Rubio can't serve...
Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:50:07

Since the Daily News has begun associating Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with 2016 presidential coverage (editorial, “The travels of Marco Rubio,” Dec. 6), the record should include evidence that questions Rubio’s constitutional qualifications in accordance with Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to serve as president. Sen. Rubio has my respect, but the U.S. Constitution trumps my personal observation as well as any party affiliation. The Constitution requires our president to be a “natural born citizen,” which is distinct and different from being a “citizen” as discussed in the 14th Amendment. Barack Obama, whose father was a British subject and never a U.S. citizen, fails to legally meet the “natural born citizenship” requirement to serve as president. Our legal system is corrupt and has no backbone to enforce the Constitution, but two wrongs don’t make a right. There is ample legal precedent that establishes “natural born citizenship” as applying to a person born of two parents who are American citizens at the time of their offspring’s birth. Marco Rubio was born in 1971 in Miami to parents who were citizens of Cuba. Not until the 1975-76 time frame did his parents become naturalized citizens of the United States. Marco Rubio was born a citizen of the United States as well as a citizen of Cuba, thus having dual citizenship at birth but not being a “natural born citizen” of the United States —a requirement to serve as president. Sen. Rubio can serve our nation in virtually any capacity, but not legally as president of the United States.
The Constitution is the law of the land.

—HARRY RILEY
Crestview, FL

"Would You Knowingly Condemn Your Children To Slavery?"

from - The Parallax Prophecies -

And a new Youtube Video

By Ron Ewart, President

National Association of Rural Landowners

and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues.

We are helping to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.

© Copyright Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - All Rights Reserved

 

Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of Ron EWART

 

"Would You ...?" Youtube Video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdf04Eu5yos&feature=youtu.be

 

 

 

Would you see your children

Condemned to slavery

When there was a chance

You could save them?

Would you deny them victory?

Would you deny your family freedom?

 

 

You cannot fight an enemy if you cannot see him.  You have no defense if you are surrounded in darkness but your enemy controls the light.  You have no options if you cannot pierce the veil of your enemy's deceit.  There is absolutely no defense if you cloak yourself in ignorance, or convince yourself that the enemy is not there.  But rest assured, the enemy is lurking just outside your door and your door will not protect you or your children from him coming inside and destroying your blind tranquility that you thought was freedom.   The American government is now all-powerful.  They own the law and the capability to enforce it, by whatever means and they are determined to do it.

 

That enemy is knocking on your door right now but you don't know it, or choose to ignore it.  And if you don't open it, the enemy will break the door down and come in anyway.  They will take your children away and put them in government-run indoctrination and propaganda schools.  But wait a minute! They have already taken your children away and are now indoctrinating them in government-run indoctrination and propaganda schools, or didn't you know that?  The difference is you have willingly given your children to the state and are exposing them to that indoctrination and propaganda without so much as a whimper in opposition.

 

Would you be a slave

In your own land

When once you were free?

Would you bow down

To tyrants like Obama

Rather than defending liberty?

 

Many years ago, as we entered the 20th Century, we were a different stock of people.  We were defiant in our freedom and we rejected or purged what we considered infringements on that freedom.  We didn't let important things slide or look the other way like we do now.  The truth is, had government instituted all the laws and restrictions it has now placed on the people of America, but they had done it 100 years ago, there would have been a revolution that would have made the American Revolution and the Civil War pale in comparison. 

 

In the late 1700's the government instituted a whiskey tax, which erupted into the Whiskey Rebellion where many tax collectors were either killed or tarred and feathered.  In those days, violence against government agents and sympathizers was quite common when the people thought their freedoms were under attack.   Throughout the years of taming the West, frontier justice was applied regularly.  Scores and injustices were settled with weapons, not words, or courts.

 

Would you hide in the shadows

When your duty was quite clear?

Would you shrink from the battle

Because you are paralyzed with fear?

 

Now, the people have allowed government to become so powerful, the people fear it's wrath.  We have let frontier justice, wherein we did not fear government, morph into absolute power by government in a police state where we are deathly afraid of government.   People are hesitant to raise their heads above the noise level for fear it could be chopped off, figuratively speaking of course.  Our lives are comfortable and we are very reticent about upsetting our precarious apple cart.  But those who fall afoul of the law through no fault of their own cannot escape the long hand of government by hiding in the shadows.  They become sacrificial lambs to government's power and those in close proximity to the victim scurry for cover, saying to themselves "..... thank God it wasn't me".  This is equivalent to running from the battlefield while the real heroes hold the enemy at bay, or advance upon the enemy.

 

Is it true you are just a coward

And afraid to be free?

Do you tremble in the darkness

While on your bended knee?

 

Are we so afraid to defend our freedoms that we will wait until the jack booted thugs break down our door and take us and our children away because we violated some law in a million laws of which we had no knowledge?  Do we fear authority so much that we now won't question any authority?  Are we not of the same lineage of those that gave their lives to preserve our freedom for the last 236 years?  Does not the blood of patriots run through our veins?  Or, has our collective American blood turned to jelly?  We don't think so!

 

Will you instead gather up your bravery

And join the fearless in our midst?

Will you save America from slavery

While shaking a determined fist?

 

Will you use the intellect God gave you,

And apply it to the fight?

Will you heed the haunting cry

To set our country right?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we don't have to resort to frontier justice ".... to set our country right."  The tools to win were handed down to us from our Founding Fathers in the form of a Constitution that took our natural, God-given, individual rights and codified them into the law of man.  All we need is the courage to fearlessly proceed under those essential tools of freedom and restore the vision of those great men for our time and our children and grandchildren's time, unless we cower in fear, or refuse to challenge authority because of that fear.  In a Constitutional Republic, the people have the power but only if they choose to exercise that power.

---

The other night, as we bed down, 6 lines of a poem literally popped into our mind and we got up and wrote them down.  The next day we finished the poem, lines of which we have inserted in this article.  The entire poem is entitled: "Would You .....?".  In the hopes that this poem would provide inspiration to those who are on the fence about defending freedom for their children and grandchildren, we set the poem to music and a video of images of freedom and slavery and uploaded the video to Youtube.  The last stanza of the poem goes like this:

 

So we ask each freedom-loving American,

Will you settle for chains and slavery

Or will you get up off your can,

And engage in the fight for liberty?

 

 

The question is: "Would You .....?", or "Will You .....?".  If you don't, you may very likely condemn your children and grandchildren to slavery.

Nullification: The Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 1

     

 

by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com After perceiving a long train of usurpations of power by the federal government, which culminated in legislation known as Obamacare many Americans took to the streets in protest.  They appealed to the Legislature to no avail. The legislation ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court.  We then witnessed a colossal rewriting of our founding documents in the majority opinion to the Obamacare mandate.  Justice John Roberts in a few lines pulled down the pillars of the Republic and set us on the path to totalitarianism. Nearly half of the population rightfully regards this legislation as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government.  The truth is, not only should the Sates be able to deal with their own health insurance issues, but the federal government has no legitimate authority to rule by such dictates.  Yet, many who vowed to fight it “to the end” have now acquiesced and declared that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land.”  So is this the end?  Since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high, must we now bow to an all-powerful government, from which no area of our daily life is off-limits?  Or is there a remedy yet remaining?  Can the States legitimately resist federal law or is this "treasonous" as some have suggested? To answer these questions we must first understand the nature of the Republic we call the United States.  These States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution.  This compact, or contract, made among the States not only the created the federal government but also dictated the limited and specific powers delegated to the federal government by the parties of this contract.   Secondly, since the States are the parties to the compact and the creators of the central government, then the States, naturally, are the masters of their creation.  That is to say, they are sovereign - independent of, separate from and sovereign over the federal government.  All of the powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and the people.  The 10th Amendment makes that very clear. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the US Constitution It is upon this foundation that the States have the ultimate right to stand against ANY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.  The 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is to only operate within their delegated powers.  James Madison explains those delegated powers in Federalist Paper #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…”  Federalist Paper #45 Madison then goes on to explain “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”  Federalist Paper #45 Therefore, the 10th Amendment in conjunction with Madison’s explanation makes it clear that the States’ powers are numerous, the federal powers are few, and the federal government has no business interjecting itself into the powers reserved to the States. To claim the 10th amendment says anything else would make the Constitution a complete absurdity.  Since there are no areas of power that are simply floating out in the neutral zone waiting for someone to use them, if the federal government uses a power that was not Constitutionally delegated, it must steal it from the States.  When the federal government does this, it removes power from the States, rights from the people, and makes the Constitution completely meaningless.  Such overreach sets the precedent that no power is reserved to the States and that all power is open for federal taking.  This effectively nullifies the 9th and 10th Amendments, and destroys the Constitutional barriers established to contain a limited and defined federal government.  What will then be the federal government’s limitations? Nothing but its own will.  “That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever…that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 This is, in essence, what Justice Roberts declared in his opinion on Obamacare, overturning the very purpose of the Constitution itself – to enumerate the powers of a limited central government and bind it under the authority of the States.  What happens when the barriers of the Constitution are completely swept away?  The federal government will now have the ability to exercise any power over the States whatsoever.  The people will be rendered completely powerless and irrelevant.  What will be the purpose of elections then?  We will no longer be a republic, but a government ruled as a Kingdom. “…for the federal government toenlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.”  James Madison, Virginia Resolutions 1798 So, when the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution, and the people have no recourse in the federal system, what is the remedy?  What is the proper course when the federal government has gone rogue?  The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and The Father of the Constitution, James Madison speak very clearly on the position of the States as the sovereign defenders of the foundations of our Republic.  It is the founders of the Republic who must give us our remedy…  Nullification, the Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 2         by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com   James Madison gives us this answer regarding the remedy to the states for combating federal overreach. In fact, according to our founders, it was not only the remedy but the DUTY of the states to stand in defense of the Republic. “…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison What is this interposition? It is what Jefferson referred to as NULLIFICATION of the unauthorized acts of the federal government.  It is the States declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply!”  “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Nullification is legitimate act of refusing to implement unconstitutional federal directives. “That the several states who formed [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”  Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1799 To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine. In fact our founders believed that if the States did not refuse to submit to unconstitutional use of federal power, the result would be the elimination of state powers, elimination of the rights of the people, and the complete dissolution of the Union and our Constitution.  “the doctrine which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through which department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of the Federal Union.”  Fort Hill Address, John C. Calhoun July 26, 1831 If the federal government uses a power that it was not delegated, it does so unconstitutionally. The federal government exists solely because of the Constitution.  Therefore any act that is unconstitutional destroys the very legitimacy of the federal government’s actions and therefore has no effect whatsoever.  Since it has no effect, the States are merely declaring that fact, and are therefore not required to submit. An epidemic of Constitutional ignorance has made it popular in our day to declare “this is the law of the land because the Supreme Court says so,” and since SCOTUS has said “nullification is not valid,” then it is not a proper remedy, some even claim that it is treasonous.  The men who founded the nation found the assertion offensive that the Supreme Court had the ultimate authority to dictate to the States the acts of the federal government. “The idea that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism- since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution 1799  To assume that the Supreme Court has the final word on what will or will not be implemented throughout the land is to abandon all power of the states, and throw them into complete submission to a federal power. It would be like allowing a criminal to determine his own guilt or innocence.    “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution… consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800 Even Federalist, Alexander Hamilton made clear that the Constitution is binding upon any branch of the federal government.  To suggest that the creature could overrule its creator was to our founders a complete absurdity.  "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78 It is incumbent upon the STATE REPRESENTATIVES to carry out their oath of office, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and be the guardians of the liberty of its citizens.  The Governors and Legislatures must draft a Resolution proclaiming the sovereignty of the state and the unconstitutionality of the federal power and asserting the state’s duty to deny said power.  That Resolution must then be transmitted by the Governor to the Senators and Representatives representing the state in Congress.  Unwilling to shrink from our representative responsibilities… It would be [deceitful] in those entrusted with the GUARDIANSHIP OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY, and acting under the solemn obligation of the following oath, — “I do swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” — not to warn you of encroachments, which, though clothed with the pretext of necessity, or disguised by arguments of expediency, may yet establish precedents which may ultimately devote a generous and unsuspicious people to all the consequences of usurped power.  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia January 23, 1799 When petition fails…when Congress refuses to enforce Separation of Powers and protect the sovereignty of the States…when the Supreme Court joins in the unconstitutional use of power, we cannot admit that revolution is the only solution that remains! Revolution does not save the Constitution, it can only destroy it.  There must be another peaceful resolution; and there is: It is called Nullification. For the federal government or the States to deny this method of constitutional remedy is to say they are resolved to the destruction of the Constitution and the potential of driving its people to revolution. “…our Constitution is most worthless and tyrannical, if the usurpations of those who administer it, cannot be resisted by any means short of revolution. I have always considered the reserved powers of the States, as the only real check upon the powers of the federal government; and I have always considered it, not only the right, but the imperious duty of the States, so to apply that check, as not to dissolve the Union. And I have never been able to discover any mode of doing this, except by the positive refusal of the States to submit to usurpations…” Judge Able P. Upshur, An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (No. I) The acquiescence of the states, under infractions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impotency and contempt, or prepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength.  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 23, 1799 Therefore, in upholding their oath the States must stand against any legislation that serves to steal power from the state, thus destroying the Constitution.  If the States fail to stand against this tyrannical use of power by the federal government, they will consent to their own destruction, or worse, to revolution. “Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what further materials they can need for building up their favorite system.”  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1799

I don't need government to tell me... 

November 25, 2012
Exert Re-posted with permission from Ron EWART (www.narlo.org)

"The Parallax Prophecies" predicts that as the weak among us grow and they are growing, we will reach a point where their weakness will trigger our eventual demise.  The horizon of that demise looms ever closer in the distance.  That Obama was re-elected to a 2nd term is direct evidence that our weakness as a people and as a nation is growing at an increasing pace.

Ladies and gentlemen, so often we forget the foundation of our individual freedoms and their origins.  When we forget those origins as a result of apathy, ignorance, or cowardice, we easily let freedom and even life slip away, as we are doing today in America.

We will sum up our philosophy of individual freedom and survival in one sentence, "I don't need government to tell me that I AM FREE and as required of me by nature, I will use whatever means necessary, peaceful or by force, to preserve my property, my life and my freedom from all who would attempt to unreasonably limit them, or try to take them from me!"

MEDIA “BALDFACE” LIES ABOUT PATRAEUS TESTIMONY TO DEFEND OBAMA’S BENGHAZI FAILURE

by Penbrook One

THE 1^stAMENDMENT WAS MURDERED IN BENGHAZI TOO - Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.  Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

Now, AP Columnists Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler have published an insidious and deceptive story claiming that the reason Obama and members of his administration were justified in lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack was because he was attempting to implement a covert response against the terrorists and did not want to, in their words, “tip them off” to his retaliatory plans.

 

By Dan Crosby

of the Daily Pen
 

NEW YORK, NY- The re-election of Barack Obama and defense of his illegitimate executive power has become more important than protecting the lives of innocent Americans, according the liberal mainstream media. Defending Obama’s lies in order to see him achieve his liberal aspirations was more important than protecting American security and providing the truth about the September 11 murder of four innocent Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the hands of terrorist enemies in Benghazi, Libya.
 

Despite former CIA director David Petraeus' testimony in closed hearings Friday that he has always believed the September 11 attack on a U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism and that it was not a result of a spontaneous demonstration, Obama’s media defenders are toiling to provide excuses for Obama’s failures to respond as well as his outright lies that the attack was the result of a YouTube video. 
 

Intelligence reports also show that Patraeus’ agency actually named specific terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, as those responsible for the attack in its initial reports sent to the Obama administration during and immediately following the attack. 

It has since been discovered, however, that the content of those reports were altered by unnamed personnel in the Obama administration in order to omit references to specific terrorist groups and implications that the attack was anything other than a spontaneous protest over the YouTube video, which at least five high ranking members of the Obama Administration explicitly blamed for the attack, including Barack Obama, himself.
 

Investigators believe the Obama administration removed references to terrorist groups prior to the election in order to convey a positive public narrative about Obama’s success against Al-Qaeda after exaggerating his own role in the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011.     
 

However, the ultra-liberal media has once again been caught altering facts and telling blatant lies in its coverage of the content of testimony given to congress by Patraeus.  In an article published on November 16, Associated Press columnists, Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler wrote the following:
 

“Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.”
 

The latter half of this paragraph is a lie.  An originally published story before Dozier’s and Pickler’s shows that General Patraeus made no such statement about what he believed were the reasons for why the Obama administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack or why the official CIA reports released just hours after the attack were altered.  Dozier and Pickler simply made that part up.  They continued:

“The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

Again, Dozier and Pickler invent facts to suit the pro-Obama narrative.  The actual released story originally published from reliable media sources appeared as follows: 

"WASHINGTON -- Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers during private hearings Friday that he believed all along that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a terrorist strike, even though that wasn't how the Obama administration initially described it publicly.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees as questions continue to persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies' assessments.

Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency took out the reference.

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign."

Notice, at no point in the original version of the AP story does it mention anything about the Obama administration changing CIA intelligence reports in order to avoid “tipping off” the terrorists.  Patraeus made no such statement about the reasons for changing the reports because there is no way for him to know why the original CIA reports on the attack were altered by anyone in the administration. 

Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.

That’s right, a member of one of the largest and long standing media organizations in America blamed politicians for his failure to do his job.  According to Tapper, the government now rules over the “free press” in America.  No more truth will be spoken against our government’s lust for power.  The pursuit of truth is officially dead among the American press.      

Essentially, Tapper admitted that the 1^stAmendment is dead.  He believes that journalists in his organization, as well as all of the press, are willing to allow the government to dictate which stories are newsworthy to the media based on political ideology.  He admitted that political interests and selfish dominion of power by politicians are being permitted to rule over the media and that he and his colleagues were helpless to provide any information or facts about the Benghazi tragedy in any viable manner, whatsoever.   

 

Shockingly, Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

 

He actually admitted that the despicable letches in our press were less willing to provide critical information about what our government was doing about terrorist attacks against Americans than help a radical regime and bowing liberal consensus achieve an electoral orgasm.
 

Let’s hope Tapper and his delusional band are proud of their accomplishment.  Obama’s re-election cost the lives of four innocent Americans and blood of countless others.   Good job. 

   
 

In their pathetic defense of the Obama Administration, Dozier and Pickler claim that the Obama administration was justified in lying about the identity of those responsible for the Benghazi attack because it did not want those same terrorists to know that the Obama Administration knew it was them.  Therefore, says Dozier and Pickler, the Obama administration chose to tell the world a lie claiming the attack and Obama’s failed response, which resulted in the murder of four innocent Americans, was the result a protest by offended Muslims over an obscure YouTube video.
 

 

However, in their placatory misinformation, Dozier and Pickler fail to explain two events not covered by Patraeaus’ testimony, which proves that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the Benghazi attack in order to protect Obama’s retention of executive power leading up to the 2012 election. 

 

By their false account, the lies told by the Obama administration about Benghazi were so justified and intellectually elaborate that the calculated deception actually required the unwarranted arrest and terrorization of an innocent American, based on trumped up charges.
 

In defending Obama’s lies, Dozier and Pickler fail to describe the reasons why, upon blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Obama administration then also felt it was necessary to go sin-sniffing and actually imprison the alleged film maker, Mark Basseley Youssef.  Apparently, according to these two liars, this extension of the Obama deception was so sophisticated that it was a required part of “not tipping off “ the terrorists that the administration was on to them.
 

 

If Dozier and Pickler had done their job as journalist instead of allowing their deranged ideological lusts to control their perspective, they would have discovered that US District Judge Christina Snyder dropped half the minor charges against Youssef before finding him guilty on even lesser charges of violating his parole and using an alias!  That’s right…when all was said and done, after all the destruction Youssef allegedly caused with his “offensive and disgusting” video in Benghazi, resulting in the murder of four Americans, he was convicted of the “capital offense” of using an alias! 
 

Youssef was not arrested for parole violations.  The fact is, these leftist liars didn’t even consider that the Obama administration sought to arrest Youssef, using the video as an excuse, in order to uphold Obama’s lies to the American people, not implement a covert response to the terrorists. 
   

Steven Seiden, Youssef’s lawyer said after trial, “All sides accepted that none of the charges had anything to do with the anti-Muslim content of the film.”
 

Seidens account seems to suggest that his client was arrested as part of scheme by the Obama administration to hide the fact that a terrorist group was responsible for the Benghazi attack.   
 

Had they done their job correctly, Dozier and Pickler would have also discovered there has been no explanation to the public about any specific violations by Youssef or which terms of his alleged probation he actually violated, or what the terms of his original probation actually were.  As far as the public knows, Youssef could have been arrested for jaywalking, a charge which federal authorities were able to then trump into a probation violation at the behest of Obama lap dog Attorney General, Eric Holder. 
 

According to Randy Kreider of ABC News, "Officials stressed during court proceedings that the movie's contents and impact had no bearing on Youssef's case.  After a prosecutor said 'he's not here because of the content of the movie,' the judge agreed.”
 

Then why was Youssef arrested?  What evidence did authorities have to file charges before the arrest and what were those charges?

 

TERRORISTS:  WE DID IT, BUT DON’T TELL OBAMA

But, the biggest lie Dozier and Pickler tell is that the terrorists were on the run and hiding from a heroic Obama superhero after the attack, yet they refuse to acknowledge that same superhero's failure to prevent attacks in the month before despite having mountains of warnings, intel reports and requests for additional security. 

According to Dozier and Pickler, no action or lie by the Obama administration thus far is punishable because, in their absurd view, the terrorists might have become wise to the fact that they were found out by the very same government and intelligence personnel they had attacked?

The problem with this excuse is that the terrorists, themselves, admitted to the attack by posting a confession on a worldwide social media site, Facebook, within 24 hours. 

 

Maybe Dozier and Pickler thought that since the terrorists didn’t “friend” Obama, they might be able to hide their murderous deeds amidst a billion teenagers and fraternity pledges.  Or, maybe Dozier and Pickler believed Secretary of State Clinton when she weaseled off that something posted on the internet is not proof of anything.
 

Or, maybe these idiots thought the terrorists posted on Facebook, “We did it…but don’t tell Obama.” 
 

In lying to protect Obama, Dozier and Pickler failed to realize the preeminent fact that the terrorists were never worried about being discovered because they publicly admitted to the attack immediately.  Therefore, there is no reason for the  Obama administration to think its response should be hidden from a terrorist group that already publicly admitted to the world that it was responsible for murdering Ambassador Stevens and three U.S. diplomat personnel.

In the end, the fact is that Obama, in his corrupt leftist ideology, wanted to be re-elected without the American people having the chance to find out the truth about his failure to prevent the deaths of four Americans at the hands of the very same terrorists he claims to have defeated long ago.

Now, he can sleep in the White House every night knowing he had the ability to save Americans and he intentionally allowed them to die because of his lust for power.

We don't know about the terrorists...but Americans are on to him.

The Vote You Cast – Was It One Of Millions Cast Aside?

November 13th, 2012

Every American who cast a vote for Mitt Romney is entitled to demand proof that the vote s/he cast was properly counted and reported.
Probable cause of massive voter fraud – and the highly fraudulent reports of votes cast - is already established: dramatically higher [statistically impossible] turnout than there are registered voters in precincts across America, all of which went for Obama; dramatic reported drop in Republican turnout; 5+ million ‘missing’ Republican votes; zero votes reported for Romney in precincts in multiple states; screens visibly flipping Romney votes to Obama; dramatic unpredicted ‘swing to Obama’ of Independents; dramatic drop of white votes reported [15 million]; 80-100% Obama results in many precincts; highly suspicious activity by elections personnel on Election Day; reported ‘loss’ of states predicted to go Romney; dramatic reduction in crowds at Obama events, from the Democratic National Convention, onward; need for Obama Campaign to flow ‘un-traceable’ overseas funds into campaign coffers as summer progressed into autumn; general consensus that Romney won the Debates; huge enthusiasm for Romney; refutation of historically reliable Presidential Election Outcome models; results that flew in the face of innumerable political experts; and more.
So. I ask you, Romney/Ryan voters: what happened to the vote that you, in good faith, fully protected by The United States Constitution, cast for the candidates of your choice?
Was it one of millions quietly, sneakily, ‘invisibly’ trashed in the digital system, callously coded to take your vote, and diabolically twist it into a vote for Obama?
Did the vote you cast wind up being illegally counted to ‘elect’ the very man you voted to defeat?
Only a Forensic Investigation of the voting machines, accompanied by a certified CPA Audit of voters / votes cast, will tell you what fate befell your vote.
Demand it.
Fake elections are the hallmark of petty dictators. They take away our right to have the government we choose, as guaranteed by The United States Constitution.
It’s not supposed to be this way in America.
It shouldn’t be this way in America.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Your life depends on insisting upon independent investigation of the 2012 Elections. For, if they did this, and get away with it, what will they do next?

OMG!

What Just Happened?

November 8, 2012 TPATH
By: Dwight Kehoe

November 8, 2012 TPATH – As the dust, so to speak, settles and many of us begin to recover from the shock and disappointment over the prospect of giving Obama another full term to fundamentally changeour country, many are asking themselves, what just happened?

What shall we make of it, knowing about Obama, all that he has done and all that he could do given 4 more years of “flexibility”, compounded with report after report of an energized electorate and announcements from sea to shining sea of Republicans organized and getting out the vote like we have never seen modern times and hearing of hours long waits to vote and polling places being held open hours after the scheduled closing time to accommodate those in line, and now we are supposed to believe that Romney received 3 million less votes than did McCain in 2008? How could this be?

The reason for “What just happened” is not singular but was a result of several forces, some of which are speculation and some are as clear as a mountain spring, and just as chilling.

As you ponder these thoughts please keep in mind that there is no proof of any of these speculated scenarios except for a knowledge of history and knowing our enemy. The remarks concerning the revolting display of affection the rotund one had with Obama and Springsteen, are not speculation.

Remember what TPATH has been saying for several years now. “It's easy to elect a socialist, but impossible to un-elect one”. This of course is the basis of a quote from one of Obama's great heroes, who proclaimed “It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes”.

RANDOM CONCEPTS:

1. The GOP- Yes, the Grand Old Party has once again proven that they have never learned nor will they ever learn that bringing a down pillow to an ax fight will result in very bloody feathers. The desire not to scare away independent voters has never been a concern of the Democrats and they continue to win elections. What is it about the Republican establishment that keeps them mired in unfair battles by refusing to bring all the required weapons to the conflict?
   That is not something anyone can answer except to say it is just part of their DNA and we have watched them perform this lemming act over and over again.
   TPATH has long been against even the consideration of a third party since that concept would surely secure easy victories for the the Democratic leftists. But, it may now be time to begin that consideration. If the GOP could not secure a win against an opponent with Obama's record, when will they? The answer of course, is, they never will. Any damage a third party would cause, in the short term, could be no more detrimental to America than the GOP has been, and will continue to be. More on this in a future report.
2. Almost related to the above is another very puzzling situation. Why would our Congress not object to a software company, based in Europe, who's CEO donated to Obama, be put in charge of tallying up major portions of the Presidential election vote? It is virtually impossible for a non-professional to detect software programmed to manipulate numbers, even if anyone had the backbone to suggest looking.
3. As mentioned above, how in the world could the total number of votes for Romney not be many, many more than for McCain in 2008? By all accounts, huge numbers of Christians, Conservatives, Republicans and independents who stayed home last election were reported to be all fired up to prevent Obama from another destructive term and chomping at the bitt to vote. We are now supposed to believe, at the last minute, they decided to stay home? Red flag anyone?
   Let's ask ourselves a question. Is it more difficult and possibly more dangerous to bring in illegal voters, have many people vote more than once and in more than one location than it would be to just delete votes cast? While there is an absolute certainty that some of that illegal activity has gone on, the safest, easiest and most accurate manipulation of outcome is the eraser.
   Having had more than enough time to speculate and then calculate just how many Romney votes would need to be “eliminated”, falsifying registers either by counterfeit or some other means and could have been prepared way ahead of time in various Democrat controlled districts.
   And since this would only need to be done in several locations within several battle ground states, it would require a big conspiracy, but not a huge one.
4. Then to enhance and fortify the required edge, thousands upon thousands of people will end up voting for Obama, even though they have not voted in decades. How do you get them out to vote? Well, the dirty little secret is you don't, you vote for them. TPATH has learned that hundreds of lists of registered voters, made up of those who have not voted in years have been produced. Why would poll workers create lists like that? Maybe it would explain why so many Democratic districts were hours late in reporting results. Signing the register book to match the number of votes cast when no one was in the area, is time consuming.
5. Then there was the almost ribald hug fest of the soon to be ex-governor of New Jersey as he single highhandedly did more for Obama's re-election chances than the hundreds of millions of dollars the campaign spent on ads destroying Romney.
   Don't be fooled, the rotund one is no political novice, he knew that even a minor kind word or praise from him concerning Obama's well planned performance would make headlines across the fruited plain. So on several occasions, unsolicited, his over sized body and undersized brain waddled up to any microphone he could find and proceeded to destroy any chance America had of avoiding a future with the America hating usurper at the helm.
   And to have gotten leg chills reminiscent of that fool Chris Matthews, to the point of “tearing up” when Springsteen granted him a phone call, was enough to make the entire country join in a collective vomit. If this so called Republican and rock music lover had ever been to a Springsteen concert and heard the lies and trash Bruce Boy spews about Conservatives and Republicans, those tears he so eloquently reported on may well have come from another emotion entirely.
6. Finally and probably the most disturbing reason for “What just happened”, is the fact that after decades of assault and battery on the morals and work ethic of Americans by the repugnant left, and the changing influx of immigrants from those seeking to make America and their lives a better place through hard work and a belief in God, to those seeking only what others have produced. The “takers may well out number the makers”.
   If we have indeed reached that low point, we are destined for points much lower in the ver near future.