Bill O’Reilly and Fox News have no problem with Obama assassination program

Bill o'reilly

The fight for liberty and the Constitution is ongoing.  First, under George W. Bush it was torture.  Which Sean Hannity says waterboarding is not torture.  Now we have the “change” or “reform” administration exercising the right to “assassinate Amer’cans”.  And it is all in the name of “national security” and fighting “terrorism”.

Watch the clip below.  The journalists opinionated “pinheads” at Fox News have nothing against this.  And as you watch the video, you will see that they try to make it look like the CIA has some sort of credibility.  Yeah, right!

The words Constitution, Bill of Rights, Due Process of Law, go in one ear, swims around in the bullshit, and slides out the other ear with these people.  And the ACLU apparently doesn’t care about the safety of the United Sates.

Article of interest: The loss of American Citizenship and Assassinations.


Something Worse Than Vietnam

Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

When we look at Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of “why we went over there” as compared to now, we see that they are complete failures.  No weapons of mass destruction.  No legitamate government to take its place.  Osama bin Laden has never been found.  And if he is dead, the government doesn’t want that information to leak out.

We know now that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never existed.  And yet, this event in 1964 lead to a nine year conflict and 60,000 lives lost.  In 1965 President Johnson would say privately:  “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.”

We know that September 11, 2001 happened, we saw it with our own eyes.  And while many Amer’cans, like myself, have questions surrounding that day, that is a discussion best left for another time.

But why attack Afghanistan when fifteen of the nineteen hijackers came from Saudi Arabia?  A Saudi Arabia that we still sell arms to.  I read in the paper today that from 2005 to 2009 that the Department of Defense had not kept proper track – if they ever did – of the weapons they sold in the Middle East.

Does this come as a surprise?  Draw your own conclusions.  Here are a couple of snippets of a Huffington Post article about the divides in the Obama administration’s foreign policy.  We are never leaving, at least not on our own accord.  I found this on Campaign for Liberty, but added my own thoughts.

During a dinner hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for Afghan President Hamid Karzai in May, Gates reminded the group that he still feels guilty for his role in the first President Bush’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, according to Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars.” And to express his commitment to not letting down the country again, he emphasized:

We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely,” Gates finally said. “In fact, we’re not ever leaving at all.”

“You have to recognize that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”

Another Sarah Palin Reversal – This Time on Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama

Sarah Palin Rally Protesters-26
Image by NoHoDamon via Flickr

Sarah Palin has become  comfy in her status as a ‘talking head’ and “political analyst.”  In as much, she has proven that she cannot quite stay on topic.  Thusly, like her Fox News counterparts, she finds the time to politicize something.  With Greta Van Susteren she once again used the word (she created) “lamestream media” and “Barack Hussein Obama”.

“Funny… that we are learning more about Christine O’Donnell and her college years, her teenage years, and her financial dealings than anybody even bothered to ask about Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate and now as our president,” Palin said.

This is a direct reversal of her campaign in 2008.  When a Florida sheriff used the President’s middle name the Palin campaign released the following:

“We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character, and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November,” the spokesperson said then.

Wasn’t it Shakespeare who said “what’s in a name?”

This is entirely reminiscent of Ann Coulter saying that President Obama wants to be known by his middle name.  But she ‘doesn’t know’.

…and where she refers to the President as “B. Hussein Obama”.

…and again…

Small scale terror attacks in time for elections?

I think its like a person told me not long ago: “If terrorist attack happens and doesn’t succeed; it’s terrorists.  When they do, its the govenment.”

Aaron Dykes
Thursday, September 23, 2010

Obama Admin predicts small scale terror… in time for elections, again?  23obama“Terrorism” concerns necessarily hinge on fear, and it is now completely predictable that an otherwise unpopular Obama Administration would roll out the threat of terror to bolster support for the 2010 elections. The Washington Post reports that the Risk of small-scale attacks by al-Qaeda and its allies is rising, officials say.” This alarming headline comes in concert with comments from President Obama about absorbing a terror attack, as well as hyperbolic warnings from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano before Congress that al Qaeda is recruiting for homeland attacks. The Washington Post writes:

Al-Qaeda and its allies are likely to attempt small-scale, less sophisticated terrorist attacks in the United States, senior Obama administration officials said Wednesday, noting that it’s extremely difficult to detect such threats in advance.

“Unlike large-scale, coordinated, catastrophic attacks, executing smaller-scale attacks requires less planning and fewer pre-operational steps,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “Accordingly, there are fewer opportunities to detect such an attack before it occurs.”

The main thrust of these timely “warnings” is to scare the public, not to share intelligence analysis or stop an attack. It is clear from the context that there is no basis for expecting an attack– the ‘evidence’ cited by Napolitano & co. includes reference to the attempted “underwear bombing” on a flight to Detroit– proven to be a falsehood, as eyewitnesses on the plane contradict the official account. Homeland Security also cites the ‘failed’ Times Square car bombing– an incident that didn’t include any real explosives or any connection to al Qaeda at all. Napolitano further links this terror threat with the alleged “rise” of domestic extremism, which has never been qualified or demonstrated, but only hyped via the MIAC and Homeland Security reports issued by DHS earlier in the Obama Administration. Those reports merely speculate that incidents will likely occur based on blanket-mass profiling– a mirror of the Administration’s current attempt to spark worry and fear.

These are the same tactics the Bush Administration admittedly used for political expediency post-9/11– threats without substance, but useful for enlarging a projected threat. Recall that so-called Bin Laden tapes would consistently emerge just prior to key elections or that the terror alert levels would be elevated to re-enforce the fear in the populace for purely political purposes. CIA officials have now admitted to faking Bin Laden videos.

Is it any wonder Obama would now discuss absorbing a terror attack in the U.S. or that Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano would revive the script of homeland terror threats and the pre-programmed idea of small-scale al Qaeda attacks? Is it a coincidence that Obama advisor Robert Shapiro suggested this summer that only a large-scale terror attack could counter President Obama’s “credibility crisis”:

“He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Who orchestrates these talking points and baseless forecasts of terror? Why is Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham simultaneously also cynically stating that another terror attack is imminent? Political expediency, not the omnipresence of al Qaeda, is the only logical answer. If the administration has verifiable intel, they should stop any such attempts, not scare up political points.

Could a “false-flag” attack on America save Obama Presidency?

The bombed remains of automobiles with the bom...
Image via Wikipedia

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Wednesday, September 22, 2010

President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.

During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.

Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.

Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.

Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”

Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.

Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.

During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?

Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.

Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.

Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.

Rick Sanchez says that “states rights” are “racist term”

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of th...
Image via Wikipedia

In the following video clip Rick Sanchez is talking to Wayne Slater about Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and that he will win the Governor’s race.  Sanchez had to throw in the “call to secession” quote by Perry.  Which I believe was nothing more than a political stunt.

Anyway Sanchez calls “states rights” racist to minorities.  Evidently Sanchez does not understand the meaning to “secession”.  It was meant as a roadblock of too much federal power.  Granted Texas, if they should ever decide to secede, would lose about $500 billion over night.  But principles, I guess.

If states rights are “racist”, then what can be said of the federal government’s slow action to ensure the rights of colored people during the 1960s?  Or the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII?  Sixty-two percent of those imprisoned during that time were American citizens, by the way.  What can be said of the federal government’s genocide of Native Americans?

In the 1850s the federal government enacted the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793.  This was done on part of the federal government, and was not anti-slavery.  Abolitionists would call this a “Bloodhound Law”.  Anyone can read the history of Abraham Lincoln and find that he was not as anti-slavery as what people thought.

Secession is the right of the states and, in that, preserves the right of the people. Any such quotes to the contrary are just ill-informed.