Lateef Shabazz has reportedly been arrested by FBI agents, according to reports from PressTV.

Prior to the arrest, the grandson to the civil rights icon was en route to Tehran, Iran for the third annual Hollywoodism International Conference held on Sunday (February 3rd).  The FBI has refused to release information regarding Shabazz’s current whereabouts and the cause for the apparent arrest. The Hollywoodism International Conference hosts filmmakers, activists and scholars from across the globe to discuss issues facing world cinema and it being used as a vehicle for nationalistic propaganda.

Are they for it or agin it?  Using cinema for nationalistic propaganda, I mean.

The story goes on to speak about a battle between the Shabazz family and the Lifetime network, which produced a new movie about Betty Shabazz and Coretta Scott King:

A major point of contention for the Shabazz family was the dramatization of Betty Shabazz’s death which resulted from a fire set by her grandson, Malcom [sic] Lateef Shabazz. The movie depicted Malcolm X’s dying wife as using her last moments of life to speak to Coretta Scott King, even though the Shabazz families claims she was unable to speak after suffering third-degree burns.

There’s video at the link of Malcolm Lateef Shabazz “explaining” his grandmother’s death. (He seems to be the same Shabazz who was arrested recently on his way to Iran.)

Malcolm Lateef Shabazz got eighteen months detention for manslaughter and arson.  Eighteen months in juvie for setting a fire that killed his grandmother, when he was twelve.  It almost sounds as if he blames society for his disaffection, imho.   It was traumatic for him to lose his grandmother, he says.  (Do you see any family resemblance?)

PressTV provides this gem (and another photo of Shabazz) concerning the Hollywoodism conference:

Mike Gravel, a former US Senator who attended the conference, condemned Hollywood’s role in imposing imperialistic views on the people of the world.

Hollywood is just a tool of the American government and European governments to pursue their imperialistic views whether it is in economy…culture…or religion,” Gravel stated.

It’s a blessing that he’s a “former” senator, imho.  With senators like this, who needs I’m-a-nutjob? I don’t have to tell you that Gravel was a Democrat, do I?  (He’s now a Libertarian, or so they say.)  He even ran for president in 2008.

Finally, it seems that the Iranian regime isn’t very fond of Ben Affleck’s movie ARGO.  That’s a shame because the Iranian people seem to like it:

In response to the liberal Hollywood interpretation of the real-life 444-day siege by Iranian students of the US Embassy in Tehran and how the CIA extracted six diplomats at the height of the crisis, Iran banned the Oscar-nominated film.

Not only does Iran not want the film to be screened in the country, but in response they’re also filming their own movie version of the historical events titled “The General Staff.”

But Iranians apparently don’t want the new version, they want Affleck’s.

According to a Wall Street Journal article titled “Iran’s Latest Hit: Bootleg ‘Argo’ DVDs,” underground DVD sellers say it’s “their best seller in years” with an estimated “several hundred thousand copies” sold.

The DVDS, obtained by sellers with national distribution networks, only recently became available on bootleg discs with Persian subtitles.

At a recent screening of “Argo” at Sharif University, Iran’s top engineering school, one 28-year-old film student who declined to give his name said the DVD sales mean more than just entertainment: “People are indirectly saying to the government that they are tired of this hostile behavior and it’s time for us to be friends with the world and the US again.”

Turns out the Iranians are against propaganda in movies, but only if it’s somebody else’s propaganda, not their own.

The third edition of the International Conference of Hollywoodism is also being held on the sidelines of the [Fajr International Film Festival].

Many Iranian and foreign cineastes and film experts have been invited to the conference, which will be held from February 2 to 7.

One of the main goals of this conference is to probe the philosophy of the anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic movies that are produced by Hollywood, they said in a press release.

The cinema of the Non-Aligned Movement member countries is scheduled to be reviewed during the 31st Fajr International Film Festival.

A collection of movies by filmmakers from NAM member states will be screened in a special section.

Sixty-one films from 26 countries including Algeria, Azerbaijan, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Nepal, Vietnam, Malaysia and Kenya have been submitted to the festival.

The festival also plans to hold a meeting to discuss the establishment of a NAM filmmakers’ union.

So Hollywoodism apparently means anti-Muslim, anti-Iranian propaganda coming from Hollywood, in their opinion.  That must be an opinion with which Malcolm Lateef Shabazz and Mike Gravel agree.  Are they on board with Sharia-ism, I wonder?

Another thing I wonder about:  Why exactly was Malcolm Lateef Shabazz arrested?  Is somebody afraid of what he might say to enquiring minds over there?


New Open Thread.      h/t to Gateway Pundit

U.S. Army photo from Wikimedia.

132 responses to “Monkeyshines: Ahmadinejad in Space? (Open Thread)

  1. This developing meme is making me wonder. What is up with this? Why would the statist media and the POtuS suddenly be against football?
    Obama: Football needs change
    President wary of concussions on youth, college levels

    President Obama provided a bit of pre-Super Bowl buzz-kill Sunday by saying that he believed football needs to make changes in order to reduce concussion risks.

    I want to make sure we’re doing everything we can to keep the sport safer,” said Mr. Obama in a pre-Super Bowl interview with CBS anchor Scott Pelley. “That means the game’s probably going to evolve a little bit.”

    The president, who said last month that he would think twice about allowing a son to play football, emphasized that the changes should be made at the youth and college level as opposed to the National Football League, given that NFL players are “grown men, they’re well-compensated, they know the risks that are involved.” …”

    And now Bob Costas interjects:

    Bob Costas: ‘The Way Football Is Currently Played in the NFL Is Fundamentally Unsustainable [like the deficit?]


    TODD: He [Commissioner Goodell] said the game is evolving to a culture of health and safety, which is another way of saying it’s not there yet.

    MR. COSTAS: Oh, it’s definitely not there yet, but I think Goodell actually is well intentioned…

    TODD: You do think he is?

    MR. COSTAS: Yes, I think he is absolutely well-intentioned as a human being. I think he has made significant, positive strides. Obviously, as a businessman, he’s got to be concerned not only with the lawsuits which could wind up costing hundreds of millions, maybe even potentially billions of dollars. Now, the NFL is well-heeled, but these lawsuits are a serious thing with more than 4000 former players involved and probably more to come. And the other thing he has to be concerned about is the present generation and future generation of parents saying, look, we’re longtime NFL fans, but knowing what we know now, we’re not going to let our son play football. When I first posed that question to– to Goodell…

    TODD: To him, yes.

    MR. COSTAS: ….nearly three years ago, people looked at me like I had two heads.

    TODD: And then here you have the president. This is what he said in an interview with New Republic, “I’m a big football fan. But I have to tell you, if I had a son, I’d think long and hard before I let him play football. I think those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably have to change gradually.” There’s one study by USA Football, by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association that found an 11 percent decline in youth football participation. I can tell you, I have a five-year-old son. Every gathering of fathers, we have this conversation.”

    So what is up with this? Lawsuit fears, certainly. But why? Grown men make their choices and live with them. That’s the way it should be. They don’t need the government to “protect” them from their own selves. And JURIES ought to see it that way.

    IF the players chose to play and accept the millions they were paid to play, then why would it be anyone else’s fault if they suffer injuries? The NFL’s? Why, because they’re rich? IF the players didn’t realize the risks, why would the league be blamed for not realizing them? Now everyone knows the risks, so they make a considered judgment: Play or don’t play. If they play, it’s their bad and their choice. IMHO.

    Maybe the leftists see a pot of gold. All the money that football at the high school and college level receives/generates and they think, “We need to siphon that off. THAT money could be better spent. We want to use it for (fill in the blank with whatever liberal policy or program they dream of).”

    Leftists always want to tell you how to live. They always think it’s a zero sum game and money spent on anything they don’t like is money that SHOULD be spent on what THEY, and they alone, believe it should be spent on. Football is aggressive. Football is mean. Football makes bullies. Is that what they’re thinking? I seriously wonder.

    WHY do they want to change football at the high school and college level? If people don’t learn to play early in life, how can they NOT be changing football at the adult level? I’d hazard a guess that it’s far better to learn how to take a hit when you’re young and flexible than when you weigh 270 pounds!

    Do they want to change it for schools so that pantywaists like Barry can play?

    To level the playing field, literally, for whom and for what? For girls? So they can play football with boys? For skinny gay guys?

    “Wah! It’s not FAIR.”

    Or are they thinking about the costs to Obamacare? We’re going to save you from cigarettes, junk food, and now football? And the excuse they’re going to use to protect you like a caterpillar in a cocoon is because it’s not fair that everybody has to pay for the outcomes of your choices? So we MUST tell you how to live, what to do, what to eat, what to drink, what not to smoke (you can have “weed”, though), etc.? (BUT NOT how to have sex: unsafe, promiscuous sex is a-okay, even if it costs Obamacare billions.)

    WTF is going on with this?

    2016 cannot come soon enough.

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      Something new for his majesty to control and eliminates the competition for b’ball. I somehow don’t believe golf is a problem for “the masses”. I mean you can easily swing and….

      For the NBA peeps.

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        Can you imagine someone making this video now? Raaaaaaaaacist.

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        I neglected to mention this is a Cheech and Chong number.

      • I think I spotted Barry in that clip. Beyonce, too, his second squeeze. Whoa! Somewhat racist and X-rated, too, RW! And was that a Muslim hijacking that plane? Cheech and Chong can get away with it because they’re “persons of color.” btw, can someone buy Beyonce some pants?

        • Rosemary Woodhouse

          Yes, the tune is an earwig. Sorry about the “R” rating. I figured everyone could use a good laugh. And that hijacking part….weird. (shakes head)

          Am surprised the youtube owners haven’t yanked it for being raaaaaaaacist. But you’re right about persons of color being able to get away with it, Miri.

          Am going on the record to state: decimation of the NFL= elevation of the NBA. BUT… It must be noted that baseball has always been considered the all-American game. Let’s see what happens. Much like golf clubs, baseball bats can be “implements of danger” (TM) in the wrong hands. Wonders if both will require licenses and a national registry to purchase in the not too distant future..

          • Oh, the R-rated part was only a split second. Nearly subliminal. But those of us with a dirty mind did see it. 🙂

            Not to worry! I heard another song in the interim and now that’s my NEW ear worm. Arghh! Does that mean that I’m inherently musical, because my brain sings to itself all day long (and during the night, too. I wake up and hear songs in my head!)

            He probably is trying to decimate the NFL and raise up the NBA. Baseball will be next. OR HOCKEY! Not many blacks in hockey. Some, but most look mixed and talk like hosers.

        • Rosemary Woodhouse

          XoX, Miri.

  2. “Affidavit: Debt Collector Al Hendershot; Obama Using Harry Bounel’s Social Security Number”

    • The response from the SSA doesn’t, imho, “clearly show” that the number belongs to Harry Bounel. In any case, this information proves that the SSA has to cough up the SS application for Harry Bounel, upon request, because the person in question would be more than 120 years old and SSA defaults to assumed death (and therefore no privacy interest) 120 years after birth. That sentence they placed in the letter about how they’re forbidden to consider who requested the information and why they requested is a red flag, also imho. It’s like they are admitting that they DO consider who the request comes from and why. Why else mention it, unless Al mentioned it in his correspondence? In my experience, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. All requests ought to be routine, cut and dried, no mention of Barry. In the interest of transparency, he ought to publish everything–all the correspondence back and forth, so we can determine what might be going on. A dead man has no privacy interest, according to the SSA’s own procedures.

      “… for extreme age cases we can release an SS-5, in its entirety, including the parents’ names of the number holder (NH), in response to a request in the following instances: …

      the NH’s birth date exceeds 120 years and no proof of death exists.

      The presumption of death for purposes of responding to FOIA requests does not apply to any other agency decision. To respond to SS-5 requests involving extreme age, use the language in this section and the instructions contained in GN 03315.010B.4. Always include the appropriate appeal paragraph.””

      Did he follow this procedure? What name did he use and what did he supply to prove that Bounel MUST BE DEAD? IMHO, the SSA telegraphed to him that the only “exception” to the SSA policies would be under FOIA’s specific procedure. They’re implying that’s the procedure he ought to use.

      • That’s the act, as amended during Barry’s term. They’re rejecting his request based on this phrase:

        552 (b) (6): “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;”

        Bounel’s SS-5 is not a personnel record, nor a medical record. It’s not “similar” to them, either, imho. There’s no invasion of a dead man’s privacy. That’s according to their own 120 year rule. Bounel, born in 1890 (according to government record–the census), exceeds the limit by 3 years. Al should appeal the rejection, in the manner specified in the procedures.

        In addition, this paragraph applies to the above:

        “Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted, and the exemption under which the deletion is made, shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted, and the exemption under which the deletion is made, shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.”

        What privacy interest is there in releasing the SS-5 with the man’s name, his date of birth, his date of death, and his SS#? He’s dead. Is this why they suddenly started removing the SS#’s from the SSDI, so nobody could cross-match Barry’s FAKE SS#’s?

        • By following this act are they admitting the number does not come up as Bounel’s but as Barry’s? The number is alive and well? And to release Bounel’s is to release Barry’s who is not 120+years dead or even dead. Or is Barack Obama dead?

          • We don’t know because we don’t know exactly how Al made the request. Why even include the SS#? The link I found says you must follow their procedure exactly. We don’t know if Al did. I assume that he’s saying that because they denied a request for Harry Bounel’s “numident”, that means the number matches him. But do we know that the SSA follows the same type of rules that, for example, the HDOH is SUPPOSED to follow–meaning that if they respond to an item that’s admitting that it matches? I don’t think so. I remember reading that they came up with changes to the SSDI where they omitted the SS#, as they used to show, to prevent so-called “identity theft”. I would think it would make identity theft HARDER, if a person could cross check against a list of KNOWN DEAD PEOPLE using just the number. Then an employer, for example, could tell if someone 50 years old is using the SS# of a dead person born in 1890. Because it makes NO SENSE to suppress the SS#’s, it seems apparent that the change was made to protect Barry, imho. It’s as likely that even if they knew Bounel’s exact date of birth and death, the SSA would just redact the SS#.

          • We don’t know if Al requested the exception for a person known to be over 120 years old.

  3. Obama failed e-Verify; Citizen penalized for asking

    A United States citizen has been fined $13,000 for running Barack Obama’s Social Security number through the e-Verify system.

    Radio interview with Linda Jordan

    • “Developing: Ret. Supreme Court Judge Fights $13,000 Sanction Against Obama Challenger”

      “Retired Washington State Supreme Court Justice Fights Linda Jordan’s $13,000 Sanctions For Challenging Obama’s Forged Identity Documents; The Government Is Hiding The Ball To Oppress A Patriotic Private Citizen; It’s Time To Fight”

      “- Birther Report Exclusive -”

      “As many know Linda Jordan was sanctioned $13,000 for challenging Obama’s identity document fraud and his placement on the state of Washington’s ballot. Linda reached out to many attorneys seeking advice on what she could do about the unjust fees levied against her. Only one was brave enough to step up to the plate and take on her case. His name is Richard B. Sanders from the Goodstein Law Group in Tacoma, Washington. Mr. Sanders was a justice on the Washington Supreme Court from 1995 to 2010.”

      • More and more ‘esteemed’ people are speaking up — just not most of the bloggers and online news sources; they still refuse and are behaving so third-grade by worried what others will say if they go off the Republican Plantation.

      • Good news. It’s outrageous to slap her with that fine.

      • Her lawyer (a former WA Supreme Court judge) said, “My motion to modify and reduce the court clerk’s award of almost $13,000 will attempt to direct the court’s attention to the truth of the matter: that once again the government is hiding the ball to oppress a patriotic private citizen of modest means because she exercised her right to access the courts. This is not compensatory but punitive. It is not justice but oppression. Moreover $13,000 is truly an outlandish sum to obtain dismissal of an appeal the AG claimed was entirely lacking in merit. No wonder people mistrust the government, lawyers and the court system. It’s time to fight.

        Thank God for honorable men like Judge Richard B. Sanders.

    • Thanks RP for posting! You have been a diligent warrior for the truth on this and not giving up. I had not heard or even knew of the radio interview and found it very informative.

  4. Why GOP doesn’t contest fraudulent election.

    • To get around that, all they have to do is the same activities in EVERY district in the country. It clearly says that it’s proscribed only IF the reason for doing it is to suppress black votes. Of course that’s NOT the reason for doing it. They have crap in there about if the “effect” is to suppress black votes, but the onus would be on them to prove that black votes were suppressed. How could they be? Only ILLEGAL black votes. Everybody votes, even if via provisional ballot. So nobody’s “suppressed” who’s entitled to vote. I don’t buy this.

  5. Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret):

    “He says:
    The country is headed for both political and economic catastrophe
    – No representative govt
    – State controlled media
    – Rigged elections – Unsustainable spending
    – Euro Socialism or worse
    – Introduction of Sharia law concepts incompatible with our Constitution
    – Unconstitutional “President”
    – Pro-Islamic approach detrimental to our system
    All avenues where we can express grievances have been blocked to us.
    Unsustainable spending, debt, leading to catastrophe.
    Situation will spin out of control
    – Working toward Progressive, one party state
    – Establishment Republicans have decalred war on the Tea Party
    – “Obama” not a natural born citizen, not eligible to be President. His documents are forged, his SSN is stolen.
    – Media is complicit in suppressing the truth . The truth would rock the media system to its core. Many of these people would lose their careers, their freedom- in prison.
    – The people would be very angry
    – Suggests county and state level fight, civil, not military fight
    Listen to interview of Col. Sellin on Laurie Rothe Show”
    [audio src="" /]

    • Many of these people would lose their careers, their freedom- in prison.

      Something to hope, pray, and look forward to?


      White House: It’s OK to Drop Bombs on Americans

      … A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

      The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes. …”

  6. Ann Coulter:

    “For some reason Wayne LaPierre is not making [this point] so you’re gonna have to hear it from me. Universal background check means universal registration. Universal registration means universal confiscation, universal extermination. That’s how it goes in history. Do not fall for universal background checks.”



    UNIVERSAL EXTERMINATION. And THAT is what they are after.

    Why are the SEALS being offed? Who better, among all the members of our patriotic military, would be most able to resist universal extermination perpetrated by an illegal regime?

  7. Been expecting one of them bombs to fall on my house as vocal as I have been. 😆

    • I love that!

      President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security care more about “special interests” in the Democratic campaign base than the lives of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, the ICE union boss told Congress today. … Crane based that statement on the way government policies handcuff the ICE officers charged with enforcing immigration laws, such as the policy that bans using tasers on illegal immigrants even though law enforcement is authorized to use them on U.S. citizens in the course of an arrest.” ICE will not approve this equipment for political reasons,” Crane, a former United States Marine, explained.

      Obama’s decision to implement the DREAM Act without congressional approval — “deferred action for childhood arrivals” (DACA) – has made it almost impossible to enforce the law, he also explained. “ICE immigration agents have been instructed to accept the illegal alien’s claim as to whether he or she graduated or is attending high school or college or otherwise qualifies for DACA,” Crane said, noting that ICE agents have heard illegal immigrants coaching each other on how to lie about their qualification for DACA privileges.”

    • Oh, I’m so disturbed about them arresting him. Aren’t you? Given that that site has articles that refer to GWB as a “war criminal,” I take what they write with a grain of salt. We don’t know WHY he was arrested. The FBI didn’t say. Of course, there’s always the possibility that some might have feared what he might have disclosed whilst overseas and out of reach. Who knows? I’m not upset, though, that our government would keep people from going to IRAN. It’s not as if they’re not one of our worst enemies.

    • Here’s another story:

      “… Malcolm Lateef Shabazz is 29-years-old and was born in Paris to Malcolm X’s second daughter Qubilah. According to MEHR News Malcolm Shabazz was arrested while traveling to Tehran for the Hollywoodism International Conference. No reason was given for the arrest, and Shabazz’s current location is unknown. …

      In 1997 12-year-old Malcolm Lateef Shabazz plead guilty to charges of manslaughter and arson in connection to the death of his grandmother Betty Shabazz, with whom he had been living with following several disputes with his mother. Malcolm Lateef Shabazz was diagnosed at the time as psychotic and schizophrenic by medical experts, a diagnosis Shabazz disputes. He served 4-years in a juvenile detention center and was released in 2001. …

      The 29-year-old is reportedly attending John Jay College of Criminal Justice as well as penning his memoirs.”

      All in the family? Memoirs.

      So did he do 18 months or 4 years? Check out THIS photo, keeping in mind that he’s been diagnosed and that he likely lives in NYC:

      Wikipedia informs us that he made the hajj in 2010.

  8. “Orly Taitz – Takes case against Obama to Supreme Court”

    Published on Feb 5, 2013

  9. “Missouri Speaker Of The House Tim Jones Now Satisfied With Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate”

    • “Timothy W. (Tim) Jones (born May 25, 1971) is a Republican member of the Missouri House of Representatives, representing the 89th district, which encompasses a portion of St. Louis County. Jones served as the House Majority Leader for the 96th General Assembly and now serves as Speaker of the House, a position he will hold for the remainder of the 96th General Assembly and during the 97th General Assembly if Republicans maintain the majority.”

      • I hear this guy on radio sometimes, on the Jamie Allman show. He sounds like a decent conservative guy, Tea Partier type. I think he was being careful with Jaco, because as you see, the trap was set and he wasn’t about to walk into it. What’s the percentage in doing it? I don’t think he did ANY research into the issue. I can’t believe he didn’t, but it’s possible. The Republicans control the entire MO state Congress and I’m sure they don’t need Jaco and the rest of the STATIST biased leftist lamestream media on their case. The Republicans in the US Congress have thrown in the towel on this issue (as if they ever were contenders on the issue)! I do think they believe it’s a losing argument and that the DemoncRATS have successfully painted anybody who questions Obama’s origins as racist. It’s not RIGHT, but it’s likely the truth. They’re cutting their losses and picking their fights carefully. They see this one as a lose/lose. And it just may be. Truth WILL OUT. Someday. Maybe something will break with the Jordan appeal.

    • AT GUL1776:

      “CALL TIM JONES at 573-751-0562 and tell him what a fool he is…I DID!…Spent at least 10 mins on the phone with one of his aides…”

    • Jaco sure as heck sounds like an OBJECTIVE JOURNALIST in his question, doesn’t he? NOT!!! Remember, this is the dude who sandbagged Akin and killed his chances for the Senate (not that Akin didn’t walk right into the TRAP). WHY they continue to go on his show is beyond me.

      Those in the “deep red states” have so much “antipathy” for the POtuS, that they’re willing to believe “nonsense.” NONSENSE LIKE WHAT BARRY HAD ON HIS OWN OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY, VIA HIS PUBLISHER, FOR OVER 16 YEARS?

      People believe “nonsense” like there’s a “plot to come into your homes to seize your guns?” Is Jaco actually saying that there’s NOT a plot to get universal registration as the first step towards coming “into your homes to seize your guns?” Who’s crazy? We the People or BLIND MEN LIKE JACO?

      Have you seen any “vicious billboards” about Barry? Asking where his birth certificate is? It’s a good question. It’s NOT “vicious.” And we still don’t have an answer. Jaco can pitch his Alinsky tricks, call us all the names he wants. The FACT remains that WE’RE RIGHT AND HE’S WRONG. (And we ain’t going away.) I wonder who slipped Jaco the question to ASK Tim Jones? You know it’s a JounOlist talking point and these days, they’re worried (for some reason. I hope they’re right TO be worred. I would be, if I were one of them.)

      • “CNN Fake Newscast Best Quality”

        At YouTube:

        “Charles Jaco was the CNN reporter famous for covering the 1990 Persian Gulf War.

        The first part of this video shows the stage set he was on, and he was clowning around with fellow CNN staff. The Saudi Arabian “hotel” in the background were fake palm trees and a blue wall in a studio. This clip was leaked by CNN staff.

        The second part of this video was a live CNN satellite feed recorded onto VHS showing the final cut. Charles Jaco was wearing a different jacket, but he had the same act. The acting was terrible as Charles Jaco wore a gas mask, and his fellow correspondent Carl Rochelle wore a helmet. The sirens and missile sound effects are part of the stage set. The camera never pans out or shows the sky.”

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      foxy, they’ve been doing it since he first ran in ’08. They’re all over the place. “encinocom” or some screen name to that effect comes to mind. But do I believe they are stupid enough to have a binder labeled “CyberWarriorsforTheEmperorHisMajestyLordoftheFliesandoftheRealm” 🙂 (yes, another…TM) no I don’t.

  10. Thomas Lifson:

    “Apparently Tony Bennett also left his brain in San Francisco”

    “Call the irony police. Tony Bennett has argued that unless America controls guns, it will become like Nazi Germany.

    The Nazis, of course, confiscated guns, which ensured that when it came time to haul away the Jews, it could be accomplished with almost no casualties, except for all the Jews.
    Born in 1926, young Anthony Dominick Benedetto was a child as the Nazis assumed power. My colleague Rick Moran thinks it is “sad” that the 86 year old Bennett has embarrassed himself.
    But will Bennett receive enough scorn to learn anything? Ridicule, Alinsky teaches us, is powerful. The dominant entertainment/news culture will leave him alone, so it is up to the right to generate funny and compelling enough ridicule to break through the liberal bubble.
    The gun-grabbers have never had facts and logic on their side, so mindless appeals to emotion form the primary thrust of the current political campaign against gun ownership. So is the use of celebrities to reach and persuade low information voters with emotional appeals.”
    “I Left My Heart In San Francisco – Tony Bennett”

    • I’ll see you Bennett and raise you Chris Rock:

      “The president of the United States is, you know, OUR BOSS. He is also, you know, the president and the first lady are kind of like the mom and the dad of the country; and when your dad says something, you listen. Then when you don’t, it usually bites you in the a** later on. So, um, I’m here to support the president.”

      Have at it. He says a lot of idiotic things that, you know, we don’t “KNOW” because they’re, you know, NOT TRUE!

      Don’t you love that implied threat? WHEN YOU DON’T LISTEN TO BARRY, IT WILL BITE YOU IN THE A** “later on”. When, Chris? Once he’s got all the NAMES? Jamie Allman said on his show this morning that Rock seemed as if he were a hostage being forced to make a statement. The guys in the back seemed amused, but Chris Rock certainly seemed uncomfortable and serious. It’s not every guy who’ll take one for his messiah. This is NOT going to help his career, and I think he knows it. Command performance, though.

      The comments are priceless.

      • Who’s that guy on the left?

      • I wonder if leftists like Chris Rock felt the same way about George and Laura Bush? Whatever Bush said was a-okay with them because Bush was our “boss” and our “dad”. RIGHT? Blindly follow the leader.

        I’ve said it many times before and I will say it again: OBAMA IS OUR EMPLOYEE. He’s one who needs to be FIRED, for incompetence and insubordination. This is just one example. Chris Rock said it, but somebody else wrote the script.

    • This is a disturbing part and perhaps he did us a favor by tipping the hand:
      “And if we continue this kind of violence and accept it in our country, the rest of the world’s going to really take care of us, in a very bad way.”

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        Rught-roh. And this after the Korean video. News flash for the bots: there is a communist-leaning muslim in the WH! I write leaning only because I don’t know which ideology takes precedence in his tampered with mind.

        • I’m listening to the Brennan hearing. It’s amazing that most of the DemoncRATS are actually grilling him (in a kinder, gentler way) as well as the Republicans. Not that he’s answering the questions they ask. One important thing asked and not answered was by a DemoncRAT who asked him to explain the boundaries of Barry’s alleged authority to kill Americans. In particular, he asked IF he could kill them in the US, too. He didn’t answer, of course, like Mueller didn’t. The other DemoncRATS are trying to get him to commit to handing over the documents they ask for. Of course, he dances and they let him. He says things like he’ll get them documents they need in the course of their oversight work or he says “legitimate” documents. They don’t ask him who decides what they need and who decides what’s “legitimately” something they ought to get. They’re also angry about the legal opinion behind that leaked drone memo, which Barry only promised to give them last night. What he gave (or what Holder supplied) wasn’t what they understood Barry promised. In addition, Barry’s peeps put caveats on it that the senators’ staffs were forbidden to read the information. So that meant that the senators who aren’t lawyers couldn’t get legal advice to allow them to interpret the so-called legal justification. Something Rockefeller said jumped out at me. He was talking about the use of drones and how it’s important that the Congress and the people know what’s going on. He went on to say that the use of drones is growing and that other governments will be using them, too. Then he said they will be used even from WITHIN the USA. So what does THAT mean? Is he telegraphing that they expect … what? Terrorists from outside to use drones here to attack us? DOMESTIC terrorists to use them against targets here and then … what? This is why Barry needs the power to drone strike Americans within the US? OR … is it wild to suppose they’re setting up a false flag?

          • Gotta also say that the DemoncRATS are trying to use this hearing to slam the Bush administration and getting Brennan to promise to cough up stuff they haven’t been able to get on Iraq (so, of course, they can use it politically). One senator (probably Republican) said to Brennan’s face that his policy seems to be that it’s wrong to waterboard terrorists but okay to blow them away with a drone. 🙂

            Oh, yeah. Forgot to tell you that Code Pink staged a protest. Every few minutes during Brennan’s opening address, one of them would stand up yelling about drones and Obama killing innocents. It was priceless. After 4 or 5 interruptions, Feinstein had to adjourn and clear the room. Apparently they let the people come back in one by one. Fun to see them get a taste of their own medicine. They’re not used to Jodi going after their peeps.

          • Rosemary Woodhouse

            Code Pink protested against him? That’s really great!

            As for documents to be presented to Congress…., slice and dice. I’ll bet the shredders and secretaries….sorry I used “oldspeak.”……administrative assistants…. were working around the clock. The Clintons (Whitewater) perfected the art of obfuscation combined with slicing and dicing.

            • They didn’t identify themselves as Code Pink, but Feinstein called them that. It was great to see. Actually seemed worse than the demonstrations against GWB. They were so coordinated. As one was taken out and Brennan started speaking again, another would pop up. Since they had banners with them, I would assume that they ought to have had a heads up on this, but no explanation for why they were allowed in with the banners (unless they put them where the sun don’t shine).

          • Feinstein removed her “own” – the beloved Pinko’s.

            Sen. Dianne Feinstein kicks out Code Pink protesters during Brennan confirmation hearing

    • “Adolf Hitler – Progressive Pioneer”

      “President Obama’s second inaugural was a speech that the Obama Media literally drooled over as a straight forward and forceful expression of progressivism unmatched in American history. I agree, it was, but there was one thing that bothered me… the tendency of these media personalities to ignore the sources of many of the ideas the president expressed so well.

      In the interest of fairness and as a debt to history, I think it’s important that we take a minute to give due credit to one of the greatest progressives in history, someone who undoubtedly should be an inspiration and influence to all progressives – former German leader Adolf Hitler, who against strong odds rose to power and fundamentally changed Germany and for a while, the world.”

  11. “Obama Addresses Fellow Kenyans From White House: Follow Rule Of Law; Reject Corruption”

    • OH SH**, so what organizers does the US (foundations/NGO/Soros funded weirdo’s/ USAID/UN workers) have installed in Kenya….to help Kenya have a “peaceful” change of power? Hmmm…..Are we ready for this….Obama knows what’s about to take place…I do believe.

    • He’s grateful for his connection to Kenya. He mentions “visits” to Kenya and praises their new constitution. He pretends to know “what makes for successful elections” and tells them the election must be “free and fair” and the people MUST “come together” afterwards to follow whoever is chosen. (I’m convinced they know already WHO will be “elected”.) They need to continue to “MOVE FORWARD!” He sounds more patriotic about the “proud nation” of Kenya than he ever has sounded about the “proud nation of the United States of America”.


    Currently, Dempsey is testifying on Benghazi. At 2:30 ET BRENNAN will be grilled (I hope).

    • Panetta testifying, too. He tells Kelly Ayotte that after speaking to Barry the first time after the initial attack, he never spoke to him again that night, even after learning that Stevens was dead. He also said that he never was called from the WH by Obama or his staff to ask how things were going overnight, even after THEY learned from other sources that Stevens was dead. He also would not look her in the eye when she asked whether or not Barry asked about WHAT assets might have been available to help the Americans in Benghazi. (Barry didn’t ask him.) Panetta just said that Barry “knew” in general about assets and told Panetta to do whatever they could to help the people there. So OBVIOUSLY, if Panetta is to be believed, Barry was totally hands off and delegated the situation to Panetta. That’s what I call a commander in chief. Panetta reads a script when questioned by a DemoncRAT; it looks as if he knows in advance what they’re going to ask him, but not the Republicans. When asked specifically about what went wrong there, all he does it talk about what they’ll do in the future. He dodges answering.

      • Graham picked up on the fact that about 5 o’clock Panetta talked to Barry ONCE. Dempsey was there and he, too, spoke to Barry ONCE, for about 30 minutes. Never talked to him again until after the attack was over. [Did we not learn that the meeting took place at or after 7? Remembering that photo.]

        Were there any AC130 gunships within a 1000 miles of Libya? Dempsey: No.

        Graham asks if within 2000 miles? He would have to check.

        Would an AC130 have been adequate after the initial attack? He gave no specific response, except to say “boots on the ground” would have served.

        Isn’t there a saying in the military that “we’ve got your back?” Dempsey: Yes. He started to dodge then.

        Was any airplane in the world launched to help? When? After the attack was concluded. (but to evacuate)

        Any strike aircraft deployed during the attack? NO. [At some point, Graham pointed out that they had NO IDEA how long the attack would last, and later said that it did last more than 8 hours.]

        Was any soldier deployed to help while the attack was going on? He dodges.

        Anybody deployed to help? Only personnel in Tripoli. [Pay attention to what he later told Senator Lee–they moved people who arrived in Tripoli and weren’t sent on to Benghazi.]

        Was any DOD asset deployed to help during the attack? Did anybody leave ANY BASE anywhere to go aid before the attack ended? NO, because the attack ended before they could get off the ground, he said. [Keep in mind that it took over 7 hours, 8 according to Graham, but nobody and no aircraft got off the ground. Also that, later on, he tells Senator Lee that they started moving troops to Tripoli “immediately”.]

        Did General Ham on that night ever suggest or order an asset into motion and was told to stand down? No.

        When Clinton said she had a clear-eyed assessment of the threat, was it accurate if she didn’t know about the cable that mentioned the appalling lack of security? Dempsey said he’d be surprised to learn that she didn’t know about that cable.

        Was Panetta surprised that he wasn’t contacted again by Barry? Panetta dodged. Said “he [Barry] knew we were deploying the forces,” BUT Graham reminded him that there was no deployment.

        Did Panetta call Barry or vice versa? He answered that he had no question that Barry was “concerned”. Panetta says the purpose of Barry’s staff was to get the info. [This was confusing because earlier he said no WH staff called to check, either. So he’s contradicting himself or else he’s talking about some other staff allegedly keeping Barry apprised. Wasn’t Barry sleeping?]

        Graham asks whether in Panetta’s opinion it’s typical behavior to have one contact with a president under such conditions and then no more? He says the potus was “well informaed” about what was going on.

        Graham was good. He was, but they dodged.

        • Mike Lee reminds Panetta said that we didn’t have boots on the ground because the attack ended too soon, before they could arrive. He asks at what point the decision was made NOT to deploy boots. Panetta says they thought the initial attack was ended, and they had no intelligence that a second attack would take place. Lee says that we didn’t know that there wouldn’t be more fighting because not everyone was accounted for. Panetta said when he was told the attack was over, they had no “intelligence” to indicate that it wasn’t over. Was the situation revisited when another attack began? Now Panetta says immediately as the attack began they started “moving forces” and nothing they did slowed the process. They got to Tripoli and by the time they got to Tripoli there was no reason to move them to Benghazi because he thought it was over because “everybody got out.” Why didn’t they secure the compound until 23 days later? They weren’t asked to secure it until the FBI asked them! This seems contradictory because Graham asked him if people were deployed and he said no. Could they have gotten to Libya faster if on higher alert? Yes. Given it was 9/11, wasn’t there reason to put them on alert? Panetta dodges with “hindsight” bs.

      • Senator Cruz: Focusing on when the attack began and when the former SEALS died: If you could go back in time, what could have been done to save them at the annex? Panetta: Hard to respond to “hypothetical”. Best scenario would have been troops on the ground to protect the annex. Biggest problem is getting accurate info on what’s happening and determining response. You can’t sent F16s or AC130s to “blow the hell out of a target” without knowing the situation. Earlier, either Dempsey or Panetta began to say something about people there (I assume he meant citizens).

        If during the first attack he’d received an order from Barry to get troops on the ground how long would it have taken? He claims, best case, 13 hours or so. In Panetta’s judgement, there was no way to get them there before 13-15 hours? Yes. AC130? How long? Panetta says none anywhere near North Africa that night. So dodges.

        They got no order to get boots on the ground? That’s right. They met during a SCHEDULED meeting with Barry at 5 and discussed the attack that had happened earlier (or was happening). 15-20 minutes were spent on Benghazi and also Cairo and what might happen there. Neither had any subsequent conversations with Barry the rest of the evening? No.

        Then they went back to the Pentagon and Panetta “ordered the deployment” of troops. (Without an order, apparently.) Both had no conversations with Hillary Clinton, either. Cruz mentions how CNN found “sensitive documents” to the “astonishment” of viewers. The military COULD have secured the compound effectively, if requested? YES.

        • Dempsey seems to tell Senator Wicker that they got no request from the STATE DEPT. to deploy more troops to protect the people in Libya AND he says something about needing the “host country” to give permission. There’s your answer. Libya called the shots and Barry acquiesced. Libya didn’t want our military there to protect our people, so there were none.

          • After initial bloviating, and criticizing Sen. Graham, McCaskill asks a logical question: WHY CAN’T THE BEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD BE USED TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSIES, INSTEAD OF USING CONTRACTORS WITH QUESTIONABLE BACKGROUNDS? Hard to believe that she actually brought up a logical question.

            • The DemoncRATS are trying to paint the sequester as Congress’s fault, when it was BARRY’S IDEA. One of them actually called the Congress the “worst enemy” of national security, as if the DemoncRATS, under Barry, didn’t make up the idea of the sequester (with regard to military budgets), thinking they could then use that as a lever to get the Republicans to cave on raising the debt limit.

              Dempsey mentions that they started moving forces and never stopped, and that they thought they were going to be dealing with a hostage situation.


    Reporters Reveal Secret US Drone Base in Saudi Arabia

    The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been using a secret drone airbase in Saudi Arabia for the last two years, according to a BBC report.

    The base was established in order to hunt down Al Qaeda members in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and particularly in Yemen.

    A drone flown from there was used in September 2011 to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-citizen who was alleged to be AQAP’s external operations chief.

    US media have known of the base’s existence since then, but have not reported it. …’


    Sen. Rand Paul: “Administration Needs to Answer Are They Running Guns through Turkey to Syria”

    “I really think part of the cause may have been there was a gun running operation going on in Benghazi, leaving Libya and going to Turkey and distributing arms to the rebelsThey’ve interviewed the captain of the ship. A ship from Libya sailed for Turkey a week before the ambassador was killed. It was full of arms and they interviewed the captain and he actually specifically talks about the distribution of the arms to Syrian rebels… And I think the administration needs to answer are they running guns through Turkey to Syria.””

    Video at the link.


    Media Confirms Barack Obama Called For Drone Bombing on 16 Year-Old Denver Boy

    … Seven months before the New York Times report, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was the son of terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi. He did not have a trial. He was never waterboarded. He was sixteen.

    Barack Obama dropped a bomb on his head.”

  16. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Okay, his communism take precedence (see above^^_

  17. Does anything else matter? Most Americans are unaware the Department of Homeland Security has acquired 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber, hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible during combat under the Geneva Conventions. ( …. is this also truth??? )

  18. It’s frustrating to hear the DemoncRATS focus on “enhanced interrogation” instead of the far more egregious (and CURRENT) policy of Barry’s where he believes that he has the power to kill anybody, anywhere, anytime, via drone, if HE decides they deserve to die.

  19. >BUSH>>>BUSH>>>BUSH< … 50 Drone Strikes
    Barry H OBAMA … has ZIPPED past the … 360 mark …

    • Barely under scrutiny. Seems they spent more time on the waterboarding. It sounds to me AS IF Brennan actually said that the criminal justice system is for past actions but the POtuS as the executive branch has the power to interdict for FUTURE events and for that he believes he can be judge, jury, executioner (of course he didn’t use those words). What’s interesting is that today Brennan JUST SAID we “will destroy that organization,” meaning Al Qaeda, which, of course, they ALREADY TOLD US Al Qaeda is “decimated” and Barry said we should withdraw from the Middle East because he’s defeated Al Qaeda. I’m still waiting for ANYBODY to ask him and MAKE HIM ANSWER whether Barry thinks he can kill Americans IN THE USA and under what conditions? He keeps talking Al Qaeda and that we’re at war with them, BUT nobody’s asked him what OTHER organizations that “we” might be at war with, which might endanger “American lives”, and what Barry will then think he can do to take them out. In other words, can he decide the Tea Party is a “danger” to American “lives” and then decide on his own, without presenting any evidence and with NO oversight (trust me, they were a threat), KILL THEM.

      It’s disturbing to hear Brennan say these Muslim names with a perfect Arab accent.

      • If anyone has ever listened dr. steve pieczenick on Arabists, he said some interesting things about them, the ones who know and study the culture……is Brennan an Arabist?
        But please understand Al Qaeda ” WAR” is what now replaces Bin Laden; or excuse to do all we do all over everywhere while we don’t really know whats going on.While we think the story is the O. regime said Alqaeda is on the run, and we told em otherwise….they got the public right where they want em.IIf it wan’t AlQaeda et al. it would be some other group probably trained by US. All these evils in every place that we have military yet don’t have a real war going on is the “Prima circumstances” for the US/CIA type situations , since Bush and of course way before. We could take out most these people in matter of a few weeks or months and come home if that was a real goal, but THe US goals are fake goals for the American people to think they know what’s going on. And we’re walking on thin ice everywhere, because everyone is suspicious of our motives yet still on the take from us. And now Obama has become just as crude as the regimes we don’t have any respect for. He is no different…and this drone crap is going to get us in trouble I bet in the future. Sooner or later some country isn’t going to like us sneakin in and taking out a village for a bad guy. We’ve been smuglin weapons since the 1950’s and we can’t even get one story straight on Fast and Furious/Benghazigate. Nothing will come of that and we’re on to the next evil, while all laugh at people like Ron Paul, republicans especially.

        • I believe that Brennan is an Arabist, as I understand the term. But I may not understand it correctly. In any case, one thing I found heartening is that the Senators asked Brennan about the wisdom of making the CIA a “paramilitary” force. Susan Collins asked whether it was diverting money that should be spent on intelligence gathering (which IS the alleged purpose of the agency). What’s concerning in this regard is that the Posse Comitatus Act would SEEM TO exempt CIA, because it specifically precludes MILITARY from engaging in operations within the borders of the US. But this way, making the CIA run the drones, seems like it could be an end run via technicality, which is something that Obama LOVES to do, being the clever little “lawyer” that he thinks he is. One of the senators, ALSO HEARTENING, reminded Brennan that the Congress holds the purse strings. I believe that was in response to Brennan saying that they can be opaque (meaning NOT transparent with regard to giving info to the committees about WHAT THEY’RE DOING). Another told him point blank that unless the info they want isn’t forthcoming, his nomination will be held up. However, next week they have a “closed door” session with Brennan, which of course we won’t learn anything about. Does he have to also go before the House?

  20. Yep! Yep! YEP!…. That’s IT…I’m hiding ALL MY TEA ….. as soon as
    I CAN BRUSH all the …. pesty…. “SPIDERS” OFF!!! LC has news

  21. I LOVVVVEEEE RON PAUL! What do people not want to see…?

  22. As things get terrible….. I sense things becoming BEAUTIFUL!!

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      There simply have to be enough honorable congresspeople to do what needs to be done. The problem, in a nutshell, is the fact that he is a person of color acts as a teflon shield. It practically renders him untouchable. Don’t think for one second that he wasn’t sElected for this very reason. Race trumps gender insofar as sensitivity is concerned.

      We know the SCOTUS has been terribly skewed. IF we are so blessed, the first act of 45 must be to overturn all of his appointments. Second, I found it incredulous that the people who are running this country are genuinely stupid, as evidenced by my reply to foxy re: “the binder” ^^^. BUT McCaskill asking a pertinent question has me genuinely wondering if I’ve been overestimating their intelligence. I mean Johnson stating that Guam was about to tip over, Jesse Jackson’s son, Alan Grayson, the engineered gerrymandering and then ouster of Allen West…and the list goes on.

      And guess what? The U.N. Secretary General’s term expires in 2016. Want to place bets? Anyone? Anyone???

      • Barry or Mooch. Either/or. McCaskill is more clever than she appears. She knows that she has to skate a fine line, coming from a red state. I’m unconvinced that she won because of Akin’s statement; likely vote fraud in the big cities in MO was ENOUGH to put her over the top. But she knows that she has to at least pretend to be “centrist”.

    • Assassin in Chief?

      Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, [but] based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities. It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president’s order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.

      As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority. …

      However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.

      On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

      The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of “targeted killing” of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized. Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.

      According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing. First, “an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” Second, capture is “infeasible.” And third, the “operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles.” Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard. … ”

      The article continues with interesting history of the “Star Chamber” and an analysis of WHY this policy of Barry’s is so unconstitutional and so, dare I say it? UNAMERICAN.

  23. “Pray for help, but swim for home!” yes the tide is turning, I FEEL IT!
    Lloyd Marcus …. RESIST … that is what we know, who we are …

  24. Anyone UP 4 some FUN????? I’LL SEE YOU ALL THERE !!!!!
    Roll the camera & let’s show & tell? our POWER signs.. no names/faces
    …. Rosemary Woodhouse… this is right up your… let’s do it..ALLEY!

  25. Rosemary Woodhouse

    THANK YOU, ZENWAY! I am so there! 😀

  26. When I see BARRY… all I ever see is RED!!!! He & all the rest can
    stick the Black Man’s Blue’s where the sun don’t shine… I Sun every Summer so I CAN TAN UP!!!! Get over it … so where was I ?
    Earth 2 China… we ladies… (american bred)… have had it with the
    BULLY~BOYS~BS…. Today it is OVER… T~O~D~A~Y~ get it????
    No more DO I EXCEPT COLOR in any way shape or form…. out with
    the trash & the trash MOUTH… You say it we say it back LOUDER!!!!
    IT’s OVER big boys!

    SO CHINA’s Humble Pie.. is being shoved down BULLY ~ LI YANG !
    & I stand UP for LI~YAN…. let this LADY BE FREE! .. NO MORE~ BS


    • American Woman Gives Domestic Abuse A Face, And Voice, In China

      The faces of American Kim Lee and her Chinese husband, Li Yang, both in their 40s, once graced the covers of books that sold in the millions. He was China’s most famous English teacher, the “Crazy English” guru of China, who pioneered his own style of English teaching: pedagogy through shouted language, yelling to halls of thousands of students.

      His methods were given official recognition after he was employed by the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee to teach Olympic volunteers.

      A fellow teacher, Lee married Li in 2006. They have three daughters. And Lee, who is from Florida, worked alongside her husband to build the Crazy English empire.

      “I enjoy losing face!” is one of Li’s mottoes, in a bid to lessen the inhibitions of China’s shy language learners, who fear mistakes. But 18 months ago, his wife used that slogan against him.

      When he brutally beat Lee, she posted a picture of her battered face, showing a huge lump protruding from her forehead. She put it on his page on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, under the heading, “I love losing my face = I love hitting my wife’s face?”

      She followed this with pictures showing her bloodied ear and raw, injured spots on her knee. “Li Yang, you need help,” she wrote. “Domestic violence is a serious problem.”

      She says she went public out of desperation, trying to get her husband’s attention. …”

      Photos of her battered head at the link. Ouch.

  27. Beckwith at “The Obama File”:

    “I don’t know why we don’t already have a thread featuring the wisdom of the beautiful and brilliant celebrities who support their Lord Obama, so I’m starting one today featuring the slavishly devoted Ashley Judd.”

  28. Yep! O-h so many…. to list. I LIP~SYNCHED … (as if O’ never flubs)
    To MAKE THE MAN…. PROUD….. well it didn’t WORK 4 ME!
    And I wear near nothing so HE … can dig me more… GOT IT!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s