Op-ed:

Yet another apology by the Obama administration

By: Diane Sori

‘Aint we so special that yesterday Pakistan reopened the closed ground supply roads into Afghanistan...roads that we used for years until an unfortunate ‘incident’.

And how and why did this happen...it happened because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton APOLOGIZED for America, folks...she APOLOGIZED as if our military did something wrong!

Blackmail...the very word brings to mind images of deceit and deception; blackmail...something the United States of America has never fallen party to before the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama; blackmail...the ruse used by Pakistan to bait us into an apology in order to defame and dishonor our brave men and women in uniform and to get more money from us.

And Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton took the bait hook, line, and sinker as expected they would.

But let’s go back to the beginning...this past Tuesday, at Obama’s insistence, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially apologized to Pakistan for the ‘supposed’ errant airstrikes that resulted in the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers by US helicopters and fighter jets during a time of war...DURING A TIME OF WAR!

Because of Barack Hussein Obama, America is once again apologizing for ‘enemy’ deaths DURING A TIME OF WAR where it’s kill or be killed.  And let me make it very clear...Pakistan is our ‘enemy’ when it suits them to be, which is most of the time.  This newest apology by the Obama administration turns my stomach and makes my blood boil as this miserable pathetic excuse of a president has chosen yet again NOT to stand by our military’s actions but instead has chosen to grovel before a country that has proven time and again that it’s no friend of ours.

And what did we get for this wonderful apology...we got Islamabad agreeing to re-open ground supply roads running from the Port of Karachi to US and NATO military bases in Afghanistan, roads to be used for the transport of food, fuel, and other non-lethal supplies...as in NO military equipment that might aid our troops will be allowed on these roads.  And to make matters worse, these roads have been used by our suppliers and troops for years, and these were roads that the Pakistani military was supposed to help us guard against attack.

Back on November 26, 2011, US combat helicopters defended our troops by attacking two Pakistani border posts after Pakistani troops opened fire on US troops on the Afghan side of the border.   Pakistani troops knowingly and with deliberate malice and intent killed US troops, yet we were the ones to issue an apology.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

And could it be that these border posts were indeed specifically targeted because not only were they used to fire on our troops, but could it be that through these posts jihadists and terrorists entered and left the country unhindered, taking a body toll on our troops as they did.

“We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military” bloviated Hillary Clinton as Obama’s de facto mouthpiece.  What about the losses of our troops, has anyone ever apologized for those...I don’t hear any takers on that one do I Mr. Obama and I never will.  

And now with our apology we get to continue paying $250 per truck for the use of the Pakistani roads just as we had before they shut them down.  And we get to continue to pay ‘coalition support funds’ to reimburse Pakistan for logistical and military support Pakistan gives us against militants.

Now is that a joke or what as the words militants and Pakistan are synonymous in their meaning.  Militants and jihads routinely operate and move in and out of Pakistan as the Pakistani government turns a blind eye. In fact, Pakistan actually encourages and supports them in their actions against us and Obama knows it, yet to them he will grovel and beg.  And through Hillary’s apology he again bows down to those out to kill us.

So, were the airstrikes really an unfortunate mistake as Obama and Hillary claimed and apologized for...I don’t think so.  I think our military knew exactly what they were doing and that it needed to be done. 

Remember, this is war...a war on terror and terror attacks can come from those even ‘supposedly’ on our side, including from our very own White House.

2ND AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

Lawmakers join general in declaring pact a threat to freedom

by Jack Minor / WND

 

Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.

As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the path of a quiet, Marxist revolution, blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.

“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”

Now some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty.

The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

The letter goes on to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.

The ATT would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations.

The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.

While the treaty is still in a draft stage, the United Nations is beginning a month-long process beginning this week to craft the final details of the treaty.

Supporters say the treaty is necessary to prevent rogue countries from being able to purchase guns from arms dealers. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said concerns about the treaty restricting individual rights are “misplaced” and that he supported its goals.

Critics of the treaty have long maintained that the treaty would lead to mandatory registration of all firearms and every sale; even those between individuals.

The congressional letter also takes issue with the “moral equivalence” of comparing America to totalitarian regimes and calls upon the administration to break consensus and reject the treaty. It goes on to remind the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone.”

This is not the first time Congress has sent letters to the administration opposing the small arms treaty. Last year, Congress sent off a similar letter addressing many of the same concerns. This letter was signed by 12 Democrats who joined 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.

The letter stated, “The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition.”

It went on to state, “The establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”

While that letter was been touted in the mainstream media as an indication that Democrats are now opposing gun control, some pointed out that the letter actually proved the opposite. The Senators stated they support the general concept of the treaty but believe countries such as the U.S. should have “exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders.”

Critics point out that this statement indicates that the senators believe firearms registration is acceptable provided it is initiated by individual governments.

Outrageous: Judge Decides Law Doesn’t Apply To Obama

By Doug Book / The Western Center for Journalism

inShare9

A Circuit Court has decided that Florida election law applies to everyone but Barack Hussein Obama. In response to a suit brought by Florida resident and Democrat Party member Michael Voeltz challenging Obama’s eligibility to the Florida ballot, Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Florida election law “…is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States.” 

This means that the Florida Statute which says, “the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…” is null and void when it comes to Mr. Obama’s nomination to the presidency.

“If the plaintiff was challenging the candidate’s eligibility for any other office, his analysis would be correct and [the law] would apply,” said Lewis of Voeltz’s suit. However, according to the Judge, “…Political parties determine their [presidential] nominee at a national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve…”  In short, Mr. Voeltz’s contest of Barack Obama’s eligibility will NEVER be permitted in a Florida court; for voters do not nominate the president, political parties do in balloon filled convention halls!

With this ruling, Lewis has spared Barack Obama the necessity of having to prove his eligibility for office as no Florida voter will have the right to question it, the language of the state’s election law notwithstanding!

Lewis also passed judgment on the natural born citizen challenge of plaintiff Voeltz, ruling that as Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, he is also a NATURAL BORN citizen and therefore meets that  constitutional requirement. “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” exclaimed a stunned Larry Klayman, the attorney who handled the suit for Mr. Voeltz.

Perhaps the most remarkable of Lewis’ contentions was his statement that “it is the plaintiff’s burden…to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible.” For the judge did not allow Klayman the right of discovery–the right to subpoena Obama for proof of his eligibility!  “How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”

Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, went on to say “The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written.”  “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great.”

The bias and lack of honor displayed during the past year by the American legal system represents not only a threat to the Constitution, but to the continued existence of the Republic. When citizens mistrust the integrity of the court, they lose faith in their right to expect and receive justice. Klayman said “…if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.” Unfortunately, ignoring both the law and the Constitution has become standard fare for the nation’s judges. Mr. Klayman may need a miracle if he expects the law to be fairly applied in his client’s appeal.

Building Homes for America's Bravest

To all my fellow patriots,

In these hard times very few of us have extra dollars to donate to all the worthy causes out there. However, the Gary Sinise Foundation has a special project, that when I saw the report on FOX about it a few minutes ago, I had tears running down my face.

Mr. Sinise has started an adjunct foundation called 'Building Homes for America's Bravest.' This foundation builds specially equipped homes for our brave men and women in uniform who have returned from the war with missing limbs or NO limbs at all, and it builds them at NO cost to them.

And what makes this even more poignant is that every troop who spoke on the FOX report said they have NO regrets, and would do what they did again even if they knew this was to be their fate. They ALL said the price of freedom overrode their personal sacrifice.

Now this is the stuff real heroes are made of. And now we patriots have a chance to help these heroes live some semblance of a normal life. These specially built, specially equipped homes are very expensive to build because they are tailor-made to suit each individual's special needs.

And, all these homes are built with donations from you and me.

So I ask all my fellow patriots to please contribute whatever you can, even if it's only a dollar, five dollars, whatever. These brave men and women gave so much to keep us safe and free at home...it's our chance to pay them back for all their sacrifices, to make their lives just a bit more normal, and to say to them, 'job well done, thank you.'

And please, share this with everyone you know so we can get some real momentum going. These brave men and women need to know that We the People' have NOT forgotten them even if our current administration has.

Thanks in advance for all your help.
Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor 

Click on this link to go directly to the Gary Sinise Foundation and  Building Homes for America's Bravest. http://www.garysinisefoundation.org/

Op-ed:

Executive Privilege...Obama’s big mistake 

By: Diane Sori

 

Executive Privilege...that once overlooked term has now been thrust into the limelight with Obama’s throwing the Executive Privilege blanket over Eric Holder in regards to the Fast and Furious investigation. 

Did Obama have justification in asserting Executive Privilege to protect his Attorney General, the very man who withheld subpoenaed documents he claimed needed to be kept secret for security reasons?  I don’t believe Obama did nor does Speaker of the House John Boehner.   Boehner is going full steam ahead with a civil suit against Holder and the DOJ to try and get those very documents.  Boehner is left with no choice because the DOJ will NOT prosecute Holder (their boss), nor will they release those documents even with Holder being found in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress.   And while he’s at it, Boehner is also going after Obama for extending Executive Privilege to Eric Holder, a questionable move at best.

Gee, I wonder what they’re hiding, wink, wink.  Let me guess...could these documents give away Barack Hussein Obama’s hand in Fast and Furious...or could these documents be the ones that lay the groundwork for Obama’s trying to implement gun control and take away our Second Amendment rights...what other reasons could there possibly be to withhold them...in a word, NONE.

With his asserting Executive Privilege to protect Holder, Obama is saying that this privilege can cover not only himself but his department heads as well.  However, this privilege is usually asserted only for documents and correspondence between the president and his senior advisers NOT for documents and correspondence between the president and a head of a government agency.  Executive Privilege does, however, allow Obama to withhold from Congress documents revealing internal communications within the Executive branch of government that he wants to remain confidential, and unfortunately, the DOJ falls into this realm.

In a letter to Obama, Committee Chair Darrell Issa said, "Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege ... is only applicable ... to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the president's decision-making process."

“The president’s decision making process.”

Did Barack Hussein Obama actually implicate himself in the Fast and Furious scandal by mistakenly asserting Executive Privilege to protect Holder...I believe he most certainly did.

And while the DOJ is technically part of the Executive branch of our government does that give Obama the right to issue Executive Privilege when it’s being used to hinder the investigation into the murder of one of our Border Patrol Agents?  Personally, I don’t believe it does nor should it, as finding who murdered Border Agent Brian Terry must be made top priority with all information that could lead to that finding turned over immediately.  What gets me is why our president would even want to hinder such an investigation.

Again, we can pretty much guess why.

But the main question is can Executive Privilege be overturned by showing a definitive need for the documents subpoenaed and the information they contain.  And the answer is YES.   An issuing of Executive Privilege can indeed be overturned by using the process of Judicial Review, because while a subpoena by Congress cannot override claims of Executive Privilege, the privilege itself is considered ‘qualified.’  Therefore, Executive Privilege does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent, as in a cover-up, instead of being ‘absolute’ where the president and those under the Executive Privilege blanket cannot be sued even for malicious intent.  

Bottom line...Speaker Boehner is well within the law in trying to challenge and have revoked Barack Hussein Obama’s issuing of Executive Privilege to protect Eric Holder and, let’s cut to the chase, to protect himself, because we know, and he knows we know, that he is knee-deep in Fast and Furious.

Let’s just hope that the White House doesn’t 'get' to Speaker Boehner, and that he follows through and is successful in getting this privilege revoked.  And I can most assure you that Barack Hussein Obama will be one very unhappy camper if Boehner does indeed succeed.

Obama's Social Security Number challenged

Exclusive: Jack Cashill reports on woman's court filing based on myriad anomalies

by Jack Cashill / WND

 

If Barack Obama has an immediate eligibility problem, it is more likely to derive from the Social Security Number he has been using for the last 25 years than from his birth certificate.

Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels has seen to that. On Monday, July 2, she filed suit in Geauga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court demanding that Jon Husted, Ohio secretary of state, remove Obama’s name from the ballot until Obama can prove the validity of his Social Security Number.

Daniels, who has vetted thousands of Social Security Numbers for numerous other clients, has done her homework. In her filing, she thoroughly documents her contention “that Barack Obama has repeatedly,
consistently, and with intent misrepresented himself by using a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number.”

To acquire appropriate standing in court, Daniels has gone to the trouble of establishing herself as a valid write-in candidate for president. Before she is through, this 70-something mother of seven, who has been a licensed Ohio PI since 1995, may cause Obama more trouble than the Romney campaign.

Daniels started her investigation in August 2009. Given her profession, she has been able to access a variety of proprietary databases. What she learned without much trouble is that Obama has been using a Social Security Number with the prefix “042″ since 1986.

As she discovered, the “042″ number is reserved for the exclusive use of individuals who register in Connecticut. When she ran 10 sequential numbers before and after Obama’s, all returned with the documentation “issued 1977-1979 in CT.”

When Daniels ran the numbers immediately flanking Obama’s, she came to the firm conviction that Obama’s number was issued in March 1977 in Connecticut.

By all accounts, as Daniels thoroughly documents, Obama was then a 15-year-old living in Hawaii. There is no record of him even visiting Connecticut in or near this time frame.

To have gotten a Social Security card at this time Obama would have had to show up for a “mandatory in-person interview.” This could not have taken place in Connecticut. Obama’s sister, Maya, by contrast, uses a number appropriate for a Hawaiian resident.

Daniels checked other databases as well to validate her findings, including the Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles and the IRS. Yes, Obama used the 042 number to get a driver’s license when at Harvard and as recently as on his 2009 income tax return.

In her research, Daniels kept coming across what she calls a “marked anomaly,” one she had never seen before – multiple birthdates listed for the same person. The 08/04/1961 and 04/08/1961 variation made sense, but the frequent appearance of the year “1890″ did not.

The ample evidence Daniels gathered led her to believe that the 042 number Obama has been using “had previously been issued to another person,” one who lived in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979 and who was born in 1890.

This assertion can be verified. By law, the Social Security Administration will have kept on microfilm a copy of the original SS-5 application attached to a particular Social Security Number. Daniels, however, does not have access to that microfilm.

For this reason, Daniels has filed suit. “Defendant Husted, through this filing,” she argues, “has been made aware that the Democratic Candidate has been using a fraudulent Social Security Number, which would render Barack Obama ineligible under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions.”

Daniels asks the court, among other things, to issue an injunction against Obama’s name appearing on ballot until it is determined that he is using a proper Social Security Number.

Given the response of courts elsewhere, it is unlikely that Daniels will find satisfaction in Geauga County or from the Republican secretary of state.

What Daniels has done, however, is establish a paper trail so indisputably legitimate that even the most squeamish of conservative media will have a hard time finding fault.

The major media, of course, will not bother to look. It is up to our Beltway brethren to step up and ask some very basic questions of the president that they, through their timidity in 2008, helped elect. The Romney campaign cannot talk about this issue without their support.

Who 'Lost' Egypt?

By: Frank Gaffney / Townhall.com

In the past, American presidential campaigns have featured bitter recriminations over foreign policy reverses. Harry Truman was charged with having “lost China” following the take-over of the Chinese mainland by Mao Tse-Tung’s communists. In subsequent years similar formulations were used to challenge those responsible for the loss to the Free World of Vietnam, Iran and post-Soviet Russia.

Today, the question for voters in the 2012 election to ponder might be posed as “Who lost Egypt?” To make matters worse, it is likely that the losses won’t stop there.

Indeed, before it’s over, we may well see nearly all the Middle East fall under the sway of the team President Obama has helped come to power in Cairo – the Muslim Brotherhood, to the grave detriment of the people most immediately affected, of Israel and of our interests, there and here.

To be sure, it is unclear at the moment exactly how things will shake-out in Egypt. The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party succeeded in having its candidate, Mohammed Morsi, elected president in recent weeks and installed in that office on Saturday. But the Egyptian military continues to be very much a force to be reckoned with and the extent and timing of any formal relinquishing of its current control of virtually all aspects of the government – from the armed services to the many industries they own to the parliament and constitution-writing mechanisms – remains to be seen.

Still, the direction Morsi seeks to take his country is unmistakable and should be deeply worrying to all who hoped for an authentic Arab Spring in Egypt and fear the emergence there and elsewhere of an Islamist Winter. While the newly installed president has professed that he will be the leader of all Egyptians and promised to give tangible expression to that commitment by appointing as his vice presidents a Coptic Christian, a woman and a secular political figure, these will be, atbest mere window-dressing if he sticks to his pledge to impose shariah on all his countrymen.

For example, as captured in an Egyptian television report of May 13, 2012 translated by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reLigeHGKzE&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1) – Morsi espoused during the course of the campaign the key tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The Quran is our constitution. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.” He went on to add, “This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through Islamic shariah.” Morsi concluded by saying, “I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text of [the constitution], Allah willing, the text will truly reflect shariah.”

Now in office, Mohammed Morsi is making clear that this direction may have dire implications for us, as well as for the people of Egypt. He has declared that one of his priorities as president will be to secure the release from a life-sentence in U.S. federal prison of Omar Abdul Rahman. Abdul Rahman is better known as the Blind Sheikh and the prime-moverbehind various terrorist plots – including trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. Morsi wants himrepatriated to Egypt, ostensibly so he can serve out the rest of his sentence there. Fat chance.

Which brings us to Team Obama. President Obama was instrumental in assisting the Muslim Brotherhood emerge from the shadows and come to power. For example, over the strenuous objections of his hosts, Mr. Obama demanded that the Brotherhood’s representatives be included in his June 2009 “outreach to the Muslim world” address at Cairo University.

Less than two years later, Mr. Obama declared that Hosni Mubarak had to yield power within days of the Muslim Brotherhood’s operatives and other demonstrators taking to the streets demanding his overthrow. In the months that followed, his administration began “engaging” with the Brotherhood and its formal political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party.

Then, a few months ago, in the face of bipartisan objections from Capitol Hill, the Obama administration transferred $1.5 billion in a lump-sum, no-strings-attached grant to the Egyptian government. This occurred at a time when Muslim Brotherhood and allied “Salafist” legislators were in charge of its parliament and drawing up a new constitution.

Most recently, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have welcomed the ascendancy of the Brotherhood’s Morsi. They are evidently considering giving tangible expression to that sentiment by accommodating his demand for the release the Blind Sheikh as they allowed Hani Noor Eldin, a top member of Abdul Raman’s terrorist Gema’a al-Islamiyaa organization, to enter the U.S. and discuss the idea with their subordinates.

Should Team Obama now take this step, it would have an absolutely devastating effect – and not just in Egypt, where it would validate America’s utter submission to the Brotherhood agenda. It will also be seen as further evidence that the global Islamist enterprise, of which the Brotherhood is the institutional and ideological vanguard, is succeeding inmaking the West – as the Quran puts it – “feel subdued.”

In short, the practical effect of “losing” Egypt in this way will be, pursuant to the doctrine of shariah, to invite aredoubled effort, including through the use of violence, to achieve the Brotherhood goals of imposing that totalitarian, repressive and supremacist code worldwide. President Barack Obama must be held accountable for the consequences.