The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Posts Tagged ‘YouTube

Obama May Have Supplied Arms Used in Benghazi Attack

leave a comment »


Obama May Have Supplied Arms Used in Benghazi Attack

Posted by   By GeorgeM at  6 December, at 19 : 35 PM

Obama May Have Supplied Arms Used in Benghazi Attack

 

 

by Kris Zane

Why would the Obama administration spend two weeks parroting a ridiculous story about a “protest turned violent” because of an anti-Muslim YouTube video being the cause of the attack on the Benghazi consulate?

Why would they then spend a month blaming the CIA for bad intel?

Why would they then comb through a former four-star general’s, then CIA-chief Petraeus’ email to “uncover” an adulterous affair that apparently everyone—including Obama—already knew about?

Fox News has been reporting that Obama, through Christopher Stevens, had been shipping Libyan arms to the Syrian rebels, some of them linked to al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Was this the reason Obama has been turning his administration into a pretzel trying to explain why he blamed a YouTube video for the murder of four Americans?

Was this the reason he refused to send in air or ground support to the dozens of Americans under fire, where Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods begged for help for upwards of seven hours and were eventually slaughtered?

Or was it something more?

What if it was the Fast and Furious debacle all over again, but this time in the Middle East and North Africa?

What if Barack Hussein Obama supplied the weapons to the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia that murdered the Americans in Benghazi?

And if he would have sent in troops to help the Americans under attack at the Benghazi consulate and CIA safe house, it would have been discovered that the weapons had been supplied by the United States.

According to a New York Times article published yesterday that admits Obama-sanctioned weapons got into the hands of jihadists—and the article appears to be chocked full of leaked information from the White House in order to control the explosion of some new revelation—this in fact may be the case.

The New York Times, like a prim schoolmarm, assures the reader, twice mind you—the first time in the second paragraph—that “no evidence has surfaced that any weapons went to Ansar al-Shariah, an extremist group blamed for the Benghazi attack.”

Why are they so sure of this?

Well, they don’t say.

They do seem to know the name of the American arms dealer—Marc Turi—who brokered the arms deal.

They do seem to know that Obama officials secretly met with Qatar officials who were steeped in supplying Islamic extremists with weapons.

They do seem to know information that could only have come from Barack Obama himself.

Is there anything this President doesn’t have his fingers in?

It’s like Chicago in the Twenties and Thirties all over again!

We should call Obama the Al Capone of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

Advertisements

Written by The Obama Hustle

December 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Ron Paul: Secession is right, Civil War maybe not

with 5 comments


National Constitution Center

Outgoing Republican U.S. representative Ron Paul has waded into the secession debate, saying that states have the right to leave the Union, and that the Civil War may not have been “right.”

 

The libertarian politician made the comments on his official House website.

The latest secession controversy was started by a series of petitions on a White House website called We the People. They asked the Obama administration to comment on the possible secession of Texas, Louisiana, and other states after the president defeated Mitt Romney earlier this month.

The Texas petition received about 115,000 online signatures as of Tuesday morning, with a number of people not living in Texas signing up.

Paul’s comments were picked up on political websites on Monday night.

“While I wouldn’t hold my breath on Texas actually seceding, I believe these petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of our union,” Paul said.

“Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding.  Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,” he added.

“Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical.Do we have a ‘government without limitation of powers’ yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?” Paul added.

Legally, there is little evidence that any secessionist movement would have a chance of winning a legal challenge.

Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston outlined the issue last week for us.

“No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution,” Denniston said.

The issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. White in 1869, and the only theoretical path to secession would be the passage of a constitutional amendment.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that opinion in 2006, when he responded to a letter from a screenwriter, who was writing a fictional story about Maine dumping the U.S. to join Canada.

“To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit,” Scalia said.

Paul didn’t bring up the issue of slavery in the Civil War on his official House website, but he has discussed it in the past.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

America’s first president was apparent grave robbery victim Did Abraham Lincoln omit God from the Gettysburg Address? 50 shades of Abraham Lincoln

In 2007, Paul told “Meet The Press” said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.

“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,” Paul told Tim Russert.

In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.

“It really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,” he said.

Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.

“When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,” he said.

Trump’s Twitter rant after Obama win: ‘We should march on Washington and stop this’

with 2 comments


 

Donald Trump, the impossibly coiffed real estate mogul and de facto leader of the “birther” movement, had something of a Twitter meltdown in the wake of President Barack Obama’s projected victory in Tuesday’s election.

“Well, back to the drawing board!” Trump tweeted shortly after several networks, including Fox News, called Ohio in the president’s favor, sealing the win. “We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!”

Trumpwho last month offered $5 million to a charity of Obama’s choice in exchange for the release of the commander in chief’s college records and passport applicationcontinued his post-election rant in 140-character chunks:

Let’s fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Our nation is a once great nation divided!

Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble…like never before.

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

“Barack Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country,” Trump said in a widely mocked October video shot from his New York office and uploaded to YouTube. “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate or whatever it may be.”

Investigation Reveals Numerous Bogus Claims on Obama Resume

with 8 comments


Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama  resume

Anthony Martin's photo

In what is being called ‘the biggest hustle in human history,’ a special  investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama.  The claim turns out to be false.

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a  disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be.   The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be  false–fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that  had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by ‘the Blogging Professor,’ the Chicago Law School faculty  hated Obama.  The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was  never a ‘constitutional professor and scholar,’ and that he never served as  editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an ‘instructor’ at Chicago Law  School, not a professor.  Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track  teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a  salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that  of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama  concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are  a complete sham.  The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law  a  few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about  “Barry.”  Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even  considered.  A few  weeks later the law school got a phone call from the  Board of Trustees telling  them to find him an office, put him on the  payroll, and give him a class to  teach.  The Board told him he didn’t  have to be a member of the faculty, but  they needed to give him a  temporary position.  He was never a professor and was  hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy,  unqualified, never  attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was  clear that the position was  nothing more than a political stepping  stool.  According to my professor  friend, he had the lowest intellectual  capacity in the building.  He also  doubted whether he was legitimately  an editor on the Harvard Law Review,  because if he was, he would be the  first and only editor of an Ivy League law  review to never be published  while in school (publication is or was a  requirement).

Thus,  the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the  Harvard Law Review a ‘put-up job’ as well, allowing the student to claim he held  this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the  requirements of holding that position?  And why?

Further,

Consider this: 1.  President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard  Law  Review, is no longer a “lawyer”.   He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that  he “fibbed” on his bar application.

2.  Michelle Obama  “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

3.  So, we  have the President and First Lady – who don’t actually have  licenses to  practice law. Facts.

4.  A senior lecturer is one thing.    A  fully ranked law professor is  another.  According to the Chicago  Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago  law  school professor”.  Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law  professor at  the University of Chicago.

5. The University of  Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen.  Barack Obama  (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a  title  Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for   the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at  the Chicago Law School.

There is more from Ross, however:

6.  “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha  Ferziger  Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in  Law at the  University of Chicago School of Law.

7.      The  former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S.  Constitution  recently during his State of the Union Address.  Unfortunately,  the  quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the   Constitution.

8.      The B-Cast  posted the video.

9.    In the State of the Union Address,  President Obama said: “We find  unity in our incredible diversity,  drawing on the promise enshrined in  ourConstitution: the notion that we  are all created equal.”

10.   By the way, the promises are not a  notion, our founders named them  unalienable rights.  The document is our  Declaration of Independence and it  reads:  We hold these truths to be  self-evident, that all men are created  equal,that they are endowed by  their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the  same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in  the same  speech?

When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight.  And apart  from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to  speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to  release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama’s  presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENTjust as these disturbing  facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals  with numerous ‘journalists,’ promising unprecedented access to the President in  exchange for refraining from reporting certain information ‘they may  discover.’

Continue reading on Examiner.com Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume – National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume#ixzz1rmggAYCY

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

YouViewed/Editorial

News , Blues and Guns ... Not Necessarily In That Order

For What It's Worth

Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, etc.

Today's News 4 You

Just another WordPress.com site

Mississippi Coal

Kemper Lignite Coal Plant Connections to the United Nations' Projects

The Piratearian

Aye, It's good to be a Pirate!

Texas Tudors' Blog

Tudor and Frederick Ancestors

Banzai Pipeline

Photography & Commentary

The Ohio Conservative

Conservative thought and opinion from the Midwest

theconservativehillbilly

Confronting stupid people with the cold hard conservative fist of truth

Hump Day Report

It's America...We Can Get Over The Hump!

My Very Own Point of View

bits and pieces of what runs through my mind

The Daley Gator

If You're Left, You Just Ain't Right

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

Sparkleplenty27's Campaign Coverage

Political News About the Campaign FACT BASED and Commentary

Old1wordpress's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

talonspoint.wordpress.com/

Telling it like it is since 19....month

We the People of the United States

Fighting the Culture War, One Skirmish at a Time

%d bloggers like this: