Thursday, November 21, 2013

Night Watch

Pakistan: Update. Pakistan on Tuesday set up a special court to try former president Pervez Musharraf for high treason, an official statement said. The announcement came hours after the Supreme Court forwarded the names of five judges suitable to sit on the special court, following a government request on Monday.

Comment: The Chief Justice and the Prime Minister both have major complaints about their treatment when Musharraf governed. The four outstanding criminal charges against him attest to his cavalier attitude towards civilian laws.

The Chief Justice is determined to use his office to establish the rule of law in Pakistan, including over the Pakistan Army, and the independence of the judiciary. The Prime Minister appears to be out for punishment, if not justice, for Musharraf's overthrow of Sharif in 1999.

This is a serious matter that could lead to military unrest once again because it will tarnish the senior staff of the Pakistan Army as it existed in 2007. That explains why the government has decided to bring the first treason charge against a former Chief of Army Staff for constitutional crimes while the incumbent, General Kayani, remains in office - until 28 November.

Kayani's six-year tenure has been characterized by attention to soldierly duties and open military support for elected civilian government. He has held the post of army chief long enough to fill the senior positions with men he judges are of like mind and whom he thinks he can trust to respect the constitution.
One the other hand, a treason charge against a former army chief potentially is destabilizing because Musharraf also has cronies in the officer corps. That explains why Sharif has not yet named Kayani's successor. This trial, if it proceeds, could be the greatest test of Pakistan's democracy and judiciary ever.

Syria: Syrian Arab Army units with assistance from Hizballah fighters captured the town of Qarah, which is a stopping point on the main highway from Damascus to the Syrian coast. The army launched its offensive on Friday, carrying out a series of air strikes and helicopter attacks. Thousands of Syrians fled into Lebanon.

Rebel group Jabat al-Nusra (the al-Nusrah Front) said that it and other groups had withdrawn from the area, after sustaining serious losses.

Qarah is located 100 kms (60 miles) north of Damascus on the main highway to the coast. It is 175 kms from Latakia in northwestern Syria, the heartland of regime supporters.

The Syrian government now controls the road linking the coast to the capital via Homs. This means that the pro-government forces have broken the back of the opposition fight in the west because the opposition supply line from Lebanon has been severed.

A blog reported from a "reliable source" that about 6,000 government forces and 2,500 Hizballah fighters supported by tanks, artillery and air strikes defeated about 3,000 opposition fighters.

Rebels responded by shelling Damascus with mortar rounds that have hit the city almost every day during the past two weeks, leaving dozens dead or wounded. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, state TV reported that troops were "in full control of Qarah after wiping out all terrorist units in it".

Comment: This is a significant setback for the opposition whose fighters had held Qarah for over a year. It served as an opposition arms smuggling distribution point from Lebanon.

The rebellion in the west central region along al Qalamoun Mountains that run along the Lebanon border appears to have fragmented, if not collapsed. An al-Nusrah Front spokesman promised a counterattack, but the main battle appears to have ended in a government victory. The government now should have a relatively secure line of communication to the coastal ports of Tartus and Latakia.

Provided the government can maintain security on the highway, this development should facilitate the transport for destruction of chemical weapons agents from sites near Damascus.

Lebanon: At least 26 people have been killed and more than 140 injured in a double suicide bombing outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut. The Iranian cultural attaché, Sheikh Ibrahim Ansari, is among the dead, according to Iran's Fars news agency.

A Sunni jihadist group, which calls itself the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, said it was behind the attack. Their goal is to force Lebanese Hizballah forces to withdraw from Syria, they said.

Comment: The last major attack in Lebanon occurred on 23 August. More than 40 people were killed and 400 injured in two blasts outside mosques in Tripoli.

In Lebanon strategic and parochial issues are intertwined so that the ultimate purposes of deadly actions are often obscure. None of the Sunni violence against Shiites in Lebanon has made any difference in the Syrian fighting. Expect Hizballah to retaliate.

Venezuela: Venezuela's National Assembly has given final approval to special powers for President Nicolas Maduro. Under the measures Maduro will be able to govern without consulting Congress for 12 months.

After signing the bill, he promised to keep prices down and conduct a "ground-shaking" anti-corruption offensive. The president says the aim of the new powers is to tackle the economic crisis.

Comment: The late President Chavez was voted similar powers during a period of internal political instability. Maduro's main problem is that because of his ineptitude the Venezuelan economy is collapsing. He and his advisors stand no chance of fixing the economy by fiat. There will be riots again in Caracas.

End of NightWatch
###
The Air Force Academy has admitted they removed the phrase “so help me God” from three oaths in the 2012 edition of their official cadet handbook.

The revelation came after more than two dozen members of Congress sent a letter to Academy Supt. Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson demanding that she explain why the phrase was removed.

The lawmakers contend the 2012 edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook excludes the phrase ‘so help me God’ in the Cadet’s Oath of allegiance, the Oath of Office for Officers and the Oath of Enlistment.

“The Constitution does not require that this phrase be scrubbed from the oath,” read the letter drafted by Rep. Jim Bridenstein (R-Okla.) and signed by 28 lawmakers. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion’ however, the inclusion of the phrase ‘so help me God’ in an oath of service does not rise to this level.”

Bridenstein said “editing the oath for all Academy students is extreme and unnecessary, and does a disservice to the countless individuals who wish to include the phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and country.”

Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.

“It was an editorial oversight,” he said. “We learned within the last few weeks there was a problem.”

Vidal said there was no reasoning behind the omission and there was no forethought.

“Whoever was doing the editing didn’t catch it,” he said.

He said next year’s edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook will be revised and will include the phrase “so help me God.”

Last month, the Air Force Academy was embroiled in another controversy involving “so help me God” after they decided to make it an optional part of the Honor Oath. The revision was made following a complained from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

The lawmakers directed Johnson to provide information on why changes were made to the Honor Oath and why a poster bearing the words “so help me God” was removed from the Academy.

MRFF President Mikey Weinstein had filed a complaint about the poster. Approximately 68 minutes after he complained, Johnson ordered the art work removed. That decision did not set well with lawmakers.

“We ask that you restore the poster bearing the oath in full to its original location as an honorable reflection of the oath of service,” the lawmakers wrote.

After the Honor Oath was revised, Johnson released a statement affirming the right of Airmen to “freely practice and exercise their religious preference – or not.”

“Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect,” she stated.

Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he’s received calls from concerned parents of cadets – lamenting the change in the oaths.

“This phrase is a deeply-rooted American tradition – begun by George Washington as the first president of the United States and now stated by many who take an oath of service to our country, Crews said. “The removal of this phrase is a disservice to the countless men and women who wish to include this phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and their country.”

And while Crews said he respects the right of cadets not to say the word ‘so help me God’, he pointed out the law requires that the words remain part of the oath.

If that’s the case – why were they removed and who gave the order?

Let’s hope these lawmakers can root out the anti-religious forces that have infiltrated the Air Force Academy. It’s high time someone put a stop to the religious cleansing of the Armed Forces.

U.S. may have let "dozens" of jihad terrorists into country as refugees

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

HT_al-qaeda_weapons_split_nt_131118_16x9_992.jpgAl-Qaeda "refugees" with weapons in Kentucky
Why wouldn't this have happened? There is no attempt to vet refugees to determine how tied in they are to the jihad ideology, whether or not they are active members of jihad terror groups. If there were such an attempt, it would be denounced as "Islamophobic" by Hamas-linked CAIR, and discarded by dhimmi officials. "Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees," by James Gordon Meek, Cindy Galli and Brian Ross for ABC News, November 20 (thanks to Kenneth):
Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.
"We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that," FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline".
"I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more than that," said House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. "And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me."
As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show....
Oh, that'll fix it.
Newsmax
40 House Republicans Back Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
By Drew MacKenzie

Forty House Republicans have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The suit is based on the Origination Clause of the Constitution, according to Breitbart.com.

The case — Sissel vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services — was filed in federal court in 2010 by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Iraq war veteran Matt Sissel, who owns a small business in Iowa. It is to be heard by a federal appeals court in early 2014.

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

The Origination Clause states, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a legislative "trick" so that none of the Affordable Care Act legislation originated in the House, according to Breitbart.

Reid took the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, which the House had passed unanimously in 2009, removed every word of its text after the first sentence, and then replaced it with the Obamacare language, the conservative website says.

In June, Judge Beryl Howell, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, dismissed Sissel's challenge, saying that "gutting and replacing" a bill was merely issuing an amendment to legislation that originated in the House.

Howell also pointed out in her decision that the Affordable Care Act was not "a bill for raising revenue," or, in other words, a tax, and ruled that the revenue raised by the bill was "incidental" to the law and was not covered by the Origination Clause.

In July, the Pacific Legal Foundation appealed Howell's ruling. The friend-of-the-court filing by the House Republicans gives Sissel's case a constitutional legitimacy, says Breitbart.

Support from 40 Republicans is vital because the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit "defends the constitutional authority of the lower chamber, the legislative body that is closest to the people," foundation attorney Paul J. Beard II told The Washington Times.

However the appeals court rules, the case is likely to end up with the Supreme Court and could be heard in late 2014.

Josh Blackman, assistant professor at the South Texas College of Law, says that it could turn out to be the greatest "legal mulligan" in history. The term "mulligan" is used by golfers to retake a bad shot.

"If you asked me several months ago about the likelihood of a court striking down the law on Origination Clause grounds, I would not have pegged it very high," Blackman said. "But the events of the last few months have altered my thinking. The events of the last week have crystallized it.

"In light of massive and widespread unpopularity, and tepid opposition from vulnerable Democrats, the thinking has changed. Considering the president decided to unilaterally waive one of the most significant features of the law … the legitimacy and finality of this law is far from settled.

"If the law was settled ... there would be no need for waivers."
ObamaCare Is Disappearing
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com


Like old soldiers, ObamaCare might never die -- it might just fade away. Certainly each of its provisions has been shrinking before our eyes.

The most obvious evidence of its vanishing is the dismal enrollment data. With only 106,000 people signing up by mid-November, it risks becoming a trivial footnote to the healthcare landscape.

While the glitch-plagued federal exchange has an excuse for its pathetic total of 26,000 enrollees, the state exchanges that appear to have worked reasonably well have produced only 79,000 more. With about a quarter of the country using state exchanges, one can assume that, had those throughout the entire nation been relatively glitch-free, about 300,000 would have signed up in the first six weeks of the program's 26-week enrollment period. Projecting that out over the entire period, we reach fewer than 1.5 million enrollments nationally -- a ridiculously low figure.
With Medicare enrolling 46 million, Medicaid reaching more than 100 million with the new expansion and even the State Children's Health Insurance Program for children topping 7 million, it's hard to take seriously a program that has so limited an enrollment.

The bill's requirement for minimum levels of health insurance coverage wanes by the day: First President Obama waives them for a year for pre-existing policies, then the House votes to repeal them entirely. With 20 percent of the House Democrats voting to grandfather in policies permanently, the odds are that marginal Senate Democrats will force passage of something akin to the bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), barring insurance companies from canceling policies in perpetuity.

Nor are the so-called "death panels" doing much better. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), scheduled to go into operation next year, has yet to be appointed, much less confirmed. Nor is it likely ever to meet. The board's mission is to force reductions in Medicare spending to bring the program in line with budgetary guidelines. But the low rate of medical inflation is vitiating its purpose. Most health economists estimate that Medicare costs, per capita, will rise only at about the rate of GDP growth or less. One expert suggests a likely rate of increase of only 0.5 percent for this year.

At such a low rate of Medicare growth, the IPAB provisions would not kick in. The board would not be called upon to impose any cuts. Health economists predict a continuing low rate of medical inflation, suggesting that the board might become an anachronistic appendage of a once massive legislative edifice, likely facing repeal when the statute permits it in 2017.

The employer mandate has already been delayed by the president.

The individual mandate has fines so token as to make a mockery of the idea that there even is a mandate. How are fines of 1 percent of income, rising to 2.5 percent, going to induce people to spend 9.5 percent of their income on policies they don't want?

And the fines themselves are not likely to be enforced with any rigor. The IRS is barred by statute from seizing bank accounts or property to collect the fines and may only move to take income tax overpayments from those who fail to pay the fine.

Lacking the coercion of cancellations or fines, the ObamaCare population will remain small and will include mainly very needy people. This process of adverse selection will drive up premiums until they drive out the young and the healthy.

Soon we will be left with a slightly larger pool of high-risk patients that are already covered in state and federal pools.

So all that will be left are some very good consumer protection insurance reforms requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions and a ban on cancellation or premium hikes in the event of illness.

Beyond that, there will be a vestigal administrative superstructure erected to run a massive, national healthcare system in which only 1.5 million people are participating. Like a monument in the desert, it will gather sand and erode over time.

Obama's legacy.

Is Obama The Last Black American President?

by findalis /Conservative 2 Conservative
Hat Tip to Faultline USA
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Obama is, in fact, America's first black President, but he may well be America's LAST black President.
Why?
Racism.
No, I don't mean the practice of racism, I mean, instead, the CLAIM of racism.
We've had 5 years of abject failure by the Obama Administration and a refusal by the democrats to take responsibility for the crashing and burning of their progressive agenda.They continually blame racism for Obama's failure.
If one even disagrees with Obama's direction, he/she is promptly called a racist.
Well, we are sick of it. We have had it up the the gunwales and then some. So, we're not going there again, for a very long time, if ever.
Look. We gave it a chance. In fact, America bent over backwards to accommodate a black president. Many of us think, myself included, we bent way too far.
Obama's Administration was to have been a "feel good" presidency for the political left. They could point to a black man in the White House with vest busting pride and stroke each other over their open-mindedness and their diversity and all the leftist hogwash they regularly spew through the left wing propagandists in the mainstream media.
On inauguration day, 2009, they immediately circled the wagons around Obama with the intention of defending him ... no matter what.
Well, it has now been five very long years of "no matter what." Yes, they are STILLdefending him, but they have grown weary, and their jobs are now endangered as a result of their unquestioning loyalty to an obvious Marxist president. The jobs of the press corp are not so much endangered as are the jobs of the democratic legislators in the Congress.
The press can bleed readers and subscribers for a fairly long time before having to cut their losses. Politicians can't bleed voters in like manner. In the past couple of weeks the democrats have been hemorrhaging voters. Thus their throat constricting fear.
As Election 2014 hoists itself over the horizon, panic has seized the hearts of many, if not most, of the democrats in the US Senate and the House. With good reason.
Americans are fed up.
It takes a lot to stoke the spark of rebelliousness in Americans. We put up with Great Britain a long while before rising up and throwing off the king's yoke. Once the American passion for freedom has been fanned into a flame it soon grows into a firestorm.
The democrats are staring down the barrel of a fiery maelstrom straight out of Hell itself ... and they know it!
Those on the right -- AND the left -- no longer feel constrained and are speaking boldly against America's first black President's lies and broken promises, promises not made in good faith to the American people.
In the past few days as I watched and listened to the democrats railing against their very own Obamacare law, William Shakespeare's words as spoken by Hamlet's mother, Queen Gertrude, rolled through my consciousness: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, act III, scene II) The democrats words sound hollow and insincere as did the words of the Player Queen to whom Hamlet's mother was referring.
One must wonder how all this sniping and back-biting -- and a few flat-out frontal attacks by those who have spent the greater part of the past five years defending him must feel to our deeply narcissistic leader. Obama's skin may be black, but it is seriously and legendarily thin.
Obama and his supporters would do well to remember that no matter what they may call it, this is NOT racism. It is POLITICS and it is a bruising, bitter, blood sport when played in the American political arena.
Black politicians, especially those interested in running for the highest office in the land, should learn that as long as they have coattails their fellow politicians (of the same political persuasion) will happily ride them to acclaim and even victory. BUT -- stumble so that it reflects badly upon them and they will happily hang you with those very same coattails and leave you swinging to and fro in the wind. Mr. Obama has to be feeling the falling away of the many layers of protective insulation he has enjoyed for five years now. It cannot be a pleasurable feeling.
So, our advice to any black politician considering running for President of the United States: insist that your followers, your supporters, your entourage, never allow the word racism to pass their lips. Americans having endured eight years of that lame excuse will not even allow the shadow of that politician to fall upon them.
As I said above -- we've had it with being slammed by accusations of racism when it is noting more than good ole American politics.

New Obamacare Defense: Blame Everyone But Yourself

By: streiff (Diary) / RedState
Yesterday at the conclave of the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council, Barack Obama got a chance to demonstrate what he does best: blame others and make excuses.
President Obama on Tuesday sought to redirect some of the political blame for the botched rollout of the federal health insurance exchange to Republicans, characterizing GOP lawmakers as rooting for the law’s failure.
[Editor's note: what Mr. Obama seems to forget is that Republicans had nothing to do with the botched health care act. It was all done in secret, behind closed doors, without the participation of the GOP. REMEMBER: They had to "pass it to find out what's in it." Sounds like the definition of a stool sample.]
Addressing a gathering of business executives, Obama acknowledged that the health-care rollout “has been rough, to say the least,” and he lamented the government’s archaic information-technology procurement system.
[Editor's note: Technological challenges are not the problem, Mr. Numbnuts. The problem is in the policy itself. It won't work, regardless of tech challenges. But then again, a community organizer wouldn't have any experience with technological challenges beyond phones and pagers, now, would he?]
Obama said that fixes to the HealthCare.gov Web portal are underway and that the exchange will function for a majority of people by the end of November. But the president said staunch opposition from congressional Republicans is inhibiting the law’s implementation.
[Editor's note: Seems a bit nebulous to say that the "exchange will function for a majority of people" when you can't really come up with any numbers besides a "majority". Staunch opposition is coming from congressional Republicans because of their constituents. Or, have you not figured that out yet, Mr. Numbnuts?]
“One of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure,” Obama said at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council meeting in Washington. “We obviously are going to have to remarket and rebrand, and that will be challenging in this political environment.”
The president also voiced frustration with the toxic political atmosphere endangering his signature legislative achievement. He said Washington needs to “break through the stubborn cycle of crisis politics and start working together.”
[Editor's note: The "toxic political environment" and the need to "break through the stubborn cycle of crisis politics" was of your own creation... or those of your handlers. Since you can't seem to do anything on your own, you're nothing more than a puppet and your chief mouthpiece, Jay Carney, can't seem to best you in the telling of lies. We don't believe a word you're saying, Mr. Numbnuts.]
Let’s review the bidding. To date no one has explained how the contracting procedure for information technology systems contributed, much less caused, to the ignominious beginning of Obamacare. Rather the fault lies with the incompetent boobs with which the Obama administration has recruited at great expense. According to the Washington Post:
Others point fingers at the Department of Health and Human Services, which took years to issue final specifications, preventing CGI (my note: the main vendor for healthcare.gov) from really getting started until this spring.
If specs weren’t available until Spring 2013, and those apparently weren’t very well thought out, then it is hard to blame the contracting system. It worked well enough to allow a crony of Michelle Obama to win a sole source deal for the lion’s share of the project:
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
[...]
As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account.
One is also left wondering why Obama seems surprised that the GOP is “invested” in the failure of Obamacare. Obamacare is just another Democrat foray into Cargo Cult Economics (here | here | here | here | here) that requires a willing suspension of disbelief and huge majority of Americans acting against their own economic interests for it to succed. That sentient beings would oppose such nonsense is hardly news.
And, of course, there is the partisan aspect of the issue. It is hard to find an example of an opposition party working 24-7 to make the other party’s agenda succeed.  When partisan tensions are exacerbated by the fact that this monstrosity was rammed through the Congress in a dishonest manner, by two of the most duplicitous, unindicted felons to ever lead the House and Senate, that would be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, without a single Republican vote, it is hardly a shock to find hard core opposition.
Apparently Obama thinks this is worse than when his own party advocated killing American troops in Iraq, part of the “slow bleed” strategy articulated by that odious bag of pus, Jack Murtha, in order to ensure America lost a war because they couldn’t bear the thought of George Bush succeeding.
He also fails to explain how GOP opposition has had any impact at all. Obamacare is the law. It is being implemented. It is funded.
As he bemoans the “toxic political atmosphere” he should do a bit of soul-searching (admittedly it would take about fifty men and a sizable pack of bloodhound to find his soul) and examine how the political environment got this way. It didn’t happen overnight. He struggled in a manner worthy of Hercules to burn down his own credibility, rebuff the opposition, and lie left-right-and-center for no greater reason than just to stay in practice.
Ironically, it has turned out that the most effective opposition to Obamacare has not been the GOP, it has been the Obama administration’s epic incompetence and malfeasance.

I Told You So: Obama Really Stole The Election!

by   / Personal Liberty Digest

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. I don’t mean to say, “I told you so.” But I told you so.

In October of 2012, just before the election, we heard miraculous unemployment reports that made it sound like the economy was turning around. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were supposedly created.
It was the biggest one-month jobs increase ever. I warned again and again in the media that the books were cooked. I screamed this was pure fraud and accused Obama and his friends in the government employees union of fixing the election. Democrats and the mainstream media called those charges “preposterous.” They said it was impossible to fake jobs reports.

Surprise, surprise, guess who was right? It turns out government employees faked the jobs reports to re-elect Obama. They wanted the man who protects their bloated salaries, obscene pensions and corrupt unions to be re-elected. They would stop at nothing to keep the gravy train rolling, so they made up reports about job increases out of thin air.

The entire election was pure fraud, based on fantasy. Americans walked into the voting booths hearing fresh news that indicated the economy was improving and jobs were dramatically increasing. It was all fake. The numbers were made up out of thin air by pro-Barack Obama government employees. The voters of America made their final decisions based on pure fraud.

Worse, this fraud endangered our entire economy. The Federal Reserve bases billion-dollar decisions like interest-rate hikes and QE (quantitative easing) on jobs reports. If those job increases don’t actually exist, the Fed is moving in the wrong direction. Crimes were committed that falsely elected a President and could cause billion-dollar damages for years to come to the U.S. economy.

But wait, that’s only the latest reported fraud that stole the election.

Even before the election, Obama knew that tens of millions of Americans would lose their health insurance. Yet he knowingly committed fraud by personally lying to the American people — not once, but repeatedly. He didn’t just tell intentional lies to pass Obamacare; he told those same lies during his re-election campaign to deceive the American voters and get re-elected.

Did Obama commit intentional fraud? Without a doubt. His own Administration’s internal estimates were that most Americans covered by employer plans would lose their insurance.

Obama’s own projections show that 80 percent of small businesses were doomed to lose their insurance. All of this was known while he told us: “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

Obama’s re-election was based on this fraud. Who would have re-elected Obama if they knew most of us were about to lose our insurance, our doctor, our hospital, our medical choices and our livelihood, based on a doubling or tripling of insurance rates?

But even that wasn’t enough. Still worried about his re-election chances, Obama ordered the Internal Revenue Service to distract, intimidate, persecute and destroy his political opposition: Tea Party groups and conservative critics like me. Rather than spending time and money on stopping Obama, many conservatives were forced to waste our time, energy and money fighting IRS attacks.

The IRS attack directed by Obama effectively neutered the energy and passion of the Tea Party, conservative fundraisers and critics, who only two years before had produced the biggest landslide since 1936. With the IRS running roughshod over Tea Party groups, the energy was gone, and Obama was re-elected. Pure election fraud.

You question whether Obama ordered the IRS attacks? Well, during this exact period of IRS persecution, the head of the IRS visited the White House more than any other person. The head of the IRS employees union visited Obama the night before the IRS attacks began.

If any of this were known before the election, would Obama have been re-elected?

But it gets worse: more voter fraud. The voting ballots of our military troops were suppressed. And why do you think Democrats fight so hard against voter ID? We’ll never know how many Obama supporters voted illegally, or multiple times. We’ll never know how 59 inner-city voting districts in Philadelphia wound up with 30,000-0 vote totals in favor of Obama. Or similar totals in multiple districts in Ohio. We’ll never know the effect of voter intimidation by Black Panthers or the effect that Democratic judges ordering GOP poll watchers out for several hours had at Philadelphia polling places.

Then just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does. Think Benghazi, Libya. Never hesitant to commit fraud, Obama told a story about a nonexistent protest, over a movie no one in the Mideast ever saw. This fraud was either committed to cover up the disaster of Obama’s foreign policy and provide cover for his statement that al-Qaida was effectively crushed, or to provide cover for an Administration giving arms to rebels who turned around and used those same guns to kill our own ambassador and three other brave Americans. Either way, if the truth about Benghazi were known, would America have re-elected Obama?

Add it up. The 2012 Presidential election was stolen based on the cover-up of murder, a Mafia-like conspiracy to use the IRS to silence free speech and destroy Obama’s political opposition, bogus healthcare promises, and fraudulent jobs reports.

In 2000, Democrats talked about a President getting elected under “illegitimate terms.” Well, look who perfected the art. Obama committed pure fraud to win re-election. If this doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment, nothing ever will.

So, folks: What are we doing about it?

See the video here:
http://personalliberty.com/2013/11/21/i-told-you-so-obama-really-stole-the-election/