Monday, September 15, 2014

Obama Bypasses Security Council On Impending ‘Invasion of Syria’

Obama Bypasses Security Council On Impending ‘Invasion of Syria’

 

The U.N. Security Council discusses the situation in Syria on June 26, 2014. Credit: UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz
The U.N. Security Council (UNSC), the only international body empowered to declare war and peace, continues to remain a silent witness to the widespread devastation and killings worldwide, including in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Ukraine.
A sharply divided UNSC has watched the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel, the genocide and war crimes in Syria, the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, the U.S. military attacks inside Iraq and now a virtual invasion of Syria – if U.S. President Barack Obama goes ahead with his threat to launch air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The United States has refused to go before the UNSC for authorization and legitimacy – even if it means suffering a veto by Russia or China or both.
Still, ironically, Obama is scheduled to preside over a UNSC meeting when he is in New York in late September since the United States holds the presidency under geographical rotation among the 15 members in the Council.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_Byp…

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-bypasses-security-council-on-impending-invasion-of-syria/#o7l7UpZqD7XfwqUE.99

IMPEACH THE MUSLIM OBAMA MUSIC VIDEO

Airstrikes Against ISIS Are Tactics... Here's What a Real ISIS Strategy Looks Like

Airstrikes Against ISIS Are Tactics... Here's What a Real ISIS Strategy Looks Like


By Daniel L. Davis, The Daily Beast
A U.S. Army officer with plenty of on-the-ground experience suggests the talking heads think through the consequences of their calls to action.
We’ve heard a lot lately about a “strategy” to take on the barbarous horde of the so-called Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL. At a White House briefing on August 28, President Barack Obama remarked that “we don’t have a strategy yet” and that as “our strategy develops we will consult with Congress.” Last week the President announced that we now have a “comprehensive strategy.” His critics, meanwhile, had been declaring for weeks that they were sure what should be done. Their talking-head “strategy,” expressed on countless cable news and radio talk shows, was “airstrikes,” and virtually nothing else. As it turned out, item one on the president’s four point plan was “a systematic campaign of airstrikes.” Many of those same critics were gratified.
As a soldier who’s spent a fair amount of time on the ground in conflict zones, I find this popular focus on the power of Hellfire missiles and precision bombing a little disconcerting. What many of the talking heads who’ve filled the airwaves since the savage murders of American journalist James Foley (then Steven Sotloff, and this weekend, British aid worker David Haines) apparently fail to understand is that tactics are not strategy. Without first establishing the latter, they advocate a tactic in the dark that, even if successfully attained, could worsen the situation with perverse consequences.
One especially memorable commentator to encourage bombing ISIS was the editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol. Appearing on the Laura Ingraham radio show on August 26, the conservative critic gave his expert opinion on how to deal with ISIS. “You know, why don't we just [bomb them]?” he advised.  “We know where ISIS is. What’s the harm of bombing them at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens? I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there.”
Regrettably, the application of “airstrikes” and other instruments of lethal military power in the United States has become a favorite tool of statecraft: just shoot ’em and see what happens. Maybe if more of these advocates had spent a little more time in combat zones to see the terminal end of these strikes, they might have a better understanding of what is and isn’t possible.  I have seen the on-the-ground results of many airstrikes, as well as the impact it had (or didn’t have) on the enemy. TV personalities often give very little consideration to what happens after the dust settles from the strike.
For example, what would happen if the President took Mr. Kristol’s advice and bombed targets “for a few weeks” and then waited just to “see what happens”?  The first few iterations of air sorties would have a good chance of taking out numerous ISIS vehicles and personnel.  But in short order ISIS would adjust its methods of operation to disguise vehicle movements, reposition troops and embed command and control centers more deeply into civilian areas, becoming indistinguishable from the civil population.

If You Take Him At His Word, Obama Is Insane

If You Take Him At His Word, Obama Is Insane

September 12, 2014 by  

If You Take Him At His Word, Obama Is Insane
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA
“I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised address Wednesday night. “It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”
If you take Obama at his word and believe that he believes what he said, he is utterly insane. There are currently U.S. troops on the ground in and around Iraq sent there by Obama. Whether there are 100 or 500 or 10,000 or more is irrelevant. Whether he calls them advisers or observers or something else is irrelevant. They are there, and their numbers are growing incrementally. That’s called “mission creep.”
The U.S. has spent most of the past decade training and arming Iraqi troops, al-Qaida-linked “freedom fighters” and an assortment of other ne’er-do-wells that he and his neocon buddies call “the good guys.” Those “good guys” are the same “good guys” that became the bad guys and ran roughshod over the vaunted U.S.-trained Iraqis, who surrendered their U.S. weaponry faster than a Frenchman on double-time.
So Obama’s strategy is to use bombs to kill ISIS troops — and, no doubt, civilians as “collateral damage” — and let the vaunted Iraqis and some new group of al-Qaida-linked “freedom fighters” (whom we trained and are continuing to train and who are aligned with ISIS against the Syrian regime) wage the fight against ISIS. In other words, he’s going to continue to do what he’s been doing for six years — and just add in some bombs for good measure. And he expects that to defeat ISIS.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. If you take him at his word, Obama is clearly insane.

Changes Coming

Our staff of designers and technical experts is hard at work behind the scenes making an all-new Personal Liberty Digest™ for you. Our editorial staff is diligently putting the finishing touches on a plan for more and better content.
Our goal is to create for you a Personal Liberty that looks cleaner and more modern. Our purpose is to make it easier for you to read on your desktop or laptop computer, while improving the functionality on mobile devices, given the current trends in Web-viewing habits. Our intent is, as always, to continue providing you with cogent and compelling commentary along with news stories that you may not have seen anywhere else — including breaking news. And we want to do it all with our own unique flair, which has made us the No. 1 stop for liberty-minded readers. In short, we want to be your go-to site for news of the day.
So look for changes in the days to come.

BREAKING: Benghazi “Boiler Room” Hid Investigation Docs To Save Obama & Clinton

BREAKING: Benghazi “Boiler Room” Hid Investigation Docs To Save Obama & Clinton


A bombshell report via longtime Benghazi investigator (and former CBS reporter) Sharyl Attkisson  charges a group of senior State Department staff met over the weekend in a basement following the Benghazi Massacre to pull any and all documents that might prove harmful to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. 

“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’  - Former State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Ray Maxwell
_______________________________

Former State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Ray Maxwell states senior aides met in the basement of  an after-hours Foggy Bottom location to go through Benghazi documents and remove any that might be damaging to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the Obama administration.

Those docs were supposed to be turned over the then just convened Accountability Review Board that was investigating the events before, during, and after the Benghazi Massacre. That review board’s report ultimately neglected to mention any involvement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Maxwell has already contacted newly appointed Benghazi investigator, Congressman Trey Gowdy. His testimony will likely result in a barrage of subpoenas as Congress works to determine who else was in that boiler room meeting, and more importantly, who initiated the cover up.

It also provides yet further evidence that the Obama administration NEVER believed the Benghazi Massacre to be the result of an unknown YouTube video. The administration went into full on cover up mode at the outset of the crisis. That doesn’t happen if it was the fault of a video.

You can access the full Attkisson report HERE

UPDATE: Congressman Jason Chaffetz weighs in on the stunning revelations via Fox News:

Benghazi Bombshell: Fox News Report Sharyl Attkisson's Exclusive: http://youtu.be/tDwh9i2eBTw via @YouTube

THERE IS THIS MAN ALL OVER FACEBOOK TWITTER AND GOOGLE HES AYS HE IS A CHRISTIAN BUT IS NOT

HE IS TRY IN TO MAKE CHRISTIANS CONVERT TO ISLAM BY SAY IN ALLAH IS GOD
GOD  OF THE BIBLE IS NOT THE GOD OF ISLAM
 THIS IS HIS FACEBOOK PAGE HE BELIEVES ALLAH IS GOD ALLAH IS NOT GOD

https://www.facebook.com/embree.walker.35
HERE IS HIS TWITTER
https://twitter.com/eawalker59

https://twitter.com/embreeo
THING HERE IS HERE IS IN STOP THE HOLLCOST ON PALINSTIEN GROUP
HE FOUGHT WITH ME ABOUT ALLAH IS GOD AND IF YOU DONT HAVE A STRONG BELIEVE IN GOD HE WILL MAKE YOU CONVERT TO ISLAM
ISLAM BELIEVES  N

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Former Labor Secretary stonewalls about possible Obama talks regarding FBI inquiry

Former Labor Secretary stonewalls about possible Obama talks regarding FBI inquiry

Former Obama administration Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is stonewalling about possible communications with President Barack Obama regarding an FBI inquiry into her involvement in an Obama re-election fundraiser.
Solis’ 2014 campaign for L.A. County Supervisor did not respond to Daily Caller inquiries into whether or not she discussed the FBI investigation with the president prior to her resignation from the administration.
Solis came under the FBI’s radar after she was the star guest at an Obama re-election fundraiser at the La Fonda Supper Club on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles intended to raise money from the Latino community. Solis has said she was aware that the Hatch Act prohibits Cabinet members from directly fundraising for political campaigns. But the FBI contacted California state senator Kevin de Leon in 2013 regarding Solis’ participation in the event.
A Solis campaign adviser previously acknowledged that Solis met with the FBI in November 2012, two months before she stepped down as Labor Secretary in January 2013, but maintained that “it is inappropriate for a Cabinet official to [discuss] private communications with the President.”
By the time Solis left the Obama administration, she owed the Washington office of the Chicago-based law firm Sidley Austin between $50,001 and $100,000 for “legal advice” pertaining to the FBI inquiry, according to a Feb. 2013 financial disclosure.
Sidley Austin lawyer Michelle Obama met Sidley summer associate Barack Obama at the Chicago firm in 1988. By May 2012, seven then-current or past Sidley attorneys had received Obama appointments. Sidley gained nearly $12 million in federal contracts between 2009 and May 2012, up from $1.4 million in the second term of the Bush administration.
Solis took thousands of dollars of free trips on a union’s jet to “avoid freeway traffic” and did not report the trips as required by federal law, according to a recent lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court against union leaders.