Obama Administration Leaks News of a Retaliatory Attack But Doesn’t Know on Who or Where?

Via White House 2012

Administration officials have stated that the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa in advance of  a an attempt to strike back at the al-Qaeda connected terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three Americans assigned to his detail in Benghazi, Libya last month.   Strangely, reports indicate that Administration officials stipulate that the retaliatory attack will occur only if US investigators can find the al-Qaeda-linked group responsible for the Benghazi terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate.

The odd stipulation seems to indicate that the Obama Administration is acting more on the intelligence coming from the Obama reelection campaign than it is on any actionable intelligence from Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI or NSA.

Under normal circumstances, no responsible Administration would warn their military target that they are about to be blown up by drones or slaughtered by members of the Special Forces by transmitting to the public that such attacks are be prepared for.  Furthermore; no responsible Administration would see any logic in claiming they were about to launch an attack and then essentially state but they don’t who the attack is against or will it take place.  But such is what the Obama Administration communicated to the world when  they admitted that US investigators have not yet found out who our target is or where they are.

This advanced warning from the Administration about the use of military muscle regarding the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya is nothing more than an attempt by the Obama reelection campaign to change the current narrative surrounding the Benghazi attacks.  That narrative is one which continues to point to an Administration which was incompetent and irresponsible in the days leading up to the Benghazi terrorist attack and in the days following the attack.

Since the attacks took place on September 11, 2012, the Administration has been offering what are at best misleading statements surrounding the attacks and in  the days after the attack, the Administration has acted in a way which has signaled an attempted coverup of the facts.  Some of the biggest questions still going unanswered includes, why the Administration failed to heighten security at our consulate on September 11th, a day which traditionally does bring the need for additional security?  Another question is why pleas for additional security from Ambassador Chris Stevens were not fulfilled?

Now as this tragic incident slowly boils up in to a political scandal, the Administration suddenly makes it clear that they are preparing for a retaliatory attack on  the people behind the act of terrorism on Americans in Libya but at the same time admit they have no knowledge of who they retaliate against.

Furthermore; according to the Associated Press officials say the Administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile up other governments in the region.

So the question becomes why did members of the Obama Administration leak this information about a pending retaliatory attack?  If there is no target and no action for it, obviously it is not about to happen?

The conclusion is this.  The Obama Administration which is trying to deny it had intelligence information regarding the threats on our consulate or regarding what was behind the attack, is now allowing the the Obama campaign to drive their foreign policy and national security agenda.  Only this time, the Administration is openly admitting that they have no intelligence regarding the actions they are saying they are preparing for.  Makes sense right?  Not really.

Read the rest here.

Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away

President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’.  In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

Shame on him!  A CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda
hit list. This was no isolated incident!

The PJ Tatler reported the US received threats earlier than that claimed by the administration:

Terrorists demanding the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman threatened the Cairo embassy on Sept 8. We posted an English translation of that threat on Sept 10. The jihadist threat to burn the US embassy in Cairo to the ground turned out to be very similar to what the jihadists in Benghazi actually did to the consulate there. That similarity points to a possible connection between the attacks.

One possible motivation for the administration to paint over the possible connection between the Cairo and Benghazi attacks, is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the Cairo attack. The Brotherhood was initially supportive of the “demonstration” and Egyptian President Morsi lent his personal support in the early going. The US embassy even caught the Brotherhood tweeting peace in English while exhorting the “demonstrators” in Arabic. If, it turns out, the Egyptian government had anything to do with the attack in Cairo, the probability that it had something to do with the attack in Benghazi as well has to be looked into. Our government might prefer to lie about that, though, than acknowledge that the new Egypt has perpetrated an act of war on the United States, on the anniversary        of 9-11.

Not only would the entire Arab Spring idea finally and deservedly unravel, but the administration would then have a major foreign policy crisis very much of its own making on its hands. The similarity between how Jimmy Carter lost Iran, and how Barack Obama would have lost Egypt, would be impossible to ignore.

Everyone in the administration seem to be tripping over their words and themselves.  According to Alexander Higgins:

From day one, the Obama administration was aware that the September 11 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, despite offering up conflicting explanations in the weeks since.

  Unnamed officials confirm to Fox News that the White House knew that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were behind the murder of four Americans in Libya, but only today did US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly acknowledge the truth.

Secretary Panetta now admits that the Pentagon knew within hours of the assault on America’s Benghazi consulate that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead that it was an act of terrorism.

The Obama administration has altered their explanation repeatedly in the weeks since Mr. Stevens and three others were killed on September 11, 2012 while on assignment in Libya. On Thursday, the Defense Department confirmed the attack as having been hatched by terrorists, despite earlier statements made by the White House that suggested an anti-American film produced in the US had triggered a spontaneous assault.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested earlier in the week that the attack in Benghazi may have been hatched by an al-Qaeda affiliate, yet another drastic change of heart from an Obama appointee this week.

In New York City on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton told attendees at a special United Nations meeting that the September 11 assault first thought by the White House to be a spontaneous response to an Anti-Islam film made in America could have been orchestrated by extremists in North Africa, specifically those subscribed to an off-shoot of al-Qaeda.

The Washington Post reported a timeline of the ever-changing lies and cover-up.  I have included a few of them:

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

— Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.  That report is false.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 14

“Based on the best information we have to date … it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent…. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

— Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16

“We had a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

— Rice, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sept. 16

(Note: the U.S. post was not a consulate and its precise role is still a mystery.)

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

— Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, president of Libya’s General National Congress, Sept. 16

“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17

Suddenly, a shift to a ‘terrorist attack’

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

“We are focused on who was responsible for this attack. At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area, as well. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

— Mathew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testimony before Congress, Sept. 19, after being asked a direct question.

CNN reports on Sept. 19 that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been worried by the security threats in Benghazi. CNN later acknowledged the information came from Steven’s journal.

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self- evident. “He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20

CBS News reports there never was anti-American protest.

“Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account.”

— Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News report aired Sept. 20

But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

— Clinton, statement at a  meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21, 2012

Read the full timeline here.

Dictator Obama Once Again Ignores Laws and Defies Congress by Gutting Welfare Reform

As if the Dictator-in-Chief hasn’t done enough shredding of our Constitution, he has now decided to ignore the 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.  Even though Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority, the Dictator has now authorized HHS to do just that.  When will the narcissistic man-child stop acting like a dictator and more like a leader?  When will he stop giving the American people the middle finger and follow our laws? Never!  That is why he has to go…….

From Amy Payne via Heritage

The imperial Presidency has overturned Congress and the law again. Not content to stop at rewriting immigration policy, education policy and energy policy, yesterday, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the Clinton-era reform.

While this real news occurred yesterday, most of the media remained fixated on political ads and speeches, letting a major and unilateral shift in America’s welfare system go nearly unreported.

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Heritage Foundation played a pivotal role in building bipartisan consensus for the reform and providing many of the recommendations that became part of the law. The whole point was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

This reform was very successful. TANF became the only welfare program (out of more than 70) that promoted greater self-reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose. Recipients were required to perform at least 20–30 hours per week of work or job preparation activities in exchange for the cash benefit.

Now, Obama’s HHS is claiming that it can waive those work requirements that are at the heart of the law, and without Congress’s consent.

When it established TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority. They explicitly did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of HHS bureaucrats. In a December 2001, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that there was no authority to override work and other major requirements: “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers,” it reported.

But that did not stop the Obama Administration, which has been increasing welfare spending at an alarming rate already. President Obama has added millions to the welfare rolls, and his Administration has come under fire lately for its efforts to expand and add more Americans to the food stamp program.

This is a chronic problem: Over the past two decades, welfare spending has grown more rapidly than Social Security and Medicare, education, and defense. The TANF reform was one small step in the direction of reducing Americans’ dependence on government programs and getting them back on their feet. Cutting its work component is likely to unnecessarily swell the ranks of welfare recipients and with no way to pay for it.

Heritage experts Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley explained further in their comprehensive analysis of yesterday’s announcement:

In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work. The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law.

Obama certainly didn’t tell people he was going to gut welfare reform when he was running for President in 2008—and why would he? “Welfare horror stories helped elect Ronald Reagan,” wrote Mickey Kaus of The Daily Caller. “A promise to ‘end welfare as we know it’ elected President Clinton…And in 2008, Barack Obama didn’t dare suggest that he wanted to do what he has done today.”

While the 1996 welfare reform successfully moved people from welfare into work, it did not “end welfare as we know it.” Now, however, the Obama Administration has ended welfare reform as we know it. The President cannot hide his disastrous unemployment record by depriving Americans of the hope of a job. He should immediately reverse this course, and offer constructive ideas for economic growth rather than government dependence.

Fact Sheet on Welfare Reform

For more click here.

Obama’s Energy Department Sneaks 30-year Offshore Moratorium Past Public

By Thomas J. Pyle via The Washington Times

While the Obama administration was taking a victory lap last week after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold the president’s signature legislative accomplishment, Obamacare, the Interior Department was using the media black hole to release a much-awaited five-year plan for offshore drilling. That plan reinstitutes a 30-year moratorium on offshore energy exploration that will keep our most promising resources locked away until long after President Obama begins plans for his presidential library. Given the timing, it is clear that the self-described “all of the above” energy president didn’t want the American people to discover that he was denying access to nearly 98 percent of America’s vast energy potential on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953 provided the interior secretary with the authority to administer mineral exploration and development off our nation’s coastlines. At its most basic level, the act empowers the interior secretary – in this case, former U.S. Sen. Kenneth L. Salazar of Colorado – to provide oil and gas leases to the highest-qualified bidder while establishing guidelines for implementing an oil and gas exploration-and-development program for the Outer Continental Shelf. In 1978, in the wake of the oil crisis and spiking gasoline prices, Congress amended the act to require a series of five-year plans that provide a schedule for the sale of oil and gas leases to meet America’s national energy needs.

But since taking office, Mr. Obama and Mr. Salazar have worked to restrict access to our offshore oil and gas resources by canceling lease sales, delaying others and creating an atmosphere of uncertainty about America’s future offshore development that has left job creators looking for other countries’ waters to host their offshore rigs. More than 3 1/2 years into the Obama regime, nearly 86 billion barrels of undiscovered oil on the Outer Continental Shelf remain off-limits to Americans. Alaska alone has about 24 billion barrels of oil in unleased federal waters. The Commonwealth of Virginia – where Mr. Obama has reversed policies that would have allowed offshore development – is home to 130 million barrels of offshore oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But thanks to the president, Virginians will have to wait at least another five years before they can begin creating the jobs that will unlock their offshore resources.

Once you add those restrictions to the vast amount of shale oil that is being blocked, the administration has embargoed nearly 200 years of domestic oil supply. No wonder the administration wanted to slip its plan for the OCS under the radar when the whole country was focused on the health care decision.

But facts are stubborn things, and the Obama administration cannot run forever from its abysmal energy record. In the past three years, the government has collected more than 250 times less revenue from offshore lease sales than it did during the last year of the George W. Bush administration – down from $9.48 billion in 2008 to a paltry $36 million last year. Meanwhile, oil production on federal lands dropped 13 percent last year, and the number of annual leases is down more than 50 percent from the Clinton era.

Under the new Obama plan, those numbers will only get worse. The 2012-17 plan leaves out the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the vast majority of OCS areas off Alaska. It cuts in half the average number of lease sales per year, requires higher minimum bids and shorter lease periods and dramatically reduces lease terms. Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to believe that our “all of the above” president is responsible for increased production and reduced oil import.

With oil hovering around $85 a barrel and nationwide gas prices nearly double what they were when Mr. Obama took office, you’d think the administration might implement a sensible plan to promote robust job creation and safe offshore energy development. Instead, what we get is the latest phase in the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy, filed under cover of media darkness while the nation was swallowing its Obamacare medicine.

Thomas J. Pyle is president of the Institute for Energy Research.

Read more here.

Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security

Ronald Kessler via Newsmax 

English: A March 2009 meeting of the United St... News reports on Tuesday disclosed that the FBI is probing the leaking of information about a classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, but a close look at recent developments uncovers a broad and disturbing pattern of leaks of some of the nation’s most guarded secrets by the Obama administration.

John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, set the tone a year ago when he went on national television immediately after the killing of Osama bin Laden and gave a highly detailed account of the top-secret operation.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates, for one, was shocked.

“Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation,” Gates said, adding that the level of disclosures and blabbing violates an agreement reached in the White House Situation Room on May 8, 2011, to keep details of the raid private.

“That lasted about 15 hours,” Gates said with chagrin.

Then came disclosures that directly revealed secrets helpful to the enemy, that could endanger lives, and undermine trust by other countries and potential informants in U.S. intelligence operations.

Soon after the bin Laden raid, word began leaking to the press that a Pakistani doctor had helped the CIA operation.

In fact, Dr. Shakil Afridi reportedly provided critical intelligence on the location and identify of the al-Qaida leader. He had set up a fake vaccination program to obtain DNA during a visit by bin Laden.

Following the leaks, Afridi was arrested and on May 23 he was sentenced to 33 years in prison on a charge of conspiring against the state.

“The blame has been placed on my brother because of America,” Shakil’s brother Jamil told Fox News.

The protection of secret sources of the United States is not only good sense, it is vital for continuing operations and getting new sources that could improve our security and prevent the loss of American lives. But who will trust us if we leak sensitive information?

And critics of the Obama administration point to a pattern of leaks over a long period:

  • On May 9, The Associated Press reported that a CIA asset from Saudi Arabia had infiltrated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and thwarted a planned “underwear bomb” attack on an airplane bound for America. As a result of that disclosure, the asset had to be extracted and brought to the United States, possibly precluding opportunities for obtaining future inside information from within the terrorist group.
  • On May 29, The New York Times ran a detailed account of how President Obama directs U.S. drone attacks based on a classified “kill list” of terror suspects. The story rightly credited Obama with killing top al-Qaida leaders. Sen. John McCain has charged that the kill list leak was politically motivated.
  • On June 1, The New York Times ran a story revealing an alleged U.S. covert action program called Olympic Games, designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear program with computer virus attacks utilizing first the Stuxnet computer worm and later the Duqu malware. Thanks to the Times article, which cited U.S. government sources, details of the previously unknown operations are now public, including how the programs were supposed to operate and the involvement of Israeli intelligence. Up to that point, the possibility that the U.S. or Israel was behind the cyberattacks on Iran’s computers was pure speculation. In effect, the Times story provided Iran with a roadmap on U.S. efforts to defeat its nuclear bomb efforts.
  • Another front-page New York Times article in 2011 disclosed that the Obama administration had agreed to sell to Israel bunker-buster bombs capable of destroying buried targets, including suspected nuclear weapons sites in Iran.

The Bush administration had rebuffed Israeli requests for the bombs. But word of Obama’s sale to Israel came soon after Republican Bob Turner captured the U.S. House seat vacated by the resignation of scandal-marred Anthony Weiner in a Queens, N.Y., district with a large Jewish population.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch cited Turner’s election in a Newsmax column explaining why he had decided to back Obama for re-election in 2012. He referred to a New York Times article reporting that the United States had agreed to back Israel’s call for a return to negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions, saying the agreement was “affected” by Turner’s win, and stating that “the president should be praised” for “providing the Israeli military with bunker buster bombs” — a clear reference to the Times story about the bombs that had the effect of bucking up Jewish support for Obama.

The leaks — which have accelerated as Obama’s re-election efforts have stumbled — have provoked bipartisan outrage.

“In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities including specific details of sources and methods,” said a joint statement released by the top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

“The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable,” said the statement from Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. — the chair and ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee — and Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, D-Md. – the chair and ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

“These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future. Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.”

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Post that the leaking of vital secrets reflects an “amateur hour” style of management at the White House.

“It’s a pattern that goes back two years, starting with the Times Square bomber, where somebody in the federal government, probably the FBI, leaked his name before he was captured,” he said.

“They mentioned we had DNA, which is how the Pakistanis focused on the doctor they arrested.

“It puts our people at risk and gives information to the enemy. And it gives our allies a reason not to work with us because what they do might show up on the front page of The New York Times.”

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, directly accused the Obama administration of leaking sensitive intelligence information to make Obama look good.

“This is the most highly classified information and it has now been leaked by the administration at the highest levels of the White House. That’s not acceptable,” McCain said on CBS, referring to several of the recent stories.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney rejected McCain’s claims.

“This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations,” Carney told reporters.

“Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible.”

By inserting the phrase “for political gain,” Carney avoided denying outright that Obama had authorized the leaks. Obama could have authorized the disclosures without admitting to himself that his intent was to help him win re-election. In that case, since the president can declassify information, the disclosures would not technically be considered leaks — but they would be just as harmful.

The FBI has begun an investigation of at least two of the leaks. In addition to the probe of the cyberattacks against Iran, FBI Director Robert Mueller disclosed on May 16 that the bureau has launched an investigation into who leaked information about the al-Qaida “underwear bomber” plot to place an explosive device aboard a U.S.-bound airline flight.

Overlooked in most of the coverage is the role of the press. When Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA operative, the press turned the disclosure into a scandal and blamed the George W. Bush administration. Plame was technically undercover but not in any danger.

Yet The New York Times ran 521 stories suggesting it was wrong for the White House, and specifically Karl Rove, to divulge her name. Only 27 of the articles mentioned the person who actually leaked her name to columnist Robert Novak, former State Department official Richard Armitage, who ironically was critical of the Bush administration.

In contrast, the press now is silent on leaks that genuinely impair national security and whether the Obama White House is behind the disclosures. Nor are journalists examining the legitimacy of publishing such information in the first place.

It’s one thing to disclose classified information to expose an abuse — meaning an illegal act for political or otherwise improper purposes.

It’s another to disclose secrets for the sake of revealing secrets, when agencies are doing their jobs properly and when uncovering how they perform them prevents them from carrying out secret operations in the future.

The U.S. won World War II in part because America could intercept and decode German and Japanese military transmissions. That remained a secret until long after the war was over. Back then “loose lips sink ships” was the operative slogan.

If another major terrorist attacks occurs because foreign intelligence services and potential assets no longer want to risk cooperating with the CIA, papers like The New York Times will be the first to condemn the intelligence agencies for failing at their mission.

In their joint statement, the congressional leaders said they plan to “press the executive branch to take tangible and demonstrable steps to detect and deter intelligence leaks, and to fully, fairly, and impartially investigate the disclosures that have taken place.”

In particular, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, called for Capitol Hill hearings about the cyberattack leak.

“I am deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media, most recently regarding alleged cyber efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program,” Feinstein said.

“We plan to move legislation quickly, to include possible action in this year’s intelligence authorization act,” the lawmakers said. “We believe that significant changes are needed, in legislation, in the culture of the agencies that deal with classified information, in punishing leaks, and in the level of leadership across the government to make clear that these types of disclosures will not stand.”

Said Rep. Ruppersberger: “These leaks can be dangerous to our country, they can hurt us with our allies, and they could have very serious consequences. They’ve got to be stopped.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. He is the New York Times bestselling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA.

Related articles

Obama Admin skewers numbers for “Green Jobs” – Watch them squirm!

“If you sweep the floor at a solar panel facility, is that considered a green job?” Congressman Darrell E. Issa   “Yes.”

Government official confirms that Obama Administration definition of “green jobs” include such things are putting gas into a school bus, driving a school bus, working at a bicycle shop, or working at a used record shop.

Obama Bogged Down by Scandals

By Phyllis Schlafly via Eagle Forum

Increasing public disapproval of Barack Obama is based not only on his extravagant spending that hangs debt like an albatross around the necks of our children and grandchildren.  He is presiding over the most scandal-ridden administration in decades, from Colombia to Las Vegas, to the Mexican border, to Solyndra, and more.

The Secret Service’s prostitution party in Colombia is an international embarrassment.  It’s not sufficient punishment that a few guilty men have been allowed to resign or retire with benefits because many questions are still crying to be answered.

Who arranged the party at the now-notorious Pley Club Cartagena, which apparently supplied enough girls for eleven Secret Service and ten U.S. military men staying in separate rooms at the historic Hotel Caribe, where prostitution is openly tolerated?

Is there any connection between this moral scandal and our recent trade agreement with Colombia?  Were there any similar parties to con the United States into going along with this free-trade deal favorable to Colombia?

Another embarrassing scandal is the General Services Administration’s $823,000 junket to Las Vegas.  Obama Administration bureaucrats apparently think parties are perks that go along with their jobs.

Living high on the hog, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been charging the Pentagon $32,000 per flight to jet to California every few weeks.  And don’t forget the half-billion-dollar gift to Solyndra before it took bankruptcy and left U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

“Fast and Furious” turned out to be a bloody scandal after the U.S. Justice Department okayed the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, under the ridiculous excuse that this would give us the opportunity to get more information about the drug dealers.  Somebody should be held accountable for the fact that one of these U.S. guns was used to murder U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Operation Fast and Furious allowed over 2,000 weapons to be smuggled to the violent Mexican drug cartels.  A new book by investigative journalist Katie Pavlich, called “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-up,” asserts that a third gun was involved whose existence was covered up by the FBI and the Justice Department.

Another scandal is that the Obama Administration is suing several states.  We need more aggressive Tenth Amendment advocates to publicize and overturn these travesties.

Obama is suing Arizona to try to knock out its law to protect its citizens against illegal aliens, a law that polls show Americans support by two-to-one.  The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week.

The Arizona law allows local law enforcement to question the legal status of anyone who is stopped on suspicion of a crime, and then detain anyone who cannot prove legal U.S. residency.  Illegal immigration is already a federal crime, and the Arizona law is an attempt to do some enforcement that the feds are failing to do.

The Obama Administration wants the courts to prevent the states from enforcing laws that Obama refuses to enforce.  Similar lawsuits have been filed against Alabama, Georgia, and Utah.

In the Supreme Court case against Arizona, nine states have filed amicusbriefs supporting Arizona, including Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.  They say they “have a manifest interest in ensuring that their sovereignty is accorded proper respect,” and that each state should be able to decide for itself how to protect its citizens from the crime and costs associated with illegal aliens.

Amicusbriefs from foreign governments opposing the Alabama and Georgia laws were filed by Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El  Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru.  We need federal and state laws to prevent our courts from considering foreign laws, treaties, court decisions, or briefs in interpreting U.S. laws.

It looks like voter fraud is one of the ways that Barack Obama plans to be reelected in November.  He has had his Justice Department block Texas and South Carolina laws that require showing a photo ID in order to vote, even though polls report that 70 percent of Americans support voter ID.

In defending Texas’s law, Governor Rick Perry said it “requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane.”  At least eight states have passed similar laws, and even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s 2004 ballot initiative requiring voters to show photo ID in order to vote.

The Constitution makes it a major duty of the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Despite the fact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the law of the land, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, Obama is instead ordering his Justice Department not to defend this law in court.

Further reading:

For more information click here.

Israeli Intelligence Information Leaked by Obama Administration

Via Reagan Coalition

, alternative version as used on the Israeli G...

Israeli Intelligence Information Leaked by Obama Administration

According to a new report by the United States, Israel has been given access to Azerbaijan, a country to the North of Iran. This would faciliate an attack on Iran much easier for them because of the proximity.

Why would the US leak such vital information?

According to John Bolton, it is because Obama feels an attack on Iran by Israel is more dangerous than Iran getting nukes. So to release this information would be to undermine their ability and capacity to strike.

Bolton: ‘Releasing this information so that the Iranians now know about takes away potentially a very powerful attack.’

Attorneys General Join Forces to Call Into Account Illegal Obama Administration Violations

via Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC)

 

The following is a report published by the RSLC summarizing some of the Obama administration’s flagrant and continued violations of the US Constitution.  These abuses, coupled with recent questionable Executive Orders, confirm the man is a delusional child who thinks he is a leader without boundaries.  Top cop, Eric Holder, is doing his best to thwart all efforts of states trying to implement voter ID laws and to secure a second term for his boss.  Liberal judges are continually overturning laws that states and their citizens voted on and passed.  What has happened to ‘we the people’ or ‘representatives of the people’ or even states’ rights?  Since Congress has done nothing to stop Obama, we will have to. This will be the most important election in our lifetime – we need to roll up our sleeves and do all we can to defeat our narcisisstic delusional President — Kasey Jachim

 

MEMO:          A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

FROM:           Attorneys  General Tom Horne, Arizona; Pam Bondi, Florida; Sam Olens, Georgia; Bill  Schuette, Michigan; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma; Marty Jackley, South Dakota; Alan  Wilson, South Carolina; Greg Abbott, Texas; Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia

DATE:            March 5, 2012

---

Introduction

As chief  legal officers of the states and commonwealths, attorneys general are the last  line of defense against an increasingly overreaching federal government.  Attorneys general have a duty to uphold the  laws of their respective states and uphold the U.S. and state constitutions.

One of the  ways in which attorneys general protect the integrity of state laws and  constitutions is by carefully reviewing the actions of the federal government  and responding when they break the law or overstep the bounds of the  Constitution.

Federalism  is the division of authority between the federal and state governments that the  Founding Fathers created to provide a check on federal power so that the federal  government would not become destructive of the very liberty it was instituted  to protect.

While some  naïvely argue that the Constitution should “evolve” due to the fact that our Founders  could not have foreseen the issues faced by our country today, they forget that  the Founders faced tyranny firsthand and understood it well.  This led to the creation of a Constitution  that relies on limited government, precisely to protect our citizens from  today’s unprecedented overstepping of the “division of authority.”

The Landscape

While each Attorney  General has policy disagreements with the Obama Administration, those disagreements  are not what serve as the basis for this effort.  For example, this Administration makes many  decisions and takes numerous actions that Republican attorneys general find  politically ignorant or flawed from a policy standpoint.  However, that does not make those decisions  or actions illegal.  The purpose of this  report is to outline actions taken by this Administration that are violations  of law.

The obvious  example is a federal health care overhaul, passed against the will of the  majority of Americans and more importantly in violation of the Constitution,  which is now being challenged by more than half of the states.

While the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has received the most  attention, it serves as a representation of a much larger picture that  demonstrates the continued disdain for the Constitution and laws shown by the  Obama Administration.

Through the  collective review by a committee of Attorneys General from nine of the 50  states, the group identified more than 21 illegal actions from this  Administration and is highlighting the effects of the federal overreach on our  citizens and states.

The Impact

Whether it  is through the EPA, NLRB, Office of Surface Mining, FCC or other entities, the  Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement  policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the  law.

In Florida, a state with one of the most  aggressive and innovative water quality protection programs in the country, the  EPA chose to impose its own costly, unprecedented and unscientific numeric  nutrient criteria.  The estimated impact  the EPA’s rules would impose was dramatic, including billions of dollars in  compliance costs, significant spikes in utility bills and the loss of thousands  of jobs.  The Florida Attorney General’s  Office sued the EPA and two weeks ago prevailed when a federal judge in  Tallahassee threw out the costliest of the EPA’s rules, the one governing  Florida’s streams and rivers.  In doing  so, the judge found the EPA’s rules were not based on sound science and that  the agency had failed to prove that its rule would prevent any harm to the  environment – in other words, the EPA was found to have violated the law.

In South Carolina, the NLRB’s recess-appointed,  unconfirmed general counsel threatened to sue the state for guaranteeing a  secret ballot in union elections, despite 83 percent of South Carolinians  voting for an amendment for such action.   When South Carolina was joined by three other states in mounting a  vigorous defense, the NLRB backed down but turned their attention to Boeing, a  private company and corporate citizen of South Carolina, telling the employer  where they could or could not locate facilities.  Again – after a high-profile fight – the NLRB  backed down in their complaint against Boeing, but only after the company and  the union worked through an agreement.

In Arizona, voters passed a referendum  requiring that individuals registering to vote show evidence that they are  citizens.  Over 90 percent of the  population can satisfy this simply by writing down a driver’s license number or  naturalization number.  The less than 10  percent of those who do not have these numbers are able to register by mailing  a copy of a birth certificate, passport, Indian registration number or similar  documentation.  The Obama Administration  argued against Arizona in the Ninth Circuit and a decision is yet to be made.

In Oklahoma, the EPA illegally usurped  Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for  addressing sources of emissions by imposing a federal implementation plan.  The federal plan goes beyond the authority  granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in a $2 billion cost to  install technology needed to complete the EPA plan and a permanent increase of  15-20 percent in the cost of electricity.   The Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed  in  the Tenth Circuit Court of  Appeals.

The ongoing  fight over the individual mandate and these four state examples serve as only a  representation of the more than 21 Obama Administration violations that  attorneys general are fighting against.

Taking Action

What these nine  Attorneys General have collectively confirmed is that this Administration  repeatedly shows disdain for states, federal laws it finds inconvenient, the  Constitution and the courts.

With the  release of this report, and its extensive list of transgressions, two  principles are abundantly clear:

  • This  group of nine Attorneys General will grow and continue to serve as a de facto  “task force,” assisting when possible to defend state laws and identifying  “best practices” and legal arguments to fight back against the Obama  Administration’s illegalities in a more cohesive and effective manner;
  • The  next election is critically important and as the states’ chief legal officers,  the attorneys general will make a concerted effort to educate their states’  voters on the impacts that the Obama Administration’s legal violations have on  their every day lives.

Regardless  of party, when Washington politicians fail to adhere to the Constitution and  the rule of law, state attorneys general become the last line of defense  against an overreaching federal government.

List of Violations

  • FCC:  Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of  Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to  regulate the Internet
  • PPACA:  Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • EPA  1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA  failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals  for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM:  Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority  for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30  years
  • NLRB:  Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as  described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior  is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80  percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South  Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the  state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities
  • EPA:  Florida Water; EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria pre-empted Florida standards;  U.S. District Judge upheld the state’s site-specific alternative criteria for  streams and rivers
  • EPA:  Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application  rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the  regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the  proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution  from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more  than 500 miles and three states away from Texas
  • EPA:  Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in  the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources  of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan;  Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act  and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete  the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of  electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was  filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • HHS:  Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist  and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they  find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with  an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to  provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation  made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are  self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty  and oppose the HHS mandate
  • DOJ:  South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are  similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which  calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to  administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by  state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South  Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in  order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter  does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ:  Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar  to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOJ:  Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th  Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable  measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects  Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of  illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number
  • DOJ:  Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after  parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts  of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific  provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public  school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal  immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to  always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens  who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law
  • DOJ:  South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South  Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is  scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be  heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit  granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court  issues an Opinion in AZ
  • Congressional:  “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)
  • EEOC:  Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her  disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church
  • DOE:  Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily  broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American  history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing  application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result,  contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31  billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards  the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds  and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts  associated with Yucca Mountain
  • DOI:  Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation  because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to  become another Las Vegas against its will.   Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to  a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build  a resort and casino.

Americans Are Better Than Who Obama Thinks We Are

By Lloyd Marcus via Tea Party Nation

Along with their ever-present accusation that anyone who criticizes or disagrees with America’s first black president is a racist, class envy is the centerpiece of Obama’s re-election campaign.

It is extremely disheartening that the president of the United States believes he can win the votes of a majority of Americans by exploiting the sin of covetousness and hatred for the rich. In every speech, Obama claims that the rich are not paying their fair share. Please excuse my frankness, but Obama is lying.

Here are the facts.

Half the country — yes, I said half — do not pay taxes at all. Zero! The majority of federal income taxes (70%) are paid by the top 10 percent of income-earners. http://bit.ly/pgh5Wh As for Obama’s claim that we can solve America’s financial problems by forcing the rich to pay more, it is despicable, manipulative, and hate-inspiring nonsense. There are only 8,000 Americans who earn over 10 million dollars per year. If Obama confiscated all their money, it would finance our government for only 24 days. Then what?

What group of Americans will Obama attack next by trashing and demonizing them to gain public approval to confiscate everything for which they have worked hard, suffered, sacrificed and risked all for “government” redistribution?

Our national debt has tripled since Obama has been in office. Now, I know that that does not mean a lot to most Americans. Well, allow me to put it in perspective. Every minute, we spend 3 million dollars that we do not have, borrowing most of it from China. Every minute! Our debt is bankrupting the future and enslaving our great-great-great-grandkids.

So, you can understand why I find Obama’s rants about the rich not paying enough and how people will die unless Republicans raise the debt ceiling so disingenuous and unsupportable.

But there is a much greater issue at hand. Who does this man (Obama) think, we, the American people, are? The Obama administration and his media minions are trying to convince us that the entitlement-minded OWS lowlifes represent “mainstream Americans.” They are lying.

I represent mainstream Americans. I began working when I was about ten years old. I had a paper route and worked pulling copper out of old motors for my neighbor across the street, Mr. Buddy-Roy, in his backyard. At 15, my dad got me a work permit, and I acquired my first real job during the summer at Park Sign Co. in Baltimore. There I learned how to silk-screen signs.

Interesting sidebar: experience prompted Berry, the owner of Park Sign, to always get his money upfront for political signs, because if the candidate did not win the race, Berry would not get paid.

Back to my point. Like me, most Americans do not believe they are entitled to the fruits of a fellow American’s labor. And yet, this is who Obama thinks we are and desires us to be.

We all remember our classmates who smoked dope, cut classes, and dropped out versus the kids who studied, worked hard, and became doctors. According to Obama, in his “community organizer” way of thinking, the Democratic party, and the Occupiers, the kid who became a doctor is a selfish, greedy rich person who achieved his success on the backs of the poor dope-smoking dropouts.

Please do not think I am saying everyone who is poor smokes dope. Reasonable people get my point.

Obama and company have launched a war on achievement, portraying the highly successful as selfish villains and everyone else as lowly peasant-saints who are suffering because the rich are hogging it all. Clearly, Obama is exploiting man’s susceptibility to the sin of covetousness. And to all you Christians who buy into Obama’s “fairness” garbage, shame on you. Jesus was not a socialist.

When Judas scolded Mary for pouring her expensive ointment on Jesus’ feet rather than selling it and giving the money to the poor, Jesus scolded Judas, saying, “The poor you will have with you always.” In essence, Jesus was saying there will always be those who smoke dope, cut classes, and drop out of school. Liberals’ relentless efforts to legislate equal outcomes never work. For one thing, humans are diverse in their desires.

The Obama and company vision for America is incompatible with what has made us great. Do we really want to become a nation where government dictates and caps wealth, which they redistribute equally? Heck no!

Freedom to be all one can be is the magic ingredient which has made us the most extraordinarily successful nation on the planet. America is a guy laboring in his basement to build a better mousetrap in an effort to improve the fortunes of his family and himself. Great wealth is his reward for providing rodent relief to millions. If the Obama administration confiscates huge chunks of the successful mousetrap-maker’s profits, what incentive is there for him to invest more time, funds, blood, sweat, and tears to improve his product?

It is extremely depressing and sad to think of our great country becoming as Obama sees us — a nation of entitlement-minded losers, all dependent and helpless without government. As I stated, that is not who we are as a people. We are Americans!

Incredibly, we have a leftist president who simply does not get it. We must vote Obama out in November 2012.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

Lloyd is singer/songwriter of the American Tea Party Anthem and author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michele Malkin.  For more click here

.