Wednesday, October 31, 2012

What was Obama told at the September 10, 2012, NSC meeting on ‘9/11 threats’?

What was Obama told at the September 10, 2012, NSC meeting on ‘9/11 threats’?

Posted at 12:54 PM ET, 10/31/2012

On the White House Web site, the president’s calendar for September 10, 2012 — the day before the Benghazi, Libya, attack — is blank and and the daily press guidance says “The President has no public events scheduled.”

But the president did have an important meeting that day. In an e-mail exchange over President Obama’s record of skipping his daily intelligence meetings, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote me the following:

I’d also note that this focus on just the PDB and not the countless other NSC meetings the President has each week really misses the point. For example, the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th. Seems like a relevant data point for you[r] piece. [Emphasis added].

The fact that “the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th” raises a whole host of new questions: 

● What was the president told in that briefing about “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts” in Libya? 

● The New York Times reports that “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning.’ ” Was the president briefed on those reports at the NSC principals meeting?

● The Times further reports that “a week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a ‘state of maximum alert’ in Benghazi.” Was the president told of this assessment by Libyan officials of the state of security in Benghazi at the 9/10 meeting?

● U.S. diplomats in Libya made numerous requests for additional security. The president claims he was not “personally aware” of those requests.Well, was there any discussion of those requests in the NSC principals committee meeting on September 10th? 

If the NSC Principals Committee did not discuss Libya as part of their briefing on “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts,” then it would seem to be an example of gross negligence. If they did discuss Libya, then Americans deserve to know what they told the president about the security situation in that country one day before our ambassador was killed. And if the president was in fact briefed on the growing al-Qaeda threat in Benghazi a day before the attack, it would further call into question the administration’s efforts to blame the attack on a YouTube video.  

The only way to answer these questions is for the administration to release the records relating to the September 10 NSC meeting — including any briefing slides or papers prepared for the meeting. Those records will tell us a great deal about what the president knew — and when he knew it.

Opening Day of Deer Season







Check List Complete:

I scouted the area all summer. . .

 I searched out the best location for my tree-stand . . .

 I set it all up a month ahead of time . . .

 I trailed the herd . . .

 I picked out a trophy buck . . .

 Two days before opening day I rechecked every aspect of the hunt . . .

 Everything was in place . . .

 Sunday morning, I woke up at 2 am . . .

I put on my camo, loaded my pack, set out for my stand . . .

 This was destined to be an epic hunt . . .

 As I approached my deer stand . . .


I changed my mind, decided to go to church instead.

Spielberg movie LINCOLN

I went to a preview screening of Lincoln and would tell most people to save their time and sleep at home.  Spielberg  being who he is, the movie will likely get lots of play and even awards, and there was certainly some good acting – Daniel Day Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones in particular, but the story was not strong enough for a movie, and I think there was more interest in making a story than giving the facts.  To the extend there was a story, a story, Channel would have done a better job. 

That said, anyone wishing to see how corrupt politicians are, will get an eye-full.  Lincoln himself pulls punches Slick Willy would admire! 

It is surprising that Spielberg let it  this go out BEFORE the election, as  It shows the low level of DEMOCRATS in particular, and gives credit to Republicans. 


Why the AC130s were grounded: Obama didn’t want voters to find out ..........

Why the AC130s were grounded: Obama didn’t want voters to find out that he had armed the jihadists with SAMs

Alec Rawls, Flopping

It’s simple logic. In Libya there is only one possible threat to an AC130 gunship: surface to air missiles. Thus this is the only way Panetta wasn’t lying when he said that it was lack of information about the threat environment that kept him from sending defenders into “harm’s way” in Benghazi. He must have been afraid that the jihadists were lying in wait with surface to air missiles, and he had good reason to suspect such a ploy.

A primary task of the Libyan mission was to round up the war materiel of the deposed and decomposing Moammar Ghadaffi and funnel it to chosen opponents of Assad in Syria. Which part of the Syrian opposition has Obama been choosing to supply? Al Qaeda:

“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.

The paper quotes one U.S. official as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” adding that “officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.”

According to Adm. James A. Lyons (retired), the Libyan arms that have been funneled to the jihadists include substantial numbers of surface to air missiles:

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

So of course Panetta had to worry about the jihadists having man-portable SAMs. He had been supplying them, and a successful SAM attack on our military with these U.S. supplied weapons would be devastating for Obama’s election chances. From the start of the Libyan operation critics have been complaining about U.S. aid going to the jihadists. To have that treasonous strategy backfire in such spectacular fashion would be Fast and Furious times a thousand.

So they made a calculated decision. Our people on the ground would be sacrificed to Obama’s political ambition and the Obamatons would coordinate on a cover story about there not being any planned attack at all, when it actually appeared to them to be so well planned as to look like a possible trap.

If it wasn’t a trap, responding with force was an obvious political winner

The same logic applies for Obama. On the surface the attack presented Obama with a windfall opportunity to chew up and spit out what now look to have been hundreds of jihadists, all of whom would be sitting ducks for an AC130. Here was a chance for Obama to really dance on bin Laden’s grave, slaughtering the jihadists on 9/11 itself, thereby cementing Obama’s claim to the “gutsy call” and likely insuring his re-election. If Obama didn’t fear a trap then responding with force would have been a no-brainer, especially for a political calculator like Obama.

But would the jihadists really be that stupid? Would they hand such an easy and obvious military and political victory to the hated United States of Americam or did they perhaps have a plan befitting the date? Most likely they did have SAMs lying in wait, maybe a lot of them, prepared to take out any helicopters or gunships that came anywhere near. In any case, Obama must have thought so, or he would not have passed up such an obvious opportunity to salvage election victory.

For Panetta’s part, SAMs were the only rational fear, so if it really was concern for our forces that stayed Panetta’s hand that makes Obama the biggest liar of all time. He went before the nation pretending there was no evidence the attack had been planned at all when he and Panetta had actually acted on the supposition that it was a carefully laid trap, backed by the most sophisticated enemy weapons in theater.

The correct response—the American response—would have been to devise a plan to take out a SAM-equipped enemy. We could have swarmed in with anti-SAM equipped jet fighters and put as many fast-reaction forces on the ground as possible, but that would have revealed the nature of the threat for the world to see. Even if thoroughly successful, such a response would still have blown Obama’s Faster and Furiouser cover, exposing both the policy and the consequences of arming al-Qaeda. Thus for anti-president Obama, cowardice and cover-up were the only way forward.


Battlers at Benghazi


The Battling Bastards of Benghazi

We're the Battling Bastards of Benghazi ,
no fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
Just a fiery death in a blazing hell,
defending the country we loved so well.
It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,
fought to the consulate, 'n scaled th' wall.
We pulled twenty countrymen from the jaws of fate,
led them to safety, 'n stood at th' gate.
Just the two of us, 'n foe by th' score,
but we stood fast to bar th' door.
We called for reinforcement, but it was denied,
so we fought, 'n we fought, 'n we fought, 'n we died.
We gave our all for our Uncle Sam,
'n Obama didn't give a damn,
just two dead SEALS, who carried the load,
no thanks to us, we were bumps in the road.


Semper Fi
Back to Back We Face the Future



I got you a dog ..

 I have no idea how they do this: TYPE IN a command under the dog and see what happens... Sit, roll over, down, stand, sing, dance, shake, fetch, play dead , beg, etc., and...


It's also very cute if you type in a command that's not recognized.. .!!


Make sure you type in 'Kiss', too, but do it last!!!

Click here: I Do Dog Tricks

Google's data-collecting habits drawing more scrutiny

Google's data-collecting habits drawing more scrutiny

Earlier this month, European Union regulators informed Google that they’re unhappy with Google’s new privacy policy and that it will need to make changes to better protect the privacy of its users. The concern arises over how Google is collecting users' data and what they’re doing with it, and in turn how they’re informing their users on how they’re collecting and what they’re using it for. The EU would like clearer language, in a more understandable less legalese format, so that the average user can clearly understand what’s taking place when the use Google products.

This all comes about because of a move that Google made in March of this year, when they consolidated the privacy policies of most of its products (YouTube, Search, News, etc.) into one, singular policy that covers each of their product sites. After the move, EU regulators began investigating the process by which Google collects information and how they protect their users privacy. They requested more information from Google in May, and now are apparently unhappy with the answers they’ve received from Google. The letter from EU regulators says:

 "Google’s answers have not demonstrated that your company endorses the key data protection principles of purpose limitation, data quality, data minimization, proportionality and right to object. Indeed, the privacy policy suggests the absence of any limit concerning the scope of the collection and the potential uses of the personal data.”

Google has a long history of accusations of being cavalier with consumer privacy, which I’m sure is what worries the EU. Just weeks ago, Google was slapped with a record $22.5 million fine for violating Internet privacy. The fine was levied for purposefully circumventing Safari’s privacy protections — going around protections that were installed and turned on at the behest of the user. Before that, Google was involved in a large amount of controversy over its WiFi snooping in Europe and the U.S. It seems that the cars Google uses to take pictures for its Streetview feature were also collecting data on private citizens through their wireless networks. It was found that Google had been collecting emails, passwords, photographs, and even chat messages. After initially claiming it was an accident, European regulators found evidence that Google was using the collected data for research purposes.

Google has also faced accusations of manipulating their search results to favor their own interests. Despite proclamations that Google doesn’t manipulate their results, they seem to be one of the only Internet companies that believes it. In a Congressional hearing late last year, Google testified on its search practices alongside two of the companies claiming to be adversely affected by its practices. These companies were Yelp and NextTag, whose representatives both testified they felt their companies were hurt by the anti-competitive practices put into place by Google. Many other companies are a part of a coalition of companies that feel the same way, including Microsoft, Hotwire and Oracle.

The American Consumer Institute earlier this year published a study examining whether or not Google does, in fact, manipulate their search results. One test was done to see if Google would favor their own sites more often than competitors would favor theirs. The study pitted Google against Bing and Yahoo. The results showed that Google favored their own products two times more often than either Yahoo or Bing, while Yahoo and Bing showed no such favoritism. The ACI study similar results just when applied to other areas, as well.

Examination and rectification of these problems is essential for the market to work correctly — because not correcting these problems invites government intervention. Government intervention brings with it onerous regulation and oversight on the entire technology industry at a time when our economy can least handle such intrusions. For free markets to work, government must stay small and out of the way — otherwise, it’s inhibiting the innovative practices that allowed Google and others to grow into the great successes they are today.

Christenson is a digital tech writer for the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, a nonprofit educational and research organization.



Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to




Only In California....

You may have heard on the news about a Southern California man put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had (by rough estimate) 100,000 rounds of ammunition stored in his home.

The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.

My favorite quote from the dimwit television reporter: “Wow! He has about a quarter million machine gun bullets.” The headline referred to it as a “massive weapons cache”.

By Southern California standards someone owning 100,000 rounds would be called “mentally unstable”. Just imagine if he lived elsewhere:

    In Nevada , he’d be called “an avid gun collector”.

    In Texas , he’d be called “a novice gun collector”.

    In Utah , he’d be called “moderately well prepared”, but they’d probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

    In Montana , he’d be called “The neighborhood ‘Go-To’ guy”.

    In Idaho , he’d be called “a likely gubernatorial candidate”.

    In Wyoming , he’d be called “an eligible bachelor”.

    In Wisconsin , he’d be called “a deer hunting buddy”.

    And, in Alabama , he'd just be called, “Bubba”.

Some see GOP voting tsunami coming

Some see GOP voting tsunami coming

Voters wait in line despite rains from Hurricane Sandy to vote on the last early voting Sunday before election day, in New Bern, N.C., on Oct. 28, 2012. Early voting ends in Craven County on November 3. ((Byron Holland, New Bern Sun Journal/AP Photo)                    

Democrats more than Republicans are getting their most loyal supporters to vote early, but with polls showing a close race among those who have voted so far, concerns are being raised about a GOP tsunami on the actual Election Day, next Tuesday.

According to a GOP analysis of early voting and absentee ballot requests provided to Secrets, the Democrats are turning out their most reliable, or so-called "high propensity voters" than Republicans, leaving fewer for Election Day. The GOP is pushing weaker supporters to vote early, expecting high enthusiasm to drive their regular supporters to the polls next week.

"Democrats are cannibalizing their high-propensity voters in advance of election day to get stories that they are winning," said a GOP analyst. "But in effect they are stealing from Peter, or Election Day, to pay Paul, or early voting."

For example, in Ohio, the Democrats have turned out 43 percent of the most loyal supporters to vote, compared to just 27 percent of the GOP. In Iowa, the difference is 43 percent to 29 percent.

"Republicans will have more reliable voters available on Election Day and are spending our efforts turning out low propensity voters in the absentee and early voting periods," added the analysis.

Even with the difference in turnout of loyal supporters, Gallup finds that among early voters, Romney is beating Obama 52 percent to 45 percent, though some state totals show an Obama advantage. Plus in states like North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa, the GOP has seen huge requests for last-minute absentee ballots this month.

Remember this quote while you vote for President!

Remember this quote while you vote for President.






Here comes the landslide

Here comes the landslide

Dick Morris

Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.

As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.

The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.

His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).

Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.

And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.

In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.

Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?

Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.

The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney’s surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.

The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.

Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts, Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he’s now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.

The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.

Barack Obama’s parting gift to the Democratic Party.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced, Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, Revolt!: How To Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs — A Patriot’s Guide, go to

Facebook Censors Navy SEALS to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate


Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.

I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook  because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.

Here's what Ward told me: 

We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested. 

Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page. 

Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook "feedback comment" inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was. 

Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours. 

In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama. 

How low can you go?


Media Matters snagged in Osama-for-Obama cover-up


Media Matters snagged in Osama-for-Obama cover-up

Group posts false report on alleged anti-fraud protections for donations

Published: 2 hours ago
  by Aaron Klein Email | Archive
Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.

The controversial Media Matters For America progressive group today posted a false article claiming President Obama’s campaign did not accept a donation from someone impersonating Osama bin Laden using a foreign proxy server.

“Sorry Drudge, The Obama Campaign Is Not Accepting Donations From Osama Bin Laden,” read the group’s headline.

The Media Matters piece took issue with a WND article, linked at the popular, reporting “bin Laden” successfully donated twice to Obama’s presidential re-election campaign using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

Incredible 1-day offer: Get Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice” for only $4.95! The New York Times bestseller called most important book of election season

The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

The basis for Media Matters’ denial is the general anti-fraud guidelines that the Obama campaign claims to have in place.

Writes Media Matters: “In fact, the campaign has explained that it has anti-fraud protections in place to stop fake or illegal donations and that just because a fraudulent donation ‘may initially appear to a donor to have been accepted,’ such a donation will soon be rejected.”

Media Matters did not quote anyone from the Obama campaign responding as to whether the “bin Laden” donations were rejected.

Indeed, the two donations, for $15 and $5 respectively, were accepted by the campaign and were deducted from the disposable credit card that was used.

Media Matters further wrongly claimed, “The Obama campaign also requests ‘proof of a current and valid U.S. passport’ if a contribution originates from outside the United States and raises questions about the contributor’s citizenship.”

When the “bin Laden” donations were made using a foreign proxy server, no such requests of citizenship were made. At no point was the user prompted to enter any passport information. No questions were asked at any time by the Obama campaign website to verify proof of citizenship or even whether the donor was a U.S. citizen at all.

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign for more donations.

One $15 donation was made at using a confirmed Pakistani IP address and proxy server. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

While the website only has options for U.S. states and zip codes, there is no mechanism in place on Obama’s website to verify the individual is actually located in that state or zip code, or even in the U.S.

The Obama campaign refuses to release the identification of donors who give less than $200

In the case of this donation, the 91101 zip code is real but corresponds to Pasadena, Calif., and not Abbottabad, the Pakistani city in which bin Laden was found holed up in a compound.

For a requested phone number, WND used the White House information line of (202) 456-2121.

The email address used to set up the donation account was

After clicking “next,” the website asked for an employer, occupation and a password to set up future donations. WND staff entered the occupation as “deceased terror chief” and the employer as “al-Qaida.”

The transaction was made last Friday with the use of a disposable credit card. The website did not require the card’s security code.

The campaign website immediately accepted the contribution even though it was made from a Pakistani IP address and despite the nonexistent street name and city information.

An automated email was immediately sent from Rufus Gifford, national finance director of Obama for America, thanking “Osama” for the contribution. The email contained a note that said, “There may be a minor delay in the processing of your contribution as it will be subject to review.” However, “Osama bin Laden’s” foreign donation evidently passed the Obama campaign’s “review.”

As of today, the $15 was still debited from the disposable card.

To test if the first donation was an oversight, a second donation of $5 was made the following day using the “Bin Laden” account and the same Pakistani IP address.

WND has received confirmation from the credit card company that the purchase went through and the $5 was deducted from the disposable card.

From the time of the first donation until today, the Obama campaign sent nine more emails to the bin Laden Gmail account soliciting more donations.

One email sent Saturday reads: “Thanks so much for your donation of $5.00. Please take 10% off your next purchase of $10 or more at our online store.”

Another, signed by Michelle Obama, was titled “Barack is getting outraised.”

“You’re one of the campaign’s most committed supporters,” Michelle Obama writes in the automated email to “bin Laden.”

“Please make a donation of $19 or whatever you can today.”

The donations from a Pakistani IP address are sure to raise further questions about the measures in place to block such donations.

White House, ACORN,

Media Matters recently came under fire for its unusual tactics, including compiling a de facto enemies list; announcing an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel; and reportedly seeking to investigate the personal lives of reporters and news personalities.

The information came amid reports White House staffers held regular meetings and even a weekly conference call with Media Matters.

As WND was first to report, one of the single largest donors to Media Matters is a controversial far-left clearinghouse that funds groups such as, ACORN and a litany of anti-war organizations.

The organization, the Tides Foundation, is funded in part by billionaire George Soros, himself a prominent Media Matters donor.

Tides functions as a money channel in which major leftist donors provide large sums that are distributed to hundreds of radical groups.

Tides documentation reviewed by WND shows the group provided a total of $4.1 million to Media Matters during the fiscal years of 2004 to 2009.

During that same time period, Tides provided an additional $110,000 to the Media Matters Action Network, the group’s affiliated progressive lobby.

The Tides Foundation funding to Media Matters was most significant during the progressive news organization’s startup year of 2004, when Tides granted it $2.2 million.

In 2005, Tides sent another $1.1 million to Media Matters.

The years 2006 and 2007 saw smaller Tides donations of $56,223 and $38,225 respectively.

In 2008, a significant Tides donation of $659,500 came in to Media Matters, with another $106,038 in 2009.

In 2010, the Tides Center expressed public support for Media Matters when the media group stepped up its activism against Fox News by posting a Web page dedicated to anti-Fox material along with an online petition that pressed Fox’s advertisers to “Drop Fox.” At the time, Tides’ chief executive and founder, Drummond Pike, endorsed Media Matters’ campaign.

Media Matters already admitted to taking $1 million directly from Soros. The billionaire has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years.

Tides was also a primary funder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and was closely tied to the group implicated in voter fraud. The Tides Center’s board chairman is Wade Rathke, ACORN’s founder and chief organizer.
Tides also is a primary funder of, the American Civil Liberties Union, Campaign for America’s Future, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Community Change, the socialist-leaning Democracy Now!, the Marxist-founded Free Press and Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies.

Tides was closely linked to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The Tides-funded Adbusters magazine is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website served as a central hub for Occupy’s planning.

The Tides-funded Ruckus Society provided direct-action training to Occupy protesters as well as official training resources, including manuals, to Occupy training groups. Ruckus, which helped spark the 1999 World Trade Organization riots in Seattle, was also listed as a “friend and partner” of the Occupy Days of Action in October.

Another grantee of Tides,, joined Occupy.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

BREAKING - Cargo Ship carrying 700 tons of gold ... Vanishes....hmmmm

Breaking- Cargo Ship Carrying 700 Tons of Gold Vanishes in Sea of Okhotsk Off Russia

October 29, 2012 By The Doc 13 Comments


A cargo ship carrying 700 tons of gold ore has vanished late Sunday in the Sea of Okhotsk.  A distress beacon was reportedly activated late Sunday, but Russian rescue operations have had no success locating the wreckage or survivors:
A sonar distress beacon was automatically activated near Feklistov Island in the Shantarsk Archipelago on Sunday, Russia’s Emergency Ministry reported. The tanker Novik was the first to arrive at the scene, but found no wreckage or survivors. The rescue operation was complicated by severe weather, and waves up to four meters high.

In other news, the Fed reported Monday that Germany will be allowed to repatriate a portion of its gold reserves after all.

Full report on the lost crew, ship, and treasure below:

5 rescue vessels continue the search Monday:
Cargo carrier Amurskoe disappeared in the Sea of Okhotsk while carrying 700 tons of gold ore. Three ships, an amphibious aircraft and a helicopter are undertaking search and rescue operations to find the eight crewmembers of the lost vessel.

<a href="

'Cooling out' the voters


Confidence men know that their victim – “the mark” as he has been called – is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out – but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,” and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”

It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11 this year.

The belated release of State Department emails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still under way, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.

Why, then, did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts – but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background.

The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty – “cooling out” the voters – the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was re-elected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration’s video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on “the fog of war” that initially obscures many events. But there was no such “fog of war” in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn’t know all the details – and we may never know all the details – but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.

The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud – and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after Election Day.

Image from last night.. Notice the power outages.....



5 Riddles that defy solving!!!!








1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him?



- / -



2. A woman shoots her husband. Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes. Finally, she hangs him. But 5 minutes later they both go out together and enjoy a wonderful dinner together. How can this be?



- / -



3. What is black when you buy it, red when you use it, and gray when you throw it away ?



- / -



4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday?



- / -



5. This is an unusual paragraph. I'm curious as to just how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it. It looks so ordinary and plain that you would think nothing was wrong with it. In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is highly unusual though. Study it and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd. But if you work at it a bit, you might find out. Try to do so without any coaching!




















1. The third room. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.

That one was easy, right?




2. The woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it, and hung it up to dry (shot; held under water; and hung).



3. Charcoal, as it is used in barbecuing.




4. Sure you can name three consecutive days, yesterday, today, and tomorrow!




5. The letter "e" which is the most common letter used in the English language, does not appear even once in the paragraph.


Charlie Reese's Final Column

Charlie Reese's Final Column

July 14, 2012

A very interesting column.. COMPLETELY NEUTRAL

Charley Reese ' s final column for the Orlando Sentinel...
He has been a journalist for 49 years.
He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It ' s a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don ' t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don ' t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don ' t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don ' t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don ' t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don ' t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator ' s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can ' t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it ' s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it ' s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it ' s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it ' s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

How Liberals Win an Election: Voter Fraud, Suppression, Intimidation


How Liberals Win an Election: Voter Fraud, Suppression, Intimidation

Conservatives must show up in massive numbers at the polls on or before this election cycle, November 6, 2012.  Just a wild guess, but America will see the highest number of voter fraud cases this year than has ever been seen before.

Let’s think about it for a minute.  We have the King of Community Organizers sitting in the White House just about ready to lose his job.  He leads by example through lies, corruption, cover ups, extortion … anyway you get the drift.  Many of those that follow him will beg, borrow, cheat and steal in order to keep the Socialist seated so they can maintain their dependency on the tax paying citizen sponsored entitlements.  While some choose to visit several precincts using their actual name casting multiple ballots, others will use non-descript names of the dead, cartoon characters and sports figures.  I can picture boxes of absentee ballots somewhere in an ACORN owned home with all the community organizers sitting around filling them out.  Maybe I just have a wild imagination.

How many “illegals”, aka non-citizens, will be voting this round. I am not for sure why the Mexican community would want to keep this president in office.  Their unemployment rate is one of the highest and Obama has yet to present any type of Immigration Plan.  What am I thinking, it must be the free food stamps, healthcare (not yet Obamacare), and the education their NiƱo’s receive.

This election is one of the most important in this era.  In order to repeal the massive health care plan this administration and the Supreme Court has forced down our throat, the Republicans must not only win the Presidency but they must maintain the majority in the House and replace enough democrats with conservatives in the Senate to make a reconciliatory repeal.  Several states have close Senatorial races that could be compromised if voter fraud is not recognized and halted.

With less than two weeks to go before the election, Virginia’s Representative James Moran’s (D) staff was caught on video discussing a strategy to use forged documents to cast ballots for citizens that rarely vote.

More recently, van loads of native born Somalis were bussed into Columbus, Ohio so they could cast their votes.  Most did not speak English and needed a translator which they received.  The translator just happened to be from the Democrat Party.  How convenient!  My feelings may be biased but if one can’t read, write and speak our language, how can a knowledgeable vote be cast?

There must be an intimidation factor here, however it is undefined. It seems to be that Conservative billboards that state the truth and the law are now looked down upon. (Reuters) – More than 140 billboards in Ohio and Wisconsin warning of the criminal consequences of voter fraud will be taken down starting on Monday after the sponsor chose to remove them rather than reveal his identity, the billboard owner said.

This administration not only has a handle on how to cheat the voting system by adding false entities to the count but it also knows how to contain and minimize the votes against them.  I can understand the difficulty in shipping absentee ballots oversees to our military men and women, having them complete the vote and getting it returned to the proper state.  With an adequate amount of time for shipment, disbursement and return, this shouldn’t be such a quandary as we see each election cycle.

On October 19, 2012, a transport plane crashed at Shindad Air Base that was supposedly carrying absentee ballots to our forces in Afghanistan. Sorry, but I do not believe one word this administration tells us and I have reason to never believe anyone associated with the regime.  After the Benghazi incident, sequestration and the hollowing out of our military, I have a good idea how our soldiers would be voting and that is a good enough reason for the government to suppress their vote by any means imaginable.

One last intimidation factor at the polls are thugs like “The New Black Panthers” and gang-bangers like them.  Stated with a little sarcasm, Eric Holder, Atty. General, sent a strong message to them after the 2008 elections.  After incidents of bullying at given precincts were reported, Holder said nothing and did nothing to bring it to an end.  In the larger cities, don’t be surprised to see this type of activity to be on the increase.  I can think of a few ways to handle this problem, but I will leave that up to your imagination.

Read more: