Dereliction of Duty By President and Commander-In-Chief Obama–Sleeping While Americans Died–The Big Coverup and Scandal–The President Lied–Videos

Posted on February 7, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Diasters, Federal Government, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Raves, Resources, Rifles, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

panic.panic.button

Obama-AWOL-Benghazi

benghazi-cover-up

Benghazi_VICTIMS-2

Former National Security Adiviser Bud McFarlane: For Obama to Do Nothing is Dereliction of Duty

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

Obama Confronted on Benghazi – Stutters Through Response!

Mark Levin – Obama’s “Dereliction of Duty”

Rush military caller says that Obama ordered no response to Benghazi attack

BREAKING OBAMA MAY GO TO PRISON AND BE IMPEACHED KILLING OUR OWN

Father Of Murdered Navy Seal in Benghazi, Recounts Days After Attack – Judge Jeanine

Graham Questions Military Leaders on Response to Benghazi Attack

Part II: Graham Questions Military Leaders on Benghazi

Sen. Chambliss at Benghazi SASC Hearing

Panetta: Benghazi was a ‘problem of distance and time’.

No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton

Panetta Defends Pentagon’s Benghazi Response

Senator Blunt Questions Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey About Benghazi Attacks

Rand Paul’s Reaction To Defense Secretary Panetta’s Benghazi Testimony – Fox News

Obama vs Panetta on Attacks in Benghazi – Obama Could have saved American Lives

Senators challenge military leaders on Benghazi attack response

“…The top two Defense Department officials were sharply challenged by lawmakers  Thursday on their insistent claims that nothing more could have been done to  save the four Americans who were killed in the Sept. 11 terror attack in  Benghazi.

Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey were  peppered with questions from Republican senators during a hearing before the  Senate Armed Services Committee. The officials claimed military aircraft and  other assets were too far away to get to the scene in time, and suggested armed  aircraft like F16s could have done more harm than good in a chaotic situation.  The senators, though, pressed the officials for a fuller explanation on why  military assets were not deployed to rescue Americans under attack that night –  in what will likely be their last chance to question the outgoing Defense  secretary.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., disputed testimony that the difficulty in  dispatching assets to the scene was “a problem of distance and time.” He  suggested the “light footprint” in the region and a failure to respond to  threats left the military ill-prepared.

“For you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response — our  posture was not there because we didn’t take into account the threats to that  consulate, and that’s why four Americans died,” he said. “We could have placed  forces there. We could have had aircraft and other capacity a short distance  away.”

He continued: “No forces arrived there until well after these murders took  place.”

Dempsey acknowledged having gotten word of a warning from the U.S. consulate  about being unable to withstand a sustained attack, but said the military never  got a request for support from the State Department.

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?” McCain asked, curtly.

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey said.

McCain responded: “Who would you blame?”

Dempsey went on to claim that several U.S. posts were facing significant  threats, though McCain said none so much as Benghazi.

Shortly afterward, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressed Panetta again on why  no forces were deployed until after the attack was over. Dempsey and Panetta  said they talked to President Obama one time that night, but Graham questioned  why there weren’t subsequent follow-up conversations.

“It lasted almost eight hours … did the president show any curiosity?”  Graham asked.

Panetta said there was “no question” Obama “was concerned about American  lives.”

“With all due respect,” Graham responded, “I don’t believe that’s a credible  statement if he never called and asked you, ‘are we helping these  people?’”

The secretary’s testimony on Benghazi was long-sought by Republican  lawmakers. After then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified last month,  Graham had demanded that Panetta be brought before the Senate — threatening to  hold up the nomination of his prospective replacement Chuck Hagel over the  issue.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced last week that Panetta  would testify.

Responding to long-running questions about whether more military assets could  have been dispatched to protect those under fire in Libya on Sept. 11, Panetta  in his opening statement claimed there simply wasn’t enough time to do  more.

“There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military  assets to respond,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We were  not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought  to an end by a U.S. military response. … Time, distance, the lack of an  adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more  immediate response.”

Still, he said the Pentagon “spared no effort … to save American  lives.”

Panetta was testifying in what may be his final public appearance on Capitol  Hill as he prepares to leave the department.

Panetta, in his testimony, detailed the military response on the day and  night of the attack.

As Fox News has previously reported, he said an unarmed, unmanned drone was  positioned overhead the Benghazi compound.

But he said armed aircraft like AC-130 gunships would have taken too long to  get there — “at least nine to 12 hours if not more to deploy.”

“This was, pure and simple … a problem of distance and time,” he  said.

Panetta said he also directed that a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team  stationed in Spain prepare to deploy in addition to a second FAST platoon; a  special operations force in Central Europe prepare to deploy to a staging base  in Southern Europe; and a special ops force in the U.S. similarly prepare to  deploy to Southern Europe.

As for what was happening in Libya, he claimed the “quickest response” was  the Tripoli-based team of six people which was sent to Benghazi.

“Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided  emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only  12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel  had been safely evacuated from Benghazi,” he said.

Since the September assault, some have questioned whether enough was done to  protect those at the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Four Americans,  including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed that night.

There have been questions about the perceived delays CIA officials –  stationed in Benghazi — encountered that night and their frustration that air  support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News  has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support  would be above when they landed in Benghazi, but it wasn’t. …”

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/07/panetta-defends-military-response-to-benghazi-attack-at-senate-hearing/#ixzz2KGmLO0Iu

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Terrorist Won: Faces of American Progressive and Neoconservative Fascists–Congressional Totalitarians At The Gates–Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Charges or Due Legal Process By Military–Tea Party Will Revolt–Videos

Posted on December 16, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

~Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

SA@TheDC – The Terrorists Have Won

SA@TheDC – Assassinating the Constitution

SA@TheDC – Does Newt Gingrich Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’

Farewell Bill of Rights

Any tea party supported representative, Senator or Representative, that voted for the NDAA section 1031 with the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without legal due process will be targeted for defeat in the next election.

These politicians apparently have never read nor understood the U.S. Constitution that they swore an oath to protect and defend.

The tea party people are going to be real upset when they find out about this.

Shame on Congress.

Defeat all politicians who voted for this!

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

S.1867 National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 – Indefinite Detainment of US Citizens

Martial Law NDAA Snatch Grab

Obama Signs NDAA Marial Law ∞ Legal Holocaust End of Human Rights Ron Paul Revolution

Obama’s Deception of the Indefinite Detention Bill

Military Could Detain Americans Indefinitely

“Shut Up. You Don’t Get a Lawyer!”: The Defense Authorization Act Guts Civil Liberties

Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens

Ron Paul – USA Is Setting Up For A Military Dictatorship *It Happened*

AMERICA IS GONE!! Listen to this… It is over! WAKE UP PLEASE!!!.

Treason in the US Senate

Sen. Kirk on Fox News talking detainee language in Defense Authorization bill

S. 1867 The End Of America

Sen. Jeff Merkley – Why He Did Not Vote For S 1867

Alex Jones: Senate wants martial law in America

Battlefield: America – Have the Terrorists Won?

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and The Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Every 10yrs)

Bringing the War of Terror Home

Indefinite Detention of Americans under New NDAA Bill

THE END TO OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC – RAND PAULS - NEW NDAA SENATE BILL

National Defense Authorization Act:The End of America

US Senate – Terror Detainee Policy

Stewart Rhodes: Senate Has Declared War on American People 1/3

Stewart Rhodes: Senate Has Declared War on American People 2/3 

Stewart Rhodes: Senate Has Declared War on American People 3/3 

JACL Director Floyd Mori: NDAA Bill is A Move Back to The Dark Ages 1/2 

JACL Director Floyd Mori: NDAA Bill is A Move Back to The Dark Ages 2/2

Three myths about the detention bill

By Glenn Greenwald

“…Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention …”

“… Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

“… Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill …”

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

Fascism

“…Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity, in which individuals are bound together in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.[3] To achieve this, fascists purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[3] Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, discipline and family policy (such as eugenics).[4][5] This state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government and other state institutions.[6] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition.[7]

Fascism promotes political violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[4][8] It views violence as a fact of life that is a necessary means to achieve human progress.[9] It exalts militarism as providing positive transformation in society and providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people’s character and creating national comradeship through military service.[10] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violent attacks on opponents or to overthrow a political system.[11]

Fascism opposes class-based identity and society, it is thus both anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian; and individualist based identity and society.[12] It is opposed to many ideologies, including conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism: communism and social democracy.[13] It opposes a variety of economic, political and social systems, it is opposed to democracy, parliamentary systems, is anti-clerical, and holds a distinctive opposition to capitalism.[14] It rejects egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favour of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit and will.[15]

In economics, fascists oppose economic liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being class-based movements.[16] Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that advocates resolving economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[17] Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state; the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient; and autarky.[3] They are hostile to finance capitalism, plutocracy, the “power of money”, and internationalist economics.[3]

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[18][19] Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”[20][21] However they also officially declared that although they were “sitting on the right” they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to their basis of their views that they claimed could just as easily be associated with “the mountain of the center” as with the right.[22] There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides.[23][24][25][26] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://seg.sharethis.com/getSegment.php?purl=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondpronk.wordpress.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D52972%26action%3Dedit&jsref=&rnd=1324066895666

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 585 other followers