Chris Kyle was assasinated by the Obama Cabal Eddie Ray Routh's sister alleges Routh told her he "sold his soul for a new truck." Will we ever hear from him again? Chris Kyle's assassin was a paid hit man who was classified a "nut job" and did the job for the Hussein Cabal... there are too much circumstantial evidence. Will we hear from him again ? NOPE ! He has been classified as nuts and so the law will allow him to live out his days far away or he will be killed. Either way he has served his purpose for the Hussein Cabal... who basically said... yo make a noise against us and we will KILL YOU !! This has a chilling effect on dissent!! ARE WE AFRAID YET ?? WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR ?? WHERE ARE OUR BRAVE LEADERS ?? WHO WILL DARE THE CABAL TO ARREST THEM? NEWT ?? SEAN ?? LIMBAUGH ?? LEVIN ??? ALAN WEST ??/ SOMEBODY ??? ALL OF YOU ??? WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT SINGLE ACT THAT WILL LIGHT THE FIRE!! http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/eddie-ray-rouths-sister-alleges-routh-told-her-he-sold-his-soul-for-a-new-truck-will-we-ever-he/question-3504603/?fb_action_ids=334585739974829&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Chris Kyle was assasinated by the Obama Cabal

Eddie Ray Routh's sister alleges Routh told her he "sold his soul for a new truck." Will we ever hear from him again?

Chris Kyle's assassin was a paid hit man who was classified a "nut job" and did the job for the Hussein Cabal... there are too much circumstantial evidence.

Will we hear from him again ? NOPE !   He has been classified as nuts and so the law will allow him to live out his days far away or he will be killed.

Either way he has served his purpose for the Hussein Cabal... who basically said... yo make a noise against us and we will KILL YOU !! This has a chilling effect on dissent!!

ARE WE AFRAID YET ?? WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR ?? WHERE ARE OUR BRAVE LEADERS ?? WHO WILL DARE THE CABAL TO ARREST THEM?

NEWT ?? SEAN ?? LIMBAUGH ?? LEVIN ??? ALAN WEST ??/ SOMEBODY ??? ALL OF YOU ???

WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT SINGLE ACT THAT WILL LIGHT THE FIRE!!


http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/eddie-ray-rouths-sister-alleges-routh-told-her-he-sold-his-soul-for-a-new-truck-will-we-ever-he/question-3504603/?fb_action_ids=334585739974829&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Encountering Peace: Israeli-Palestinian peace is achievable

 Israel-Palestine Peace Agreement REVEALED for Obama visit;Israel Ice Scu...: http://youtu.be/wMwW6wq0AgM via @youtube

 

By GERSHON BASKIN

02/20/2013 22:49

Select Language​▼

This agreement is possible. The concessions within are not losses but gains and both sides will be able to stand tall and declare peace and victory.

US President Obama with Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA President Abbas, September 1, 2010. Photo: REUTERS/Jason Reed

Many of those who claim that a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty putting an end to the conflict is not possible are the very people who do not want it to happen. This includes those who say it’s too late, there are too many Israelis living beyond the green line, or too many new settlement houses have been built, and those who say there is no Palestinian partner.

Until now there has been no partner for peace because the negotiations, even after 20 years of negotiating have not yet produced an agreement that is acceptable to both parties and ends the claims on all of the eight core issues of the conflict. But agreement is conceivable and after each side makes the concessions which must be made they will be able to stand up proudly before their people and declare “we got the best agreement possible and it is a victory for us!” Here it is in short: 1. Palestinian statehood – this is already a fait accompli, clearly in the interests of both sides – the territorial expression of our national identity sealed by agreement, recognized by the international community, accepted by the United Nations and fulfilling the principle laid down in UN Resolution 181 from November 29, 1947 – the formal birth certificate of the two states – the establishment of two states – one Jewish and one Arab on the land known as Palestine/Israel.

2. The delineation of borders between the two states – not based on the map of 1947 but on the armistice agreement of 1949, the border line between the two states will divide the land with Palestine on 22 percent and Israel on 78%. The line will allow Israel to annex about 4% of the West Bank enabling about 80% of the Israeli citizens in settlement blocs to remain where there are.

Palestinians will get in exchange equal territory from inside of Israel proper. They will be able to use those areas as development zones and as compensation for land taken by Israeli settlements.

3. Jerusalem – Israel will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Israelis live. Jewish Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole world as Israel’s capital. Palestine will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Palestinians live. Palestinian Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole word as Palestine’s capital.

Jerusalem will be like Siamese twins – connected at the most sensitive points and therefore will remain an open city with free movement throughout.

Both parts of Jerusalem will share many aspects of infrastructure and most importantly, both sides will be responsible to work together to provide real security throughout the city. The Old City and holy places will either work on the same demographic principles or will be managed by agreement by others on behalf of both peoples. The Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif compound will see the transformation of current realities into agreements with the Muslim authorities in control on top of the Mount over the mosques there and Jewish authorities in control of the Western Wall.

This arrangement can hold at least until the Messiah comes, who can make changes then if the reality allows for it. Hundreds of millions of Muslim pilgrims will be allowed to come to complete their Haj pilgrimage which brings them to Mecca and Medina and concludes in Al-Quds, Jerusalem.

4. Refugees – All Palestinians, always, wherever they are will be able to become citizens of their independent sovereign state.

Lands added to Palestine within the territorial swaps can be used for resettlement purposes enabling Palestine to say that there is a partial return to lands from before 1948.

Israel, Palestine and the international community all have an interest to give refugees a new beginning and therefore an international donor effort will be made with generous Israeli participation that will grant all refugees in need a chance for decent modern housing, education and work. New cities like Modi’in can be constructed in the West Bank. Palestinians with land deeds and businesses that were lost will be able to apply for compensation for their losses to an international commission and Israel will also generously participate in this fund.

An agreed-to symbolic number of Palestinians will be able to apply for return to Israel proper (somewhere around 50,000 people) noting that they will be then living in the State of Israel, under Israeli laws and sovereignty. Israel can call this a humanitarian gesture of family reunification and Palestine can call it the implementation of the right of return. Palestinian refugees will also have the possibility to apply for citizenship in other countries that may offer such a possibility always holding onto to the option of becoming a citizen of Palestine also and holding dual citizenship.

5. The physical crossing between West Bank and Gaza – a stretch of about 40 kilometers going through the sovereign State of Israel. The best option, I believe, is the rail link offering services to carry passengers, cars and cargo with one stop in Gaza and one in the West Bank. Other possibilities include a bridge, road, tunnel, sunken road or combinations of the above. I propose beginning to build it now, as soon as possible from the West Bank towards Gaza and ending one kilometer short of Gaza. Gaza will be part of the full agreement, but it will only be implemented when the regime in Gaza agrees to all of the terms of the agreement.

6. Economic relations – I believe the best option for Palestine will be an improved customs union which ends all of the leakages in the Paris protocol and enables Palestine to collect their own customs because their state will have clear and defined borders.

If they would like a different trade regime they should be able to propose whatever they want because the economic consequences for Israel are inconsequential.

Israel should do everything possible to allow for a prosperous Palestine.

7. Water – with double the amount of water available today because of desalination and reuse of waste water there is no real water conflict any more. Palestine will have to have an equitable share of all of the water available in the territory between the Jordan and the Sea and water has a wonderful characteristic enabling this – it moves. The two states will probably arrive at a reallocation agreement, but I would propose, in the interest of real peace, a joint management model which states that all of the water is a shared resource, not only the water underneath the West Bank. Gaza will need a desalination plant of its own and should already be working on that today.

8. Security arrangements – without security there is no agreement on any of the above. Security arrangements need to provide real security for both peoples. Primary security responsibility is in the hands of each side within its own territory. Security cooperation between the two must be robust. A multi-national force (similar to Sinai) led by the US or by NATO with Israeli and Palestinian participation will hold longterm responsibilities along the Jordan. International monitors will be on the ground to ensure full compliance of security arrangements.

More – there will be a Jewish minority in Palestine. The rights of the Jews in Palestine will be linked to the rights of the Arabs citizens of Israel. The borders between the two states should be as open as possible. Cooperation between the two states should be the goal of both sides in every field possible.

An agreement is meant to enable a new relationship taking both sides beyond conflict toward truly peaceful relations.

Our physical space is so small; we are both required to cooperate on all aspects concerning the environment and on many other issues that are cross-boundary concerns.

The agreement must build bridges of cooperation and not walls of separation.

Implementation of the agreement will be incremental, over time based on performance and upholding obligations within the agreements. A third party monitor/judge (likely the US) will be necessary for this purpose.

This agreement is possible. The concessions within are not losses but gains and both sides will be able to stand tall and declare peace and victory.

Gershon Baskin is the co-chairman of IPCRI, the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and the initiator and negotiator of the secret back channel for the release of Gilad Schalit.

 

 

Development

Obama said to mull Israel-Palestinian peace plan

Jim Lobe

The Electronic Intifada

8 April 2010

WASHINGTON (IPS) - Amid still-unresolved tensions over Jewish settlement expansion in East Jerusalem, two major publications reported Wednesday that US President Barack Obama is seriously considering proposing later this year a US peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported on a 24 March meeting between Obama and former national security advisers who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and who expressed support for launching a US initiative designed to break the longstanding deadlock and achieve a two-state solution.
The meeting, which was organized by Obama’s national security adviser, retired General James Jones, reportedly reached a consensus that the failure so far to make tangible progress toward a peace agreement was harming US security interests throughout the region, including efforts to isolate Iran and other anti-Western forces, and that the Israelis and Palestinians were unlikely to reach a comprehensive agreement by themselves.
Putting forward a US proposal, presumably based largely on understandings reached between the two sides at negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba, Egypt, in early 2001, would mark a major departure in US policy, which has long insisted that final peace terms can only be arrived at by the parties themselves.
Such an initiative would likely be strongly opposed by the right-wing government of President Benajmin Netanyahu and its supporters here. Indeed, the latter wasted little time in denouncing the idea of advancing a US plan as “dangerous.”
“Palestinians will conclude that they have no reason to negotiate seriously, or to make concessions, when Obama may deliver what they want on a nice platter while Israelis will conclude that Washington no longer takes their security seriously, so they must toughen their stance,” wrote Elliott Abrams, former President George W. Bush’s top Middle East adviser on the neo-conservative Weekly Standard website.
The two reports come amid continuing tensions between the Obama administration and Netanyahu that were set off last month when the Israelis announced the approval of a new construction project in occupied Arab East Jerusalem during the visit of US Vice President Joseph Biden.
In unusually harsh language, Biden publicly “condemned” the Israeli action. His remarks were then followed by a call to Netanyahu by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who reportedly demanded not only that Israel freeze Jewish construction in occupied East Jerusalem, but also that it immediately agree to discuss with the Palestinians so-called “final status” issues, including final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees and East Jerusalem.
Netanyahu, who visited Washington for the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the following week, remained publicly defiant, although, during subsequent meetings with Obama himself and Clinton, he reportedly tried to appease the administration’s concerns.
His efforts, however, have failed to satisfy the White House, which indicated this week that Netanyahu, one of 46 foreign heads of state scheduled to attend a summit on safeguarding nuclear materials here next week, had not yet been cleared for a much-sought-after bilateral meeting with Obama.
The harder line taken by the administration is attributed by analysts here not only to the anger provoked by Israel’s actions in occupied East Jerusalem, but also by the growing conviction, particularly in the Pentagon, that the failure to make tangible progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was jeopardizing US security interests — and the lives of US servicemen and women — throughout the region, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to Israeli media reports, Biden made precisely that point with Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials behind closed doors during his visit.
In Congressional testimony a week later, the chief of the US Central Command (Centcom), General David Petraeus, echoed that message, noting that “The [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.”
He added that the Arab-Israeli conflict had an “enormous effect” on “the strategic context in which we operate,” and that “[a] credible US effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance,’ which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit.”
A similar message was conveyed as well during Obama’s 24 March meeting with the former national security advisers, who agreed that the “incremental” approach taken by Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell was unlikely to bear fruit, according to The New York Times and Washington Post accounts.
Brent Scowcroft, who served under presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, was the first to urge Obama to launch a peace initiative. He was followed by Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Both men have long called publicly for Washington to put forward its own plan for a comprehensive peace based largely on the Camp David and Taba parameters.
According to The Washington Post account, which was written by columnist David Ignatius, they were joined by Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and by Colin Powell, who served in the same position under Ronald Reagan and as secretary of state under George W. Bush. Frank Carlucci and Robert McFarlane, who also served under Reagan, reportedly went along with the consensus view.
The New York Times’ account, written by White House correspondent Helene Cooper, quoted a senior administration official as saying that a US plan was “absolutely not on the table right now,” and that Washington remained committed for now to the “proximity talks” that are to be mediated by Mitchell. But, he said, when those bogged down, “then you can expect that we would go in with something.”
Ignatius, who wrote a book with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, quoted one official as saying the White House is considering an inter-agency review process similar to the one carried out last year on Afghanistan and Pakistan, to “frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it.” The same official said it could be launched in the fall.
“It means they’re questioning some of the assumptions they inherited,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and co-director of the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation.
“It seems they’ve realized that some of those assumptions — that the Israelis and Palestinians could do this on their own; that they could gradually, incrementally build confidence between the parties without addressing the big questions — may have been wrong,” he said.
“What’s remarkable is that it was what the neo-conservatives did to the US under Bush and what Bibi Netanyahu did for Israel in the last year that has produced this moment of clarity,” Levy noted.
“The neo-cons helped clarify what so much of the national-security establishment, including Centcom and the former national security advisers, has been saying — that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to US security interests throughout the region, while Netanyahu helped clarify how entrenched Israel’s addiction to settlements and occupation is and that incrementalism has no chance in the face of that addiction. You therefore need an assertive intervention.”
Jim Lobe’s blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
All rights reserved, IPS — Inter Press Service (2010). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.

 

SCANDAL: Administration Approves Chinese Company’s Takeover Of Oil Deposits in Gulf of Mexico Providing Obama Backers Windfall...

SCANDAL: Administration Approves Chinese Company’s Takeover Of Oil Deposits in Gulf of Mexico Providing Obama Backers Windfall...

March 03, 2013

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch is suing the Treasury Department for records pertaining to the department’s decision to grant a Chinese government-backed company access to oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico, a move that will benefit Obama donors.

The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) reached a “definitive agreement” with Nexen, Inc., a Canadian energy company, announced on July 23, 2012, to buy all of the company’s outstanding public shares. Nexen has holdings in the Gulf of Mexico and Canada, giving the Chinese government access to millions of barrels of Keystone XL and Gulf reserve oil.

Nexen’s holdings in the Gulf, coupled with the Chinese government’s ownership of CNOOC, meant the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States had to approve the takeover, which it did on Feb. 12.

The secretaries of several major executive departments—including treasury, state, defense, and homeland security—sit on the committee.

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information on the deal in November, but the Treasury Department did not reply within the mandatory 20 days. Judicial Watch then filed suit on Feb. 14 to get access to the documents.

Judicial Watch noted that several prominent fundraisers and donors to President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign stood to make a windfall profit from the Chinese corporation’s expansion in their press release announcing the suit. Continue reading via The Washington Free Beacon...
- See more at: http://redflagnews.com/headlines/scandal-administration-approves-chinese-companys-takeover-of-oil-deposits-in-gulf-of-mexico-providing-obama-backers-windfall?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook#sthash.7zVnjZfH.dpuf

Wyoming Action Alert: Firearms Protection Act Hearing in the State Senate

Posted by TAC Daily Updates

• 
  
• 
  
• 
• EmailShare
• Share on Tumblr
• inShare

Wyoming’s Firearms Protection Act, HB104, is “an act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.” This act nullifies all federal laws made after Jan. 1, 2013.
It recently passed the state house by a vote of 46-13 and was sent to the State Senate. On Wednesday, February 20th, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the bill. HB104 will need to be approved by the committee before it is sent to the full Senate for debate and a vote.
ACTION ITEMS for Wyoming Residents
1. Contact John Schiffer (R-Kaycee), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, email him at John.Schiffer@wyoleg.gov
Urge him to support HB-104. Strongly, but respectfully, tell him to pass this bill out of committee without amendments or any delay.
2. Next contact the following members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and voice your support for HB-104 — the Firearm Protection Act.

Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan)
Bruce.Burns@wyoleg.gov
Leland Christensen (R-Teton)
Leland.Christensen@wyoleg.gov
3. Attend the hearing in person. Strength in numbers! voice your support for HB104 and make a public statement if the committee allows you to testify.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Senate Judiciary Committee
8AM, arrive early!
213 State Capitol, Cheyenne
Room 302
4. Join the 2nd Amendment Preservation group to support this bill on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2ndAmendmentWyoming/
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND READING
How to Respond to Unlawful Orders
The 2nd Amendment didn’t “grant” rights
HB104 has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There, it will require a hearing and approval to send it to the full Senate for a vote.
HB104 was introduced by Wyoming Rep. Kendell Kroeker and co-sponsored by Representatives Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senators Dockstader and Hicks.
“We need the second amendment because it is the protection for all of our other rights. Without it, those rights have no protection,” Kroeker said.
Beyond such statements, the bill backs things up with some teeth by providing for criminal charges for federal agents who attempt to violate the proposed state law:
“Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

- See more at: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/wyoming-action-alert-firearms-protection-act-hearing-in-the-state-senate/#sthash.zShhHAlF.dpuf

WHEN ARE THE DEMS GOING TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THEY GREAT OBAMA IS DOING THIS TO PUT US ALL IN FEMA CAMPS THEY WILL BE HIS SLAVES TALK ABOUT SOME DUMB ASS PEOPLE THEY ARE ANY ONE WHO VOTED FOR HIM IS DAMED

Americans’ reaction to sequestration might change course of politics

Passengers line up an the security lines at Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International airport | Mike Stocker/South Florida Sun-Sentinel/MCT

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The fallout from federal spending cuts over the coming weeks might alter the nation’s political landscape for years to come.
Already, a decade of budget deficits run up in war and economic crisis has saddled the government with a $16 trillion debt, a bill that will force the country to come to grips with how much government it wants and how much it wants to pay for it at the very time the aging baby boomers put new strains on the budget through such vast programs as Medicare and Social Security.
Now the government is about to start cutting spending in some programs, offering a first look at how the American people will react.
If people feel the sting of the so-called sequestration with fewer teachers at their schools, more time in airport security lines and smaller checks for people without jobs, they might rise up and send a clear signal that the country really wants to keep all of the government it now gets and perhaps feed a demand that the government charge more in the form of higher taxes.
If, however, the majority of Americans don’t feel any pain from the cuts, if they either don’t see an impact or don’t empathize with federal employees enduring unpaid furloughs, they’d likely invite more moves to cut spending. That would bolster the Republicans.
Either way, it’s a high-stakes gamble for the two major parties, with the winner likely to dominate the debate and perhaps elections for years.
So far, Americans aren’t paying much attention. Just one in four were following the news closely last week, according to the Pew Research Center.
That amplifies the urgency for the parties to try to define the budget cuts on their terms. It also explains why President Barack Obama spent the last two weeks pushing the idea that the reductions are cruel and thoughtless. He needs people aware and angry to bolster his argument for more taxes and fewer spending cuts.
The $44 billion that‘s being trimmed over the next seven months is a less than ideal test for either party.
Created by the Obama and Congress in 2011, sequestration was meant to be painful. They thought that the threat of automatic cuts would force them to find a better alternative. It didn’t.
Democrats insist on adding tax increases and leaving more spending untouched. Republicans want the same amount of spending cut, but would prefer it in different places.
Led by Obama, Democrats are betting that the American people will hate the reductions and demand tax increases instead.
The danger is that they might have overplayed their hand. First, some of the most extensive and popular federal programs, such as Social Security, won’t be trimmed. Second, the cuts will take effect slowly and might not be felt in time to affect the debate over extending government funding past March 27 or whether to raise the government’s debt ceiling past May 19.
There might be an eventual payoff, though. As the sting of cutting spending intensifies, Democrats think, so will their electoral prospects.
“This is going to be a slope, not a cliff,” said Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md.
Democrats also will point to the alternative spending cuts that the Republican-run House of Representatives passed twice last year. No Democrats voted for the plans, which would have made deep cuts in some of Obama’s key initiatives, such as a fund to implement the 2010 health care law, as well as housing and food stamp programs.
Democrats are aware that their strategy has perils, chiefly that the reality won’t match the hype. "People will see long lines at airports, but they always think the lines are long,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.
Republicans, who didn’t want these exact cuts, now prefer to keep them rather than leave spending levels intact or raise taxes in addition to the increases in Social Security taxes and income taxes enacted in January. They’re gambling that the impact is being overblown.
“We can’t absorb that kind of impact in our spending levels?” said Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., a favorite of the conservative tea party movement. “People will not buy into this idea there will be dire consequences.”
Though Obama’s current proposal involves eliminating corporate loopholes and subsidies, Republicans tar his plan as big government’s latest reach into the pockets of the embattled taxpayer. “We’ve already started to feel, in our states, the impact of consumers having less money in their hands because of the payroll tax having gone up,” said Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who was in town for a governors’ meeting.
Republicans also know that their tactics might backfire.
Pew found last month that 62 percent saw the party as out of touch with the American people and 52 percent branded it as too extreme. Democrats had far lower numbers. And Obama has the bully pulpit: No Republican is as recognized, and no one Republican speaks for the party the way Obama speaks for the Democrats.
Somehow, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said, “we have to find ways to cut spending, but do it in a way that’s seen as reasonable.”
The parties do agree on one point: Both sides face the risk that their stubbornness will further alienate already-weary voters.
Voters have demonstrated their impatience in recent midterm elections. Democrats retook the majorities in Congress in 2006 and lost the House majority four years later. That suggests that swing voters don’t feel loyalty to either party, but instead are skeptical that either side knows what it’s doing. Now the stakes are even higher, because Washington’s decisions will be keenly felt, perhaps for years.
So under the bravado, politicians are nervous, knowing that their positions might cement their parties’ images in the public’s mind for years to come.
Be careful, Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said during a visit to Washington this week.
“Here we are in Washington, and we’re all obsessed with government,” he said. “But people back home are worried about what the economy is doing.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/01/184621/americans-reaction-to-sequestration.html#storylink=cpy


The White House retreated from its doomsday predictions Sunday about the impact of the $85 billion in federal spending cuts that have  kicked  in -- as Republican leaders appeared at least satisfied about delivering on their promise to limit government spending and hold down taxes.
Gene Sperling, the White House's top economic adviser, repeatedly said the cuts will not hurt as much on “Day One” as they will over the long haul.
“Nobody ever suggested that this … was going to have all its impact in the first few days,” he told “NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a slow grind.”
His remarks are in contrast to weeks of President Obama and his Cabinet warning that the cuts will result in furloughs or pay cuts for middle-class wage-earners such as teachers, Capitol Hill janitors and air traffic controllers, which they said could cause 90-minutes delays at major U.S. airports.
Sperling declined at least twice to directly answer questions about whether the worst-case-scenario rhetoric has hurt the president’s credibility on the issue. He instead stuck to his argument that independent economists forecast the cuts will result in 750,000 fewer jobs and that corporate executives now anticipate slower economic growth.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN’s “Face the Nation” Americans absorbed similar cuts once already this year.
"This modest reduction of 2.4 percent in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average American experienced just two months ago, when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired," the Kentucky Republican said.
Congress agreed to the cuts, known as sequester, in 2011 after failing to agree on more measure reductions -- to defense and some domestic spending. However, the cuts were intended to be so drastic that Democrats and Republicans would be forced to compromise before they started.
Still, Sperling rejected several Republican-backed plans and said no compromise would be reached unless the party agrees to tax increases.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., responded by saying Congress agreed to such increases in January “at the president’s request” and questioned why Obama and other Democrats will not agree to additional spending cuts.
She argued for potential pay freezes for federal employees and reforms to the federal food stamps program.
“There’s a whole host of ideas to cut spending” without jeopardizing security, Ayotte said on ABC’s “This Week.”
However, she also said she would consider tax reform that comes with entitlement reforms. But she would not agree to revenue increases to pay for additional government spending.
Earlier on the show, Sperling said Republican strategy is flawed because the cuts will take resources from several of the party’s most valued positions – including national defense and border security.
“This is not a win for Republicans,” Sperling said. “This cuts into military preparedness.”
He hinted Sunday at Democrats’ likely strategy for retaking the House in 2014.
“Our hope is as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.
Sperling also dismissed a plan backed by at least some Republicans to give the president some flexibility in the cuts.
“It’s like saying you have to cut off three of your fingers but you can choose which ones,” he said.
Sperling also addressed an e-mail sent to Bob Woodward in which he said The Washington Post reporter might "regret" writing a story in which he would say Obama has "moved the goal posts" on sequester.
He told ABC that he and Woodward share a mutual respect and he hopes they can "put this behind us."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that any tax increases were unacceptable.
 "I'm not going to do any more small deals,” he said. “I'm not going to raise taxes to fix sequestration. We don't need to raise taxes to fund the government." 
All of this comes ahead of a new, March 27 deadline that could spell a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling clash coming in May.
House Speaker John Boehner said his chamber would move this week to pass a measure to keep government open through Sept. 30.
McConnell said a government shutdown was unlikely to come from his side of Capitol Hill. The White House said it would dodge the shutdown and roll back the cuts, which hit domestic and defense spending in equal share.
Sperling said the White House is committed to trying to find a way that Republicans and Democrats can reach a compromise.
The billions in cuts apply to the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30. But without a deal they will continue slashing government spending by about $1 trillion more over a 10-year period.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/03/top-white-house-adviser-blames-republicans-for-cuts-waves-doomsday-criticism/#ixzz2MXHMhHbg

Tell Arpaio and Zullo: stop talking, file the criminal complaint against Obama or refund donations Posted on | March 3, 2013 | No Comments Today Birther Report posted a clip where a talk show host Carl Gallops is saying that he will be at C-PAC with Mike Zullo and has a meeting scheduled with one congressman. This will not hurt, but there is an obvious problem with credibility. Any congressman will ask Zullo and Arpaio an obvious question: are you kidding me? If you feel that a crime was committed, why didn’t you file a criminal complaint with your District Attorney and your Attorney General? Why are you just going around the country, doing fundraisers and talking instead of filling a complaint? The taxpayers paid Maricopa county sheriff’s department for some 3,000 employees: Sheriffs and support staff. You got the funding, you have hundreds of sheriffs, do your job and file the criminal complaint. If Arpaio were to file the complaint and DA and AG were not to proceed with filling charges based on this complaint, then Arpaio and his right hand Zullo would have some credibility, they could state: we did all we could but the DA is corrupt or AG is corrupt or U.S. Attorney is corrupt, they are not doing their job, however Arpaio and Zullo cannot say anything, as they are the ones who did not do their job and never filed the criminal complaint. You can’t apply any pressure on the DA. The only ones you can apply pressure on, is Arpaio. The only things you can do by applying pressure is: a. ask for a refund of donations b. threaten a recall c shame d. ask pointed questions. Why didn’t you file the complaint? Is it related to the fact that Obama through his right hand Holder originally filed a complaint for civil rights violations against Arpaio and later dismissed this complaint? At this time Obama is not going against Arpaio with the civil rights violations criminal complaint, which can carry a lengthy prison term, and Arpaio is not filing a criminal complaint against Obama for elections fraud, but lets his right hand Zullo just talk. Are those two related? If I am in DC with a cameraman asking tough questions, I have credibility. I filed legal actions, I am actually putting myself on the line, taking hits from the regime in direct attacks and indirect collateral attacks. Keep in mind that as a sheriff Arpaio has not only fund allocation for this work, but he also has a prosecutorial immunity. I am a private citizen, I am a private practice attorney. I do not have immunity. Other attorneys and pro se plaintiffs do not have immunity either and have been attacked and intimidated. I am telling everyone: stop being stupid, stop being naive, don’t just accept stories that you are being fed. Demand action. Demand that Arpaio, Zullo and other law enforcement officials file criminal complaints against Obama for elections fraud and use of forged and fraudulently obtained IDs with the purpose of the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency. Talk is cheap! We are fed up with empty talk, demand action!

Tell Arpaio and Zullo: stop talking, file the criminal complaint against Obama or refund donations

Posted on | March 3, 2013 | No Comments

Today Birther Report posted a clip where a talk show host Carl Gallops is saying that he will be at C-PAC with Mike Zullo and has a meeting scheduled with one congressman. This will not hurt, but there is an obvious problem with credibility. Any congressman will ask Zullo and Arpaio an obvious question: are you kidding me? If you feel that a crime was committed, why didn’t you file a criminal complaint  with your District Attorney and your Attorney General? Why are you just going around the country, doing fundraisers and talking instead of filling a complaint? The taxpayers paid Maricopa county sheriff’s department for some 3,000 employees: Sheriffs and support staff. You got the funding, you have hundreds of sheriffs, do your job and file the criminal complaint. If Arpaio were to file the complaint and DA and AG were not to proceed with filling charges based on this complaint, then Arpaio and his right hand Zullo would have some credibility, they could state: we did all we could  but the DA is corrupt or AG is corrupt or U.S. Attorney is corrupt, they are not doing their job, however Arpaio and Zullo cannot say anything, as they are the ones who did not do their job and never filed the criminal complaint. You can’t apply any pressure on the DA. The only ones you can apply pressure on, is Arpaio. The only things you can do by applying pressure is:
a. ask for a refund of donations
b. threaten a recall
c shame  
d. ask pointed questions. Why didn’t you file the complaint? Is it related to the fact that Obama through his right hand Holder originally filed a complaint for civil rights violations against Arpaio and later dismissed this complaint? At this time Obama is not going against Arpaio with the civil rights violations criminal complaint, which can carry a lengthy prison term, and Arpaio is not filing a criminal complaint against Obama for elections fraud, but lets his right hand Zullo just talk. Are those two related?
If I am in DC with a cameraman asking tough questions, I have credibility. I filed legal actions, I am actually putting myself on the line, taking hits from the regime in direct attacks and indirect collateral attacks. Keep in mind that as a sheriff Arpaio has not only fund allocation for this work, but he also has a prosecutorial immunity. I am a private citizen, I am a private practice attorney. I do not have immunity. Other attorneys and pro se plaintiffs do not have immunity either and have been attacked and intimidated.
I am telling everyone: stop being stupid, stop being naive, don’t just accept stories that you are being fed. Demand action. Demand that Arpaio, Zullo  and other law enforcement officials file criminal complaints against Obama for elections fraud and use of forged and fraudulently obtained IDs with the purpose of the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency. Talk is cheap! We are fed up with empty talk, demand action!

DoD News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Transcript

On the Web: http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=674 Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact: http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx or +1 (703) 571-3343

Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen April 28, 1997 8:45 AM EDT

DoD News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen Cohen's keynote address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. The event is part of the Sam Nunn Policy Forum being hosted by the University of Georgia. Secretary Cohen is joined by Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Richard G. Lugar.] Secretary Cohen: Senator Nunn, thank you very much. As Senator Nunn has indicated, he and I have worked for many years together, along with Senator Lugar. The two of these gentlemen I feel are perhaps the most courageous and visionary to have served in the Senate. They were largely responsible, of course, for adopting the so-called Nunn/Lugar legislation. I'll comment on that later during the course of the morning, but I've had occasion to meet with a number of Russian counterparts, and as we go through various translations of the communications that we're having, the two words they are able to articulate very clearly, they say 'Nunn/Lugar, Nunn/Lugar. So they know exactly what that means, and that means the Cooperative Thre'at Reduction Act that these two gentlemen were indispensable in shepherding through the United States Congress. It was Nunn/Lugar I that dealt with the reduction of nuclear weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union in terms of trying to come to grips with how we helped the Russians dismantle hundreds of their nuclear weapons, and also helped them with their destruction of chemical weapons. But they, of course, have looked beyond simply that particular relationship, which is very important, but also looking to the future that we face as far as the rise of terrorism -- both international and domestic; and finding ways in which the Department of Defense can become involved in helping local states and local agencies to deal with the threat of terrorism which is quite likely to increase in the coming years. It's a pleasure for me to be here. Both Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar are close friends and I look forward to, I think, a very productive seminar. Once again demonstrating that although Senator Nunn has left public service in the Senate, he has not left public service as far as the nation is concerned. It's a pleasure for me to be here, Sam. Senator Nunn: Thank you very much, Bill. . ..Let me ask if there are any questions for Secretary of Defense Cohen. Q: The dual containment policy in Iran and Iraq, do you think that's conducive to regional stability in that region? And do you think can cause further terrorism in the United States? That type of containment policy in the Middle East. A: I think Secretary Albright articulated our policy as far as dealing with Iraq, that it's clear that we have been unable to strike any kind of a productive relationship with Saddam Hussein, and as soon as Saddam Hussein is no longer the head of that government, that there's new regime that follows him, that we will look forward to finding ways in which we could engage them in a much more productive fashion, particularly after they comply with all of the UN sanctions. There's an eagerness on our part to do that. But I think as long as he remains in office as the head of that state, it's unlikely that we could have anything but the current policy in place, with very little prospects for relief. With respect to Iran, I think Iran continues to present a long term threat to the region. They are acquiring and have acquired weapons of mass destruction, substantial levels of chemicals and we believe biological weapons as well. They have made an effort to acquire nuclear capability. So I think that our policy of dual containment is the right one, and we are going to encourage our allies to support that one. Q: What does it mean that Clinton (inaudible) proliferation? A: To the extent that we see the level of communication available today, the Internet and other types of interwoven communicative skills and abilities, we're going to see information continue to spread as to how these weapons can be, in fact, manufactured in a home-grown laboratory, as such. So it's a serious problem as far as living in the information age that people who are acquiring this kind of information will not act responsibly, but rather act in a terrorist type of fashion. We've seen by way of example of the World Trade Center the international aspects of international terrorism coming to our home territory. We've also seen domestic terrorism with the Oklahoma bombing. So it's a real threat that's here today. It's likely to intensify in the years to come as more and more groups have access to this kind of information and the ability to produce them. Q: How prepared is the U.S. Government to deal with (inaudible)? A: I think we have to really intensify our efforts. That's the reason for the Nunn/Lugar II program. That's the reason why it's a local responsibility, as such, but the Department of Defense is going to be taking the lead as far as supervising the interagency working groups, and to make the assessments as to what needs to be done. So we're going to identify those 120 cities and work with them very closely to make sure that they can prepare themselves for what is likely to be a threat well into the future. Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith. A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important. Q: What is response to (inaudible)? A: We hope we will have access to the defector. In fact I was recently in South Korea and talked with various officials in South Korea. As soon as they complete their own interrogation of this defector, we will have access to that individual. But much of what he has said to date is reflected in the writings that he prepared last year. This is prior to his defection. One would not expect a potential defector to be writing about anything other than what the official doctrine or dogma is of the North Korean government at that time. He is saying essentially what we have known for a long, long time. Namely, that North Korea poses a very serious threat against South Korea, and potentially even Japan, by virtue of having the fourth largest army in the world, by having 600,000 or more troops poised within 100 kilometers of Seoul, of possessing many SCUD missiles, also the potential of chemically armed warheads, the attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. So we know they have this potential, and the question really is going to be what's in their hearts and minds at this point? Do they intend to try to launch such an attack in the immediate, foreseeable future? That we can only speculate about, but that's the reason why we are so well prepared to defend against such an attack to deter it; and to send a message that it would be absolutely an act of suicide for the North Koreans to launch an attack. They could do great damage in the short run, but they would be devastated in response. So we're hoping we can find ways to bring them to the bargaining table -- the Party of Four Talks -- and see if we can't put them on a path toward peace instead of threatening any kind of devastating attack upon the South. Q: . ..a little bit about the situation in (inaudible)? A: I really don't have much more information than has been in the press at this point. The Department has not been called upon to act in this regard just yet, so I'm not at liberty to give you any more information than you already have. Q: . ..the Administration's plans to expand NATO to more European countries. Is there a terrorism element? Or will expanding NATO help you in any way in terms of (inaudible)? Or is it really unrelated? A: I think the two are unrelated. There is a legitimate debate that will take place in terms of the pace of enlargement or whether there should be enlargement. Secretary Albright and I testified last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it was a very, I think, productive debate. It's something that Senator Nunn, I think, feels very strongly about as well. The two of us, I think, found ourselves on the Senate Floor last year saying it was time for the American people to start debating this issue. So it's very important and there will be legitimate differences of opinion, but it's important that we bring this to the Senate for full debate and disclosure, and bring it to the American people. But I doubt if it's related to the spread of terrorism whatsoever. Senator Nunn: Thank you very much.

President Harrison J. Bounel (aka Barack Hussein Obama)
Personal Liberty Digest ^ | 2-15-2013 | Bob Livingston

Posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 5:36:14 PM by smoothsailing
February 15, 2013

President Harrison J. Bounel

Bob Livingston

Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly today.
The case in question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly Taitz. The case calls into question many of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or released as authentic since he came on the national scene. The case contends that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not have received the State’s electoral votes.
Four of the nine Justices must vote to move the case forward. We’ll see.
Meantime, on Feb. 4, Kathleen O’Leary, presiding judge of the 4^th District Court of Appeal, reinstated the appeal of Taitz v. Obama et al filed by Taitz when she ran for Senate. That case involves evidence of 1.5 million invalid voter registrations in the State of California. The appeal also involves Obama’s lack of legitimacy to hold the office of President based on his forged IDs, stolen Connecticut Social Security number, the fact the last name he’s using is not legally his and his fraudulent claim to be the U.S. citizen.
Evidence in the case includes:

• A certified copy of the passport records of Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, showing her son’s legal last name to be Soebarkah, not Obama.
• Obama’s school records from Indonesia, showing his citizenship to be Indonesian.
• Sworn affidavits of top law enforcement experts and investigators, showing Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service certificate are forgeries and that the Social Security number used by Obama on his 2009 tax returns as posted on WhiteHouse.gov was fraudulent. (The SSN failed when checked through both E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service.)

On another legal front, Obama defaulted in the case of Grinols et al v. Obama et al on Jan. 30 when he failed to file a response within 21 days of being served notice of the suit. This case also involves Obama’s phony SSN.
The suit states:

[I]nvestigator Albert Hendershot found in the database of http://www.acxiom.com/identity-solutions/acxiom-identity-batch-solutions/ the name of the individual whose Social Security Obama is using. Acxciom-batch-solutions showed (Exhibit 1) that Harry J Bounel with the same Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 at 5046 S Greenwood Ave in Chicago, home address of Barack Obama, Database shows Bounel with the same address and Social Security number as Barack Obama himself. According to the databases last changes to the information on Harrison (Harry) J Bounel were made in and around November 2009 by Michelle Obama, who is listed as Bounel’s relative. Database changes can involve entering the information or deletion of information. It appears that changes made by relative Michelle Obama included deletion of information, which was done at a time when Taitz brought to Federal court in the Central District of California before Judge David O. Carter a case of election challenge by her client, former U.S. ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes and 40 state Representatives and high ranked members of the U.S. military.
Recently obtained results of the 1940 census, Exhibit 2, provided the last missing link, link (sic) between Harry J. Bounel and the date of birth of 1890. Exhibit 2 shows the printout of the U.S. census, showing Harry J Bounel, immigrant from Russia, residing at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, NY, age 50 during the 1940 census, meaning he was born in 1890, as shown in the affidavit of Investigators Daniels and Sankey.
There is a pattern of Obstruction of Justice and tampering with the official records and falsification/forgery of the official records related to Obama. This happens in particular when [George W.] Bush employees leave their positions and are replaced by Obama appointees.

Taitz has asked for expedited default judgment and post judgment discovery in this case out of fear that any records on hand at the Social Security office will be destroyed when George W. Bush-appointed Commissioner Michael Astrue leaves office in February. Records that might have proven Obama’s Selective Service registration was a forgery were destroyed in 2009 after Bush-appointed Selective Service Director William Chatfield resigned, Taitz alleges.

---

TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; bounel; certifigate; harrisonjbounel; naturalborncitizen; obamass; socialsecurity; ssn; xxxxx4425

---

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-58 next last

---

Harrison J. Bounel-Chicago,circa 1927

1 posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 5:36:21 PM by smoothsailing

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Major East Coast HAARP Storm Brewing For March 6th & 7th

FIGURING OUT MARCH 6-7   MAJOR EAST COAST WINTER S TORM: http://youtu.be/KM5XzsolXYw via @youtube

Another HAARP Blizzard for the East Coast? First, from Accuweather: The eventual track from this potential atmospheric bomb will determine whether or not portions of the mid-Atlantic and southern New England have a foot or more of windswept snow, hurricane-force gusts, power outages, coastal flooding, flooding rain and travel mayhem with a storm hugging the coast or another non-event with the storm heading out to sea. (States on the bubble for a major storm or a near-miss include North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as well as the District of Columbia).

Is the Mid-Atlantic region and East Coast of America under HAARP attack once again? According to the latest graph from HAARPStatus.com above, much of the region is now in the 6 to 8 frequency magnitude reading range. Coincidentally, or not, these very high HAARP frequency magnitude readings come just ahead of another potentially huge storm being forecast for the East coast of America for next week. From Accuweather.:

A wintry system that will make a cross-country tour this weekend has the potential to develop into a powerful and very disruptive storm along the East Coast next week.

Once the storm reaches the Atlantic coast Wednesday into Thursday (March 6-7), conditions at most levels in the nearby atmosphere and well away from the storm throughout North America could lead to rapid development near the coast. At this point, the storm could become a dangerous system for parts of the mid-Atlantic, leading to significant travel disruptions and severe coastal flooding from the Outer Banks to Atlantic City, N.J.

According to Chief Meteorologist Elliot Abrams, "There may be similarities to a storm which affected much of the same area around March 6, 1962."

A proposed letter to congressmen, sheriffs, DAs, AGs and US attorneys, demand criminal charges against Obama for using a forged SSS and against two directors of Selective Service and Postmaster General for treason and criminal complicity in covering up a forged SSS of a foreign citizen usurping the US Presidency. All of them should get a lengthy prison term at best Posted on | March 3, 2013 | 2 Comments This letter and exhibits were prepared by a supporter Mr. Thompson A letter to officials re Obama’s forged SSS

A proposed letter to congressmen, sheriffs, DAs, AGs and US attorneys, demand criminal charges against Obama for using a forged SSS and against two directors of Selective Service and Postmaster General for treason and criminal complicity in covering up a forged SSS of a foreign citizen usurping the US Presidency. All of them should get a lengthy prison term at best

Posted on | March 3, 2013 | 2 Comments

This letter and exhibits were prepared by a supporter Mr. Thompson
A letter to officials re Obama’s forged SSS

Rumor Check: Obama Uses Obamacare to Pay Off Crony to The Tune of $340 Million

Is President Obama using his administration’s landmark legislative accomplishment as a vehicle to reward a longtime friend and political ally to the tune of $340 million?

That viral accusation has just begun making the rounds thanks to several conservative news sites, most notably Lifesitenews and the Washington Examiner. These sites allege that a woman named Sara Horowitz, who heads up the New York-based Freelancers’ Insurance Company (and its parent corporation, the Freelancers’ Union), has been loaned $340 million by the federal government to help set up Obamacare’s “exchanges” in New York, New Jersey and Oregon, in spite of a dubious record when it comes to actual customers. Lifesitenews sums up the accusation this way:

An insurance company known for not keeping its contractual obligations has received $340 million in federal loans to set up a health care exchange under ObamaCare. Critics say the only apparent criteria for the loan is the fact that the company is led by a friend of Barack Obama during his community organizer days. She is also a former leader of a George Soros-funded politically radical organization.

All of these charges are serious, so we thought we’d take a look into the evidence for each. What we found may surprise you.

Sara Horowitz (Photo Credit: AP)

Accusation #1: The Freelancers’ Insurance Company is “known for not keeping its contractual obligations”

In assessing this story of alleged political cronyism, probably the most relevant piece to be considered is the complaint that Sara Horowitz’s company is demonstrably unfit for the responsibility involved, and is, in fact, a poor provider of health insurance. After all, the nature of cronyism is that it rewards incompetence with connections. In marshaling evidence for the proposition that the Freelancers’ Insurance Company (FIC) is an incompetent health insurance provider, Lifesitenews makes the following subset of accusations:

FIC has been rated the “worst” insurer in New York for the past two years by state regulators, and has weathered numerous public relations and customer service crises since it launched in 2008. The company is so unpopular it has spawned its own hate blog, “Upset Freelancers’ Union Members,” where those who buy their healthcare from FIC meet to complain, strategize, and give each other tips on how to navigate labyrinthine restrictions and try to get results from the notoriously frustrating customer service hotline.

In 2011, the New York State Insurance Department ranked FIC dead last in customer satisfaction among insurers. Despite its relatively small size, FIC had the most complaints of all the state’s insurance providers. Last year, FIC again ranked “worst” in complaints. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners says FIC’s complaint rate is more than seven times the national average.

In half the complaints lodged against FIC by its customers, the insurance department ruled that “the health insurer did not comply with statutory or contractual obligations.”

After further digging on our part, it appears that only some of these points are valid, though arguably still enough of them to raise questions. The statistic from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners proved difficult to verify, and the reference to the “hate blog” was potentially overblown, given that the blog in question does not appear to have been active since early 2009. This is relevant, because even according to Horowitz herself, her company failed to be fully profitable or functional during its first year (2008), and as such, the “hate blog” would make sense as a phenomenon from that first year alone. Certainly, the absence of complaints on the site since early 2009 suggests that the people involved either took their business elsewhere or had their issues resolved.

However, given the other evidence regarding FIC’s business practices, the former course of action seems more likely. FIC has a record of consumer satisfaction that could charitably be called mixed. Its two year streak as “worst” company in terms of number of complaints is quite real. From last year’s “New York Consumer Guide to Health Insurance Companies“:

And from the same document in 2011:

Readers will note that in both cases, the absolute bottom rank goes to FIC. It is also worth noting that in 2012, of the 59 complaints that were filed against FIC, 30 were found to be accurate, whereas in 2011, 31 out of 62 were found to be accurate. In other words, at least half of all complaints against FIC have been upheld over the past two years by the New York State Insurance Department, which also ranks them dead last out of all the providers in the state. Not exactly a vote of confidence.

On the other hand, there are mitigating factors that may explain FIC’s attractiveness as a model for the administration’s health insurance exchanges. In an article offering advice to freelancers on how to obtain health insurance, Forbes Magazine described FIC this way:

If you live in New York State, for example,The Freelancers Union offers insurance through the Freelancers Insurance Company (F.I.C.). It currently covers about 25,000 independent workers and their family members and offers premiums that are reportedly a third below market rates. Individual plans might run from $225 to $600 per month.

In other words, judging by the statistics and pricing, the tradeoff in getting a plan from FIC is fairly simple to outline: Low prices, but also a lower quality of service. Moreover, a profile of Sara Horowitz in Slate Magazine detailed other factors that might lead the administration to find FIC’s model attractive – for instance, the low rate of compensation that Horowitz herself enjoys, and the attention by the company to crafting plans that match up to the needs of its specific demographic (IE freelance workers). In other words, even if cronyism is involved, it goes beyond personal affection between the President and Horowitz — her version of insurance coverage also matches up fairly well with the administration’s ideological vision. This can also be seen in this interview with Horowitz from BigThink:

So is FIC a terrible provider of health insurance that could not possibly get federal loans if not for cronyism? Not exactly. It is admittedly an unlikely recipient in some ways, but it also does not operate in the same way as a conventional insurance company, and its model of providing insurance lines up with the administration’s ideological goals. As to the accusation that Sara Horowitz is a bosom friend of President Obama? Read on.

Accusation #2: Sara Horowitz is a friend of President Obama’s from his community organizing days

While there is little doubt that President Obama and Horowitz have crossed paths and share certain goals, the evidence that the two were affiliated during the president’s days as a community organizer is nonexistent, and the idea that they are “friends” as opposed to simply “allies” is also difficult to verify. The earliest association on record for the two occurred during President Obama’s days as an Illinois State Senator, when they both served as founding members of the liberal organization Demos. From an archived version of Demos’ website (emphasis added):

Demos began as a vision of Charles Halpern–then the president of the Nathan Cummings Foundation and a veteran non-profit entrepreneur. He was troubled by the narrow conversation about America’s future. On the eve of the 21st century, it seemed that America no longer had the imagination to tackle its largest problems and build a more just society.

Halpern set out to challenge the status quo with a new institution. He envisioned a dynamic hub for creative scholars and cutting-edge practitioners–an organization that combined ideas and action to chart a new set of priorities for America. By 1999, Halpern had assembled a talented working group to develop Demos. Among them were David Callahan, a fellow at the Century Foundation; Rob Fersh, a long-time policy advocate; Stephen Heintz, Vice-President of the East-West Institute; Sara Horowitz, founder of Working Today; Arnie Miller, a leading executive recruiter; Barack Obama, then a state senator from Illinois; David Skaggs, a congressman from Colorado; and Linda Tarr-Whelan, an internationally recognized expert on women and economic development. This working group would eventually form the core of Demos’ staff and Board of Trustees.

In other words, Obama and Horowitz have a past professional connection, but there is no evidence of a personal one. However, it should be noted that in cases like this, a professional connection may be all that’s needed. There is one other former leading figure at Demos to whom Obama tried to offer a substantial amount of agenda-setting power: none other than former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones.

Van Jones (Photo Credit: http://www.bet.com)

Accusation #3: Horowitz is a former leader of a Soros-funded group

This accusation is the most unambiguously accurate, and it once again goes back to Horowitz’s relationship with Demos. As it happens, in the records of Soros’ Tides Foundation, Demos is listed as a grantee under Tides’ 2010 list of grantees, having received a grant of $53,970:

As established above, Horowitz was one of Demos’ founders. In fairness to her, she may have left before the group appeared on the list of recipients of Soros’ money, but the connection remains.

Then again, while this accusation is true, it also is the least conclusive in terms of its value as proof. The idea that President Obama would hire a committed liberal to manage his health insurance exchanges is not, in itself, surprising or newsworthy, and it scarcely proves cronyism exists in this case. Not that the suspicion is entirely unreasonable, given the problematic record of FIC, and the existing professional connection between Sara Horowitz and President Obama, but suspicion is not proof.

Conclusion

Even in the absence of definitive proof of cronyism, the checkered record of FIC leaves open the question of why it received such a large amount of federal money. The existence of such a question implies the need for a greater degree of transparency. Accusations of cronyism are more plausible when the standards by which such loans are given out are left up to the imagination, and certainly, that is the case when it comes to the funding for those who set up these insurance exchanges. Hopefully, the congressional investigation into these matters will shed some light on the subject.

4 blood moons

Printer friendly version

by Bill Koenig

Pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries in Puyallup, Washington click here has been sharing with us some remarkable discoveries on the blood-red moon and Jewish feast connections in the past three months. He now has some new discoveries.
I have known Mark for four years and have spoken at his church twice in the Tacoma, Washington, area. He has been an avid student and teacher of the Jewish Feasts and their awe-inspiring connections to the Lord's earthly events.
Mark said he had found my blood-red moon work interesting and began looking into possible connection to past and future Jewish Feasts at which time he found very significant connections.
I have provided blood-red moon information, and information on the coming total solar eclipses of 2008, 2009 and 2010—which all fall on the 1st of Av.
Seven back-to-back, blood-red moons have fallen on the first day of Passover and Sukkot, with the eighth time coming in 2014 and 2015
Mark found that we have had blood-red moons on the first day of Passover and the first day of Sukkot on back-to-back years seven times since 1 A.D. Three of these occurrences were connected to 1492 (the final year of the Spanish Inquisition), 1948 (statehood for Israel and the War of Independence), and 1967 (the Six-Day War) — some of the most significant days in Jewish history.
The others were in 162/163 A.D., 795/796 A.D., 842/843 A.D. and 860/861 A.D. We don’t have any historical connections for these years at this time, but we do know of significant Jewish persecution during the eighth and ninth centuries.
In all eight examples, the eclipses have fallen or will fall on the first day of Passover and Sukkot.
The eighth occurrence of back-to-back, blood-red moons will be in 2014–2015.
So what does the period of time from 2013 to 2015 portend for Israel and the world?
We will closely watch the peace efforts in Israel in 2008 to see if a peace deal is signed — knowing that 2015 would be seven years later. I am not date-setting, and I certainly won’t speculate, but the lineup of occurrences is very intriguing.
Solar eclipses of 2008, 2009 and 2010 — and their connection to the month of Av
Additionally, Mark has discovered through NASA that there will be three annual solar eclipses on the 1st of Av, beginning this year and running through 2010. We know that the month of Av — and especially the 9th of Av — has been the most trying period throughout history for the Jewish people.
Total solar eclipses have been a bad omen for the nations, while blood-red moons have been a bad omen for the Jewish people and Israel.
References
Lunar eclipses — click here.
Solar eclipses — click here.
Jewish Feast dates: 1998 to 2017 click here.
Month of Av information — click here.
---
Three sets of blood-red moons that corresponded to significant events:
The Spanish Inquisition final year 1492 when the Alhambra Decree ordered all remaining Jews who would not convert to Christianity to leave Spain, the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six-Day War had back-to-back, blood-red moons occur on the first day of Passover and Sukkot the following two years or beginning the same year of the 1967 Six-Day War for two years.
The Spanish Inquisition — 1492
* Passover, April 2, 1493
* Sukkoth, Sept. 25, 1493
* Passover, March 22, 1494
* Sukkoth, Sept. 15, 1494
The War of Independence — 1948
* Passover, April 13, 1949
* Sukkoth, Oct. 7, 1949
* Passover, April 2, 1950
* Sukkoth, Sept. 26, 1950
The Six-Day War — 1967
* First Day of Passover, April 24, 1967
* First Day of Sukkoth, Oct. 18, 1967
* First Day of Passover. April 13, 1968
* First Day of Sukkoth, Oct. 6, 1968
What will occur in the 2013–2015 time period?
* First Day of Passover, April 15, 2014
* First Day of Sukkoth, Oct. 8, 2014
* First Day of Passover, April 4, 2015
* First Day of Sukkoth, Sept. 28, 2015
Fall Feasts in 2015
* Rosh Hashanah (The Feast of Trumpets), Sept. 14
* Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement), Sept. 23
* Sukkoth (The Feast of Tabernacles), Sept. 28
This year's blood-red moon
During this year's Feb. 21 "blood-red" moon, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi spoke of preparation for war with Hezbollah and Hamas, and both those terror organizations leaders were bold in their rhetoric against Israel in this time of great tension.
The Temple Mount and blood-red moons
Previously, I wrote about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the two connections to peace talks and the blood-red moons of July 16, 2000, and Aug. 28, 2007.
The link to that article: click here.
The Blood-Red Moon, the Temple Mount and the Bible

Other interesting facts
* Passover is the first annual feast
* Sukkoth is the seventh and final annual feast
* Av is a month of mourning for the Jews
* The 17th of Tammuz to the 9th of Av is a 21-day period of mourning for the Jewish people (more info below)
* The next seven year cycle begins on Rosh Hashanah on Sept. 30, 2008, and ends on Rosh Hashanah on Sept. 13-14, 2015
* The sabbatical year in the seven-year cycle begins on Rosh Hashanah on Sept. 25, 2014, and ends on Rosh Hashanah on September 13-14, 2015 — the day of a partial solar eclipse
2000-year history of blood-red moons' connection to Passover and Sukkot
Mark says that during this century, the only string of four consecutive blood moons that coincide with God's holy days of Passover in the spring and the autumn's Feast of Tabernacles (also called Sukkoth) occur in 2014 and 2015 on today's Gregorian calendar.
He noticed a pattern:
There were no astronomical back-to-back blood-red moon events in the 1800s, the 1700s or the 1600s. In the 1500s, there were six, but none of those fell on Passover and Sukkoth. The 2014/2015 events will be the last this century.
Total solar eclipses and the month of Av
On the first of Av in 2008, 2009 and 2010, there will be total solar eclipses.
NASA: Total solar eclipses occur on these dates:
* Aug. 1, 2008 (1st of Av)
* July 22, 2009 (1st of Av)
* July 11, 2010 (1st of Av)
The 1st of Av falls on these dates in 2008, 2009 and 2010:
* Aug. 1, 2008 (5768)
* July 21, 2009 (5769)
* July 11, 2010 (5770)
NOTE: The first of Av begins at sundown and ends at sundown the following day.
The Month of Av Disaster and Consolation
by Rebbetzin Tzipporah Heller
The Month of Av Disaster and Consolation - click here.
By every measure the Jewish month of Av is tragically unique, one in which the worst disasters in our history took place.
The 15th of Av was a time of joy. In ancient times it was a day in which marriages were arranged and new beginnings celebrated. It was a time in which we began again, expressing not just who we don't want to be but who we can be.
Jewish history: Aaron died on 1st of Av (chabad.org)
Aaron died on the first day of Av (in the year 2447). He was 122 years old when he died, being three years older than Moses.
The entire people of Israel, both men and women, mourned the death of Aaron for 30 days. Everybody knew Aaron as a great lover of peace, who brought love and harmony among people and in many a home.
17 Tammuz to 9 Av — 21 days of mourning
The 21 days from 17 Tammuz to 9 Av, and the fast days of 17 Tammuz and 9 Av, are times of morning for the Jewish people.
The fast of the 17th of Tammuz, the day of the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem, marks the beginning of the "Three Weeks." The fast of the 9th of Av commemorates the day of the actual destruction by fire of the Holy Temple and is the last day of the Three Weeks. The Three Weeks is a period of mourning over these destructions.
Tisha B'Av:
Crash Course in Jewish History Part 35 - Destruction of the Temple - click here.
The 9th of Av 2008–2015
Tisha b'Av will occur on the following days on the Gregorian calendar:
* Sunset Aug. 9 - sundown Aug. 10, 2008
* Sunset July 29 – sundown July 30, 2009
* Sunset July 19 - sundown July 20, 2010
* Sunset Aug. 8 - sundown Aug. 9, 2011
* Sunset July 28 - sundown July 29, 2012
* Sunset July 15 – sundown July 16, 2013
* Sunset Aug. 4 - sundown Aug. 5, 2014
* Sunset July 25 – sundown July 26, 2015
Chart of 2014-2015: four blood-red moons and two solar eclipses
Mark prepared the following chart that shows the years 2014 to 2015.

Mark says, "You have the religious year beginning with the total solar eclipse on Adar 29/Nisan 1 (March 20, 2015); two weeks later, a total lunar eclipse on Passover (April 4, 2015); then the civil year beginning with the solar eclipse; followed two weeks later by another total blood-red moon on the Feast of Succoth — all in 2015."
---
Subscribe to the "Koenig's Eye View from the White House." The news report is delivered Friday by 5 pm EDT and posted in our Subscriber Area at the web site.
----
Subscription
The annual subscription costs $1 a week. A six-month subscription costs $1.15 a week.
Registration You can subscribe online by clicking here.
To register by mail you can use the form we provided by clicking here. Please fill the form out, enclose your check or credit card information, and mail it to Post Office Box 9124, McLean, VA 22102. We will subscribe you and then notify you by email.