Rep. Allen West blasts cover-up attempts as White House defends evolving Benghazi attack accounts

While the White House is denying the events and cover-up of the Benghazi attack, Rep. Allen West denounces their pathetic attempts to shuffle the blame.  When asked whether or not he thought someone should be fired over this debacle, West responded “I think on 6 November that person will be fired”!

 

 

 

Watch his interview with Fox News here.

 

And if you want to know what West thinks of Ambassador Susan Rice (“Asinine, Naive, Inept, Incompetent and Borderline Ignorant”), watch the following video.
 

Rep Allen West: Abortion threatens the future of black Americans

On Capitol Hill last week, Rep. Allen West gathered a group of pro-life  activists together to get out the message that abortion threatens the  future of the black Americans. “Today, we’re talking about the future,”  West said. “It’s not just the $16 trillion in debt that we’re about to  put on our children and grandchildren. It’s the fact that we’re not even allowing our children and grandchildren to be born.”

 

 

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – Adding to the argument that abortion threatens one sector of American society over others, Catherine Davis, president of The Restoration Project pointed out to the great racial disparity of women currently getting abortions.Davis said that according to the Centers for Disease Control, statistics prove that while blacks represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, 35 percent of abortions are performed on black women.

“There is one organization whose mission is one of population control that greatly influences this disproportionate rate – that’s Planned Parenthood,” Davis said. Davis, along with other panelists, called for Congress to stop funding the organization. “They are the largest abortion provider, performing more than 329,000 abortions a year.”

Rep. West is an ardent critic of taxpayer funding for the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortion, Planned Parenthood. West, one of two African American Republicans currently serving in Congress, has called attention to the disproportionately high abortion rate in the African American community. “It is absolutely offensive to me that Planned Parenthood is located in so many of our black communities,” West previously stated at a town hall meeting.

Other speakers at the event included Ryan Bomberger, founder of the Radiance Foundation. Bomberger’s mother was raped but carried her pregnancy to later give Bomberger up for adoption.

Bomberger’s biography states that, “His life defies the myth of the ‘unwanted’ child as he was adopted, loved and has flourished.”

West says that while cutting the federal debt and deficit, limited government, and a strong defense are vital to a strong America, the social pillars are also important.

“We cannot forget our traditional cultural values: the strength of marriage, the strength of family, the protection of the unborn,” West said.

See video and read the rest here.

Obama gives tepid response to Embassy massacre – where is the emotion, anger, leadership?

I remember a few years ago an emotional President Obama very loudly and very angrily chastised the Cambridge Police for questioning Professor Gates regarding a possible break-in.  Where was that emotion and anger when he discussed the massacre and, in my opinion, act of terrorism at our embassy in Libya?  Where was that anger when he mentioned the loss of four American lives?  Why wasn’t the massacre designated as an act of terror?  On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11?  The 9/11 tragedy that once united our country?  The country our president is now dividing?

 

His lack of emotion reminds me of his laughable ‘shout out’ before announcing the ‘workplace violence’ that killed 13 soldiers and civilians at Ft. Hood.  President Barack Hussein Obama has shown us his true colors and they are not red, white and blue.

Obama has alienated Israel and once again snubbed Bibi Netanyahu while endorsing and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover in Egypt.  In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  Well, sir, they are shifting in an ugly direction and we now know where you stand.

From Allen West Republic this statement from Congressman Allen West expresses my sentiments exactly:

“The Obama Administration touted the Arab Spring as an awakening of freedom, which we now see is a nightmare of Islamism. Even more concerning, is the initial response to these attacks last night from the embassy officials of the Obama Administration was to apologize for a Facebook video that supposedly hurt Muslim feelings.  President Obama’s policy of appeasement towards the Islamic world has manifested itself into a specter of unconscionable hatred. How anyone can believe this President is strong on national security and foreign policy is beyond my comprehension.  President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House.”

President Obama needs to start acting like a president and leader instead of an apologetic campaigner.  Maybe he should stay in DC long enough to meet with his security council – he might actually learn something.  From Counter Jihad Report:

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his Presidential Daily Brief just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Even Sarah Palin came out swinging -

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs.  The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”  We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

This may well be President Obama’s ‘Jimmy Carter’ moment and his ultimate undoing.  President Ronald Reagan may not have had much experience in foreign policy before he took office but he damn well earned the respect and even admiration of foreign leaders.  He dared Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’ and won.  He drew a line in the sand and stood his ground.  The difference?  Ronald Reagan loved our country and everything she stands for, unconditionally.  Barack Hussein Obama – not so much!

Mitt Romney sounded much more Presidential this morning than our ‘Commander in Chief’ and he will give us the leadership we had with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  If we make it until November.  Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? I don’t.  Pray and pray hard – God Bless America!

Here is the movie trailer that is supposedly the impetus of the massacre but we all know that no reason is required for the barbarians at the gate!  It is not the movie, it is Anti-Americanism that triggered yesterday’s act of terrorism.  The sooner Americans realize Islamists want to kill us, the sooner we can begin to cut the political correctcrap.

 

 

Remember the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:

- Allah is our objective.
– The Prophet is our leader.
– Qur’an is our law.
– Jihad is our way.
– Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Obama frags military voters – Support the troops, just don’t let them vote

Editorial from the Washington Times

President Obama goes out of his way to appear to support the troops. But when it comes to voting, he would like to keep them out of the fight.

The Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party are suing the critical swing state of Ohio to strike down a law that makes it easier for members of the military to vote. Under the law, people in uniform may cast early ballots in person up to the day before an election, instead of the previous Friday cutoff for other voters.

Democrats have a transparent political motive. A May 2012 Gallup survey showed Mr. Obama trailing Mitt Romney among veterans 58 to 34 percent. “About a fourth of men are veterans,” Gallup reported, “and it is their strong skew toward Romney that essentially creates the GOP candidate’s leading position among men today.”

The Democrats’ suit alleges the Buckeye State’s law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis,” but it is a response to a very real problem. “It’s truly difficult to vote,” an active-duty service member told The Washington Times. “The military tries hard to help us out with awareness and links to state voting sites but most troops don’t exercise their franchise because it’s too hard.”

A study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008, less than 20 percent of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5 percent. In response to these dismal numbers, the project has organized the Heroes Vote Initiative, “the first and only nationwide campaign to encourage military voter participation and to provide those voters with the tools to register and request an absentee ballot.” The project has singled Ohio out as one of 15 “all-star states” for its efforts to promote and encourage military voting.

The political attack on our troops reopens a wound from the 2000 presidential race. During the controversial Florida recount process, Democrats issued a detailed eight-page guide to local operatives for challenging military overseas ballots. The instructions included erroneous guidance that resulted in over 1,500 ballots being wrongly rejected, which were later reinstated after legal action. Facing a public-relations disaster, the Gore campaign relented, but the damage was done. This year, Democrats are up to similar dirty tricks.

On Wednesday, AMVETS, the National Guard Association of the United States and the Association of the U.S. Army — among other military-affiliated organizations — petitioned a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. “It’s disheartening given the full-court press of the Obama administration to court if not pander to the military community,” said our source, an overseas combat veteran. “There is an awful lot of effort going into talking about wounded warriors, for example, and employment for veterans. What’s going on in Ohio is discouraging but not surprising since the administration’s outreach efforts have never seemed sincere.”

“Those few who are making the effort to be citizens in every sense of the word should be supported,” our source said. “It makes you wonder why they are investing that much time and effort to keep the troops from voting. They must be desperate.”

Read more here.

Obama is a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution

By Joseph Curl via The Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmationI do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.*

“* Unless, you know, 224 years from now, whoever happens to president simply decides he really doesn’t want to do that.”

— Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitution

The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses.

In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”

Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote).

Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has even more flagrantly flouted the laws of the land. Out of the blue, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, reinterpreted America’s gambling laws (and dumped the decision on Christmas Eve so as to avoid scrutiny). More recently, Mr. Holder has decided to thwart congressional oversight by refusing to release documents on the disastrous “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme, and he is actively fighting Florida for trying to expunge dead people from its voter rolls.

Now comes Mr. Obama’s decision to stop enforcing America’s immigration laws. The new policy states that illegal immigrants who were younger than 16 when they entered the country are eligible for a two-year exemption from deportation. Of course, the “deferred action process,” as Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano called it, will apply to illegals up to age 30. (Think when they legally get their driver’s licenses they will also be handed a voter registration card?)

The increasingly desperate Mr. Obama, once a constitutional professor, knows full well he is circumventing Congress. In March 2011 he told a group of young Hispanics: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job.

Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws,” he said. “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

So why now? Politics. The Hispanic population in Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado may well decide the November election, and with working-class whites, religious blacks, disenchanted young people and Jews fleeing in droves, Mr. Obama is looking to shore up his support, even if that means violating his oath to protect the Constitution.

Continuing his nonstop campaign of division — black against white, rich against poor, straight against gay, religious against secular, race against race — the president is seeking to build whatever loose coalition of support he can. Forget bipartisanship; a coalition of the middle, Mr. Obama’s sole path to victory, he thinks, is to stir up so much discontent within different strata that he can win re-election.

Of course, the liberals who whined about President George W. Bush’s signing statements haven’t made a peep about Mr. Obama’s Napoleonic power grab.

“What’s ironic,” columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, “is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration — the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness.”

But that doesn’t matter when you are King Barack. The Founders were determined to make sure no American leader ever had the power King George III enjoyed. Which is why they also wrote this in the Constitution: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

For more click here.

 

Related articles:

If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

By Michael Filozof via The American Thinker

If  the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would  be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal  aliens.

Article  1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states  that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of  Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and  naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of  illegals.

The  role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s  refusal to execute Congress’s immigration  laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an  impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be  removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes  and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and  allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,”  and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be  considered “bribery.”

In  theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to “grant Reprieves  and Pardons for Offenses against the United States” and offer a blanket pardon  for all violators of immigration law. He’s not doing that, because he’d  certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he  does lose in November, he’ll do it anyway on his last day in  office).

The  upshot of Obama’s policy not only to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals to  live and work in the U.S. during a time of 8 to 10% unemployment, but even  worse, since the vast number of illegals we’re talking about are Hispanics  eligible for affirmative-action preferences, to actually get preferential treatment over native-born  Americans.

Remember  Obama’s speech in Berlin in 2008? Well, now you know what “citizen of the world”  means: instituting an illegal and unconstitutional policy that favors Third  Worlders, and disadvantages people actually born as U.S.  citizens.

Of  course, he’ll get away with it… if you think the gutless Republicans in the  House actually represent the interests of their native born constituents  and will introduce articles of impeachment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell  you….

For more click here.

H/T News You May Have Missed

Dem Senator Patrick Leahy Also Threatens Supreme Court over Obamacare

By via The Western Center for Journalism

Two months ago, Barack Obama decided he could intimidate the United States Supreme Court into finding his namesake healthcare plan Constitutional. Overturning the Affordable Care Act “…would amount to an unprecedented, extraordinary step of judicial activism” said the President at a rare White House news conference, adding “…I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Though someone with the hyper-arrogant mentality of the Manchurian Candidate doesn’t really need a reason to direct this sort of psycho-babble at a presumptive enemy, Obama was probably responding to information provided by far left Justice Elena Kagan that the Court’s closed-door, preliminary vote on ObamaCare had not gone very well. Each Friday, the 9 justices gather for an initial vote on the cases heard during the week. And although these weekly conferences are to be strictly confidential, it’s a safe bet that Obama’s Court stoolie was on the phone with the White House minutes after its conclusion.

However, as this preemptive strike on the court was met with a nationwide flurry of criticism even from a number of his media supporters, Obama made no further reference to the prospective ruling.

But on Monday, a new county was heard from. Dedicated leftist Senator Patrick Leahy directed a 2000 word dissertation at the Court from the Senate floor, selecting as his principle target Chief Justice John Roberts. “The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not,” claimed Leahy, making clear his view that the Court has no business interfering with a Congressional assault on the Constitution. The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.”  He ridiculed conservative justices for their tough questioning of principle ObamaCare advocate Solicitor General Donald Verilli during oral arguments, stating “their action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

And he alternately praised and threatened the Chief Justice, literally claiming that if Roberts joined other conservatives in a 5-4 decision against ObamaCare it would “…undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

But what prompted Leahy’s sudden decision to lecture the Supreme Court as to its proper role in government? Was it a last ditch effort to intimidate justices into finding ObamaCare constitutional? Or has Kagan perhaps advised Democrats that Roberts is “wavering” a bit, leading Leahy to believe his misguided, nonsensical claims might persuade the Chief Justice to decide in favor of passage?

Since its enactment in 2010, liberals have believed the Affordable Care Act to be a sure thing to pass Constitutional muster. They were stunned when Justices took offense at the law’s contempt for individual liberty during oral arguments. After all, how could forcing Americans to purchase something they don’t want be unconstitutional if it’s for their own good!

If 5 Justices rule the ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional, the American people will hear a wailing and gnashing of teeth unequaled since the pro-Gore efforts of the Florida Supreme Court were undone after the 2000 election. We will be in for some very entertaining days.

For more information click here.