• Direct Ecig, American Made E-Liquid.  Try It On Us!
  • Eat Cleaner

Subscribe to this blog

Subscribe to full feed RSS
What the? RSS?!

Subscribe Via Email

Enter your Email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner
Featured Post

Remember Obama’s AttackWatch.com Website? Tied To IRS and AP Phone Confiscation Scandals?

By mostfued On May 15, 201335 Comments

The Obama campaign launched a snitch line website during his 2012 reelection campaign.

Remember AttackWatch.com? (AttackWatch.com – Fight the Smears)

Obama-ites were supposed to sign up to report “lies” being told about Obama, his credentials, or his campaign (It was set up pre-2012 election).

The Obama campaign extended their original 2008 propaganda troops known as “The Barack Obama Truth Squad” by launching AttackWatch.com The website campaign had signed up law enforcement officials “to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”

There were disturbing announcements after the creation of Attack Watch, such as the one from KMOV-TV in Missouri:

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has signed up law enforcement officials “to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.” (Obama’s Legal Goon Squads, Matthew Vadum, CFP, Sept. 28, 2008).

“According to a summary on National Review Online by Jim Geraghty, prosecutors and sheriffs in the state are joining “the Barack Obama Truth Squad”. Mentioned in the report are Jennifer Joyce, a St. Louis Circuit Attorney, and Bob McCullough, prosecutor for St. Louis County, NRO reports.
“The reporter says, “They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

“While the report never comes out and says anyone running an ad saying those things would be subject to prosecution, that certainly is the message implied.
“Of course, the Senator is perfectly entitled to fight back if he believes his positions are being misrepresented, but he should do that with more speech, not heavy-handed legal maneuvering aimed at suppressing speech. We don’t need politically correct inquisitors.”

Not surprisingly, a major anchor for KMOV-TV has come forward as a suspected (alleged) target of the current, scandalous IRS audits that are in question.

Before the 2012 presidential election, a St. Louis anchor of KMOV-TV was granted an interview with President Obama. Many were surprised when Larry Conners got straight to the issues, confronting the president about his lavish vacations while others are cutting back. (Keep in mind, this was around the time when the president was actually asked whether he preferred “red or green” in a radio interview.)
Now, after the Internal Revenue Service has admitted to targeting conservative groups, Conners is wondering whether his recent and unexpected struggles with the IRS have anything to do with the interview. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/local-news-reporter-irs-started-hammering-me-after-tough-obama-interview/

The seeds of evil were planted in 2008. Fast-forward to pre-reelection campaigning of November, 2012.

The Nazi-ish AttackWatch.com website was announced by then-campaign manager, Jim Messina.
Messina first contacted campaign supporters in a fundraising email about the launch of AttachWatch.com. He stated:

“Forming the first line of defense against a barrage of misinformation won’t be easy. Our success will depend on a team of researchers and writers to stay on the lookout for false claims about the President and his record, bring you the facts, and hold our opposition accountable.”

How surprising is it that ABC News led the charge to support Obama’s snitch site? Complicit ABC headlines like, Obama ‘Attackc Watch’ Website to Help Supporters ‘Fight Back’, that quoted a Tennessee college student Jenifer Kickliter. She was one of the misguided youth that fell for the Obama charm (way before the nauseating “Charm Offensive”) and had volunteered for the 2012 reelection campaign.

“It’s not easy being an Obama for America volunteer, especially when you feel ill-equipped to respond to the waves of attacks from his critic,” Kickliter lamented.

The shocking revelation is that during that time period, many people were seriously concerned and wondered if the Tea Party and Tea Party members would be publicly maligned, falsely accused or even prosecuted by the ill-conceived Attack Watch program. It appears that the current IRS scandal has provided credibility to those fears.

AttackWatch.com gave Obama supporters a platform in which to “report” anyone or any group for spreading “disinformation”. Really? Where is the logic here? Is it not true that ANY person or group that disagrees with anything that is said conflicting with Obama’s views or programs would be deemed “misinformation”? Wouldn’t it also be safe to say that one would conclude that a person speaking against programs or views of the Obama administration would be an opponent?

Aren’t opponents allowed to have “opposing views”? Apparently, according to AttackWatch.com, they are not.

The AttackWatch.com implies that if you have opposing views, you are misinformed. If you are “misinformed”, perhaps you are lucky enough to be reported on AttackWatch.com. That way, they can set you straight. Perhaps you were reported. How would you know?
That’s what it was there for right?

Most Democrats publicly lambasted (and still malign) “Tea Party” people, organizations and individuals. Anyone speaking out with opposing views to the Obama machine is “spreading lies and misinformation” and has to be stopped.

As a matter of fact, a post on AttackWatch.com, which is pasted below verbatim, lists several organizations that the Obama “Truth Team” deemed to be subversive, “interconnected operatives” and hostile to the Obama regime:

Swift Boat 2.0: Conservative groups behind false attacks on the President’s national security record

When President Obama took office, the U.S. was engaged in two wars and and al-Qaeda’s leader Osama bin Laden was still at large. As commander-in-chief, President Obama refocused our priorities on the most significant security threats to the country and on fulfilling our promises to our servicemembers. Under the President, we have eliminated more than two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s core leadership—including bin Laden.

But a new cadre of conservative groups are trying to “Swift Boat” the President by manufacturing false attacks about his national security record. A collection of super PACs and organizations are deploying the same “discredited” and “hardball smear tactics” against President Obama that were used to attack Sen. John Kerry’s military service in 2004. Each group follows the same pattern, identifying themselves as separate, nonpartisan former U.S. military and intelligence operatives who have a “civic duty” to attack the President. But who exactly is behind these attacks?

A closer look at each group reveals an interconnected web of Republican operatives who are launching “Swift Boat”-style smear tactics against President Obama’s national security record.
Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund
The partisan agenda:
• Launch false attacks on the President over the operation that killed Osama bin Laden
• Falsely claim President Obama is deliberately leaking national security information
The operatives:
• OPSEC president Scott Taylor is a failed Republican candidate who lost his campaigns for public office in 2008 and 2010.
• Spokesman Chad Kolton worked as a spokesman for the Bush administration, the Republican National Committee, and House Speaker John Boehner. Another spokesman Fred Rustmann appeared on Fox News during the Bush administration to—ironically—downplay the significance of leaks about CIA operative Valerie Plame’s undercover status, claiming it wasn’t “a big deal.” This serious breach of national security later led to four felony convictions for Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.
• OPSEC member Bill Cowan actually praised President Obama for making “the tough decision” to “go after bin Laden instead of taking the easy way out” before he joined a group attacking the President for that operation.

Special Operations Speaks
The partisan agenda:
• Falsely claim President Obama is deliberately leaking national security information
The operatives:
• Founder Larry Bailey created the Vietnam Veterans for Truth in 2004, an organization that helped generate the Swift Boat attacks on Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In 2006, he launched the Vets for the Truth PAC using the same tactics to target Democratic Rep. John Murtha.
Veterans for a Strong America
The partisan agenda:
• Launch false attacks on the President over the operation that killed Osama bin Laden
The operatives:
• Executive Director Joe Arends worked on both the Bush and McCain presidential campaigns and ran an unsuccessful campaign as a Republican candidate for office in Iowa. He had previously served as Executive Director of Vets for Freedom, an attack group bankrolled by former Bush Administration officials that was closely tied to members of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Special Operations for America
The partisan agenda:
• Launch false attacks on the President over the operation that killed Osama bin Laden
The operatives:
• Montana’s conservative state senator Ryan Zinke founded the Super PAC, which has stated it is dedicated to “advocating for the election of Mitt Romney and like-minded candidates,” and has partnered with Veterans for a Strong America and its leader Joel Arends. Advisory board member Paul Vallely is also a member of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund.
It is not surprising that the attacks these groups are launching lack any credibility. The President is committed to protecting our troops and our country’s security. The only way to mislead Americans about his record on national security is to resort to dishonest and overtly political smear campaigns that do a disservice to Americans who deserve to know the facts about the President’s record. As Arends said himself, “Yes, it’s the swift boating of the president.” - http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/attack-watch : copy/pasted with NO EDITS.

Karl Rove’s conservative super PAC, Crossroads Generation, was targeted in an AttackWatch .com post of its very own. It would be interesting to discover if Crossroads Generation has been the target of IRS abuse. Since Charles Blahous at the Koch-funded George Mason University Mercatus Center, was singled out for a dedicated post as well, we will try to get further information on their status.

Below is an actual copy of the Obama email sent to Obama supporters upon the launch of ATTACKWATCH.com:

Expose the attacks
From: Jim Messina, BarackObama.com info@barackobama.com
Subject: Expose the attacks
Date: September 13, 2011 7:56:35 PM EDT
To: (redacted)
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

If you’re someone who cares about seeing a campaign focused on substance between now and November 2012, I need you to become a part of one of our most important teams.
It’s called AttackWatch.com, and it launches today.

Here’s the deal: We all remember the birth certificate smear, the GOP’s barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act, and the string of other phony attacks on President Obama that we’ve seen over the past few years.

There are a lot of folks on the other side who are chomping at the bit to distort the President’s record. It’s not a question of if the next big lie will come, just when—and what we’re prepared to do about it.

AttackWatch.com is exactly what it sounds like: a resource that allows us to nip these attacks in the bud before they show up on the airwaves and in emails—and then fight back with the truth.

By signing up, you’ll be on the front lines—you’ll hear about false claims as soon as they come up, and we’ll count on you to spread the truth to your friends and personal networks and let us know about new smears whenever you hear them.

Will you sign up now to be a part of AttackWatch.com?

  • Yes, I want to be on the team that fights back.
  • Not right now, but I’ll donate $5 to fund the 2012 campaign and support this work.

I remember the smears from 2008 well, and I’m sure you do, too.

They didn’t just attack Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They went after everything this movement is built on, and everyone who supports it.

This time, they’re not just out to personally attack the President—they’re also out to mislead Americans about the record of accomplishments that he’s compiled. Just the other day, a Republican financier actually quoted Saddam Hussein in telling a group of millionaire donors that defeating President Obama will be “the mother of all wars.” (*Insertion: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF UNTRUTHS SPREAD BY ATTACK WATCH: “Friedman reports that audio he obtained from the conference reveals that Charles Koch alarmingly referred to President Obama as “Saddam Hussein,” saying that the right had to fight the “mother of all wars.“ – See the difference? - - http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/661952/at_strategy_seminar,_koch_refers_to_obama_as_%E2%80%98saddam_hussein%E2%80%99_to_be_defeated_in_%E2%80%98mother_of_all_wars%E2%80%99

We’re launching AttackWatch.com today to make sure we’re ready for the attacks we know are coming—and armed with the ability to fight back quickly.
Sign up for AttackWatch.com now, and let’s get the facts out:


Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

In light of the current Trilateral Whitewash Scandal (Benghazi, IRS, AP – DOJ scandals where Obama is supposed to be whitewashed of any involvement aka: ClusterMuck), AttackWatch.com has become relevant. It has become extremely relevant.

The Department of Justice should demand the records of AttackWatch.com in order to determine if this lynch-mob group housed within “AttackWatch.com” contributed to the criminal actions of the IRS in political isolation and political espionage. Accordingly, President Obama is accountable. He manipulates the IRS directly. He has already employed the IRS as informants and financial police through Obamacare. If you haven’t yet read through “The Affordable Care Act“, I strongly suggest that you do before you are blind-sided with it.

ATTACKwatch.com is irrefutable evidence that the Obama administration is absolutely not above making “hit lists” that target individuals and organizations for “correction”, intimidation, and suppression.

Recent Posts

State Sen. Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman) Suggests College Students Too Stupid To Carry Guns

By mostfued On May 12, 2013 20 Comments

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) vetoed a bill Monday that would have allowed guns on college campuses in the state, the Associated Press reported.

Under the defeated bill, students would have been able to keep guns in their dorms if their roommate agreed to it, and students, staff and faculty could have carried a concealed firearm with a permit.

The legislation, passed mostly along party lines out of the Republican-controlled legislature, would’ve stripped the state’s Board of Regents and the Montana University System of their authority to regulate firearms on public college campuses. The board currently has a policy requiring students to store guns in a vehicle or a secure place on campus. These guns are typically hunting weapons kept in special lockers, the AP reported.

State Sen. Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman) told Montana Public Media he didn’t believe college students should be carrying weapons on campus because they are “young people, full of hormones and determination and drive and emotions.”

“It’s not the setting I think where guns would be well placed,” Phillips said.

Sorry Montana college students. Senator Mike Phillips thinks you are too stupid to carry firearms.

Moms Demand Action With Racist Gun Control Campaign

By mostfued On May 12, 2013 25 Comments

We have been exposed to many outrageous campaigns in the past that attack the sensibilities of reasonable people. Moms Demand Action leaps to the forefront as leaders of the unreasonable.

Tragedies are just that. Bus accident fatalities are tragic. House fires are tragic. Alzheimer’s is tragic. However, nothing is more tragic than the misguided and misinformed trying to start a “movement” that perpetuates more misinformation using techniques that equal being fire-hosed with illogical emotion and disinformation created to control and change the lives of every living human being.

Moms Demand Action has created a campaign that is blatantly racist while using comparisons equivalent of apples and oranges. It is without question that these “moms”, Shannon Watts, Founder, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America, Melissa Brooks, Co-leader and their minions, are not thinking clearly. Logic or fact has no place to reside where emotion has consumed every particle of oxygen in the room.

What IS clear is that Ms. Watts, Ms. Brooks and others involved with this disorganization sat down at a planning table. They planned out the PSA campaign “strategy”. They clearly chose to put a WHITE CHILD in every campaign picture as the “shooter” with the gun. They clearly chose to put alternating children of different ethnicities in the campaign photos as the “innocent” child holding an item that is banned for whatever other ridiculous liberal reasoning it was banned for (the subjects are dodge ball, “Little Red Riding Hood” book, and Kinder Eggs).

I’m sure it would be a shock to the people that may have donated to the Moms Demand Action group that their funds are being used to create racist PSA campaigns. Moms Demand Action actively solicit “donations” on FundRazr.com It is clear that Moms Deman Action violates the FundRazr.com Terms of Service (TOS):  https://fundrazr.com/pages/terms-of-service REPORT: TOS-violations@connectionpoint.ca

Let’s get to their racist PSA campaign, shall we?

Racist Moms Demand Action Example # 1

Racist "Moms Demand Action" Campaign Example #1

Horrors. There is a bottle of wine in Little Red Riding Hood's basket. Never mind that Red is taking it to grandma. Never mind that MOM bought it to GIVE to grandma. Who else would have wine? Red certainly isn't 21 years old. And besides, MOM won't miss that bottle, she has about 57 in her daily collection to choose from...

Racist “Moms Demand Action” Campaign Example # 2

Racist Moms Demand Action Campaign Picture # 2

Racist Moms Demand Action Campaign Picture # 2

Racist “Moms Demand Action” Campaign Example # 3

Racist "Moms Demand Action" Campaign Example #

The Racist Position

If it isn’t obvious just by looking at the above campaign photos, we’ll point out how Moms Demand Action has crossed the line into hate speech and racist rhetoric.

The little boy and girls holding the gun in all three pictures are WHITE. The little girl and boys holding the object that is NOT a gun are ethnic. There you have it. As in any campaign, you have a person or panel of people determining how the imagery should reflect  the intended meaning. This is obviously intended to portray that WHITE people are clinging to their guns and teaching their children to do the same whereas, the ethnic groups are merely trying to read books, play games, and eat candy.

The positioning, stance, and clothing was planned out as well. Notice that the children without the gun are holding out their objects in a “giving” stance. Notice the children with the gun are holding it in a stance that indicates “readiness” of use. The boy and girl in # 2 and # 3 even have their finger on the trigger. Wasn’t there anyone from the NRA there to properly instruct these children when they were handed a weapon to handle for these propaganda photos?

Was this gun owned by Melissa Brooks or by Shannon Watts? Why are they recklessly putting a gun in the hands of innocent children? Just so they can exploit them at the risk of the thing going off? What if one of them “went crazy”? What if it got stolen when no one was looking? What if it accidentally went off and kills the cameraman or the lighting crew? It shoots a billion bullets you know - all in one second. What about the psychological trauma that you have caused these children? Who is going to pay for their years of therapy by being in the room with a gun? Weren’t these kids just absolutely terrified, particularly in the photos where the kids actually had their finger on the trigger? Oh, you had the photo shoot under control and every precaution against accidents was taken, eh? And we’re supposed to trust YOU? Where’s your background check? You just put 6 children in mind-numbing mortal danger for a PHOTO!

See how stupid all of that sounds?

And by the way, this is an open note to Ms. Shannon Watts. Do not be surprised when you are arrested for a felony. Having firearms on ANY school property is already a zero-tolerance federal offense. No-gun zone, remember? Explain photos of gun-toting children in two school classrooms and a school gymnasium. Explain how the law doesn’t apply to you. Just try.

I honestly wonder who is going to pay for the counseling these kids will need when they grow up to realize that they were “used” by adults to push a false agenda.

I know that Ms. Watts wants to try to make some kind of statement. Her energies would be better spent supporting causes that address criminal mental illness in this country.  Someone needs to inform her that there are already gun control laws and background checks on the books. Someone also needs to inform her of what VP Joe Biden said about gun laws:

Vice-President Biden said, “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” That’s right: Biden said the administration doesn’t have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.

So, basically, that’s why they (liberals) want to take all of our guns away from us, because they’ve created a system that they can’t manage properly, so their solution is to punish us for their incompetent boobery. - http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=33722

VP Biden - The Gun Control Task Force Boob

VP Biden - The Gun Control Task Force Boob

On March 30, 2013, Melissa Brooks, Co-leader of Moms Demand Action spoke in front of what appeared to be 40-50 of the same paid, protesters-for-hire that were bused in for the Obama 2012 campaign rallies. One could justifiably  wonder if these homeless men were also given lunch and a free cell phone.

One of the hardest concepts to fathom is the unrelenting attitude of The Left when it comes to “organizations” such as Moms Demand Action. Their attitude is that it is okay to be racist when it helps to prove their point. It is okay to shred the Constitution, the LAW of the LAND, when it helps to prove their point. It is okay to use and manipulate depictions of children (and our associated emotions) when it helps to prove their point.

The BEST point is? We don’t have to be racist, unconstitutional, or abusive to be RIGHT.

Stand up for our Republic. Stand up for our Constitution. Stand up for freedom. It is afforded to EVERYONE.

And just a footnote concerning the Kinder Egg ban. It is almost laughable that this delectable treat is “banned” as a choking hazard and prevented from sale in the U.S. when wieners cause more choking deaths in a year that the entire history of Kinder Surprises. Within our borders, each egg carries a fine of up to $2500.00 per egg. As an attempt to end this irritating Moms Demand Action post with a bit of humor, I’ll leave you with this excerpt gleaned from the comments on Gawker.com:

This (Kinder Egg) ban is basically why we have young children eating used condoms in McDonald’s playgrounds. If they were allowed to have a Kinder Surprise they would have already choked to death on a toy and we’d be able to have as much sex in McDonald’s playgrounds as we want without having to worry about someone’s dumb-fuck kid. So essentially the ban on Kinder Surprises is responsible for people having unprotected sex in McDonald’s playgrounds. When people have unprotected sex they are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection. In order words, the ban on Kinder Surprises = AIDS. Do you want AIDS? No? Then let me have a fucking Kinder Surprise. 3/15/13 2:36pm

Well said, Eben. Well said.
Uncle Joe "Finger-gun" Freakin' Biden

The Benghazi Events Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama Wish We Didn’t Know About

By mostfued On May 11, 2013 34 Comments

The following information is damning evidence that the Benghazi “video” excuse was a set-up.

A statement was issued by the US Embassy in Cairo at 6:17 AM on September 11, 2012.

The statement has since been scrubbed from the White House online statement records and the U.S. Embassy - Cairo statement online records: http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pa/press3.html, however, Clinton and Obama’s statements made on 9-12-2012 (the next day) still remain in the online records of statements.

There are plenty of websites that linked to that Cairo statement that used to be on the Cairo Embassy website. Those articles are still on the Internet. When you click on the article  link to the Cairo Embassy statement, it goes now to a “404 — File Not Found” blank page - http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo released a statement at 6:17 AM est on Sept. 11, 2012, HOURS BEFORE the FIRST terror attack on the Libyan Embassy to apologize for protests that were NOT HAPPENING.

From that 6:17 AM statement, the Egyptian? News / TV/ Media were alerted to “a video” They picked up the YouTube location and name of the video, they widely broadcast the “video” information to Egyptians and called for a protest at 5 P.M. in Cairo - Hours AFTER terror attacks on the Libyan Embassy had started.

One of the articles I found that had a link to the original 6:17 AM statement is on PolitiFact.com. The article was by Louis Jacobson, “Did the U.S. embassy in Cairo make an apology?” It is one of many articles that linked to the US Embassy Cairo statement when it was still online - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/ You will see the article link that should have gone to the Cairo Embassy statement is “file not found” now.

So, the Benghazi timeline actually is amended to the following:

September 11, 2012

6:17 A.M. - EST - U.S. Embassy in Cairo issues a statement that brings attention to “a YouTube Video” that was described as denigrating to the Prophet Muhammad. This “statement” used to be posted on the U.S. Embassy at Cairo’s website - http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html The release document has been removed from their website.

6:17 and during the next 11 hours, radio, television and Internet published and distributed the YouTube Location and Video Name and television personalities called for demonstrations to be staged in the city of Cairo at 5:00 PM.

2:30 P.M. - EST - Ambassador Stevens checks outside before retiring to his bedroom quarters. NO PROTESTS OR PROTESTING of any tiype was going on outside the Embassy at this time.

3:40 P.M. - EST - The initial attack started at the Lybian Embassy.

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

5:00 P.M. - EST - Cairo protesters climbed the Cairo Embassy walls in protest, which was broadcast in Egypt, further fanning the hysteria started by the 6:17 A.M. statement released by the Cairo Embassy.

6:07 P.M.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

About 8:30 P.M.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi.” (White House issued statement)

About 10:00 P.M.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

Clinton: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

On the morning of September 11, 2012, this author heard of the Cairo Embassy statement through AP (which ALSO is no longer available in archives).

I immediately read the statement and then looked up “the video” myself. That was around 9:00 am and approximately 6 hours and 45 minutes before the first reports of attacks at Benghazi surfaced. There were around 440 “views” of the “video” at that time, which in YouTube world, is a video that has had practically NO viewers.

I looked for information about “protests” through Reuters and AP, but there were none. I was confused at the “apology statement” since nothing was going on.

It is apparent to me that the statement was issued so that all of the media in Egypt would get the information about a “video” and whip it up into a proper frenzy - which is what happened. By noon, their time, there was a public media call for an official “Protest” at 5 PM, (their time). Where protesters were photographed and filmed in full, riotous rigor. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48992623 On 9-12-2012, The Daily News Egypt (Independent Online Newspaper in English) reported,

“Nearly 3,000 demonstrators, most of them hardline Islamist supporters of the Salafist movement, gathered at the (Egyptian) embassy in (the 5:00 PM) protest over a film deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed which was produced in the United States.“

The Salafist Movement created “The al-Nour” Party.

“The al?Nour Party (Arabic: ??? ??????, ?izb Al?N?r) (”Party of The Light”) is one of the political parties created in Egypt after the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. It has an ultra-conservative Islamist ideology, which believes in implementing strict Sharia law.

Al?Nour was set up after the 2011 Egyptian revolution, when the interim military government allowed the formation of new parties. It was established by one of the largest Salafist groups in Egypt, The Salafi Call.”


Keep in mind that the Salafist Movement founded The al-Nour Party after the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The Salafist Movement was cited as being the majority of demonstrators that showed up for the 5:00 PM demonstration at the Cairo. However, the same article stated that a Libyan witness said that armed men had closed the streets leading up to the (Libyan) consulate, among them ultra-conservative Salafists. Also keep in mind that the Libyan attack started almost 2 hours before the first “demonstration” held in Cairo at 5:00 P.M.

al-Nour logo is unbelievably similar to Obama logo

al-Nour logo is unbelievably similar to Obama logo

The following was learned after the U.S. Embassy in Cairo protests: “During the entry into the embassy grounds United States Marines were not allowed to carry live ammunition by the State Department.[82] Egypt’s prime minister Hesham Kandil said “a number” of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate (in the protest).”

Here are pictures that were taken by Ibn Zawaar out of 152 pictures he posted as taken on September 14, 2012 during subsequent protests. The similarity of organization to “Occupy” rallies in the U.S. is striking,

V-masked Cairo protester - Sept. 2012

V-masked Cairo protester - Sept. 2012

The following picture showing several “protesters” with “Occupy” reminiscent masks on at protests in Egypt AFTER the attack had started on Benghazi:


V-masked Cairo protesters - Sept. 2012

V-masked Cairo protesters - Sept. 2012


Every “official” timeline for “Events Of Benghazi” by government officials and reporters alike begins with the reports of the Embassy attack at 3:40 PM (U.S.A. time) and riots in Cairo (5 PM, U.S.A. time). The timeline posted on FactCheck.ORG starts almost 2 hours earlier with reports of what was observed at the Benghazi Embassy prior to the initial attack (which was no activity and relative calm) http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

It is clear that the protests were REQUIRED in order for the Benghazi attack to be pulled off. Something had to be blamed.

The Muslims had to be publicly provoked in order to cover up this staged attack and Obama would not have to be compelled to retaliate. The Muslim outrage was “justified”.


The U.S. Embassy Cairo statement was posted in the Politifact article, as well as linked to:

What the Cairo Embassy Statement Said

According to media reports, the U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement at 6:17 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 11, 2012, amid growing anger in Egypt about an obscure Web video with a highly negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad — a video that, given past experiences with depictions of Muhammad, seemed likely to spark protests.

The statement condemned the video:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

We are glad to have found an article that posted the entire text of the Cairo Embassy statement as well as the reference link to the original article.


Mark Sanford Gloats As We Wonder “What’s WRONG With Voters?”

By mostfued On May 9, 2013 33 Comments

Right now you are undoubtedly asking yourself: What does the return to Congress of the disgraced ex-governor Mark Sanford mean to me? Well, we now definitely know that 21st-century voters are willing to overlook not just a moral lapse, but also bad judgment of epic proportions. This is useful information if you happen to live in a city where Anthony Weiner is thinking about running for mayor.


 “I want to acknowledge a God not just of second chances, but third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth chances,” said a jubilant Sanford in his victory speech Tuesday night. So far, the voters — and God — have awarded Sanford at least five or six do-overs, what with the adultery, his decision to go to Argentina for an assignation without leaving his gubernatorial staff a phone number where he could be reached, that inclination to discuss embarrassing details of his sex life during press conferences, the ethics fine, the trespassing accusation, and so on.

But talk about the availability of eight chances seems to suggest the newly elected congressman is leaving daylight for additional forgiveness opportunities in the future. Still, this does not necessarily mean that Weiner gets to be mayor of New York City. People are way more careful about picking a mayor or a governor than they are a legislator. Because, really, how much judgment does it take to be a member of Congress?

The House delegation from the State of New York is always losing people because of stupid sex tricks: marathon tickling sessions with the aides, the e-mailing of half-naked photographs, or Weiner’s habit of texting pictures of his private parts to strangers. And life goes on, unchanged. But you want an executive to be better-behaved, or you could wind up with … Eliot Spitzer. One surefire result of this special election will be a plethora of Republican candidates debating cardboard versions of Nancy Pelosi next fall.

It looked stupid when Sanford tried it, but, by gosh, it really did seem to do the trick. To be fair, Sanford’s opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, didn’t seem to come out in public very often, and he needed to argue with somebody. However, the demonizing of the House minority leader has its limits. Pelosi’s own opponent last year ran a very exciting ad depicting her as the queen of a zombie cult, and it had no effect whatsoever.

Everybody got excited about the South Carolina race when, at one point, Public Policy Polling showed Colbert Busch nine points ahead. Clearly, that wasn’t the case, and, in retrospect, I’m afraid we may have to revisit the P.P.P. poll last year that showed that 15 percent of Ohio Republicans believed that Mitt Romney had killed Osama bin Laden. In the end, Sanford’s victory was just about a very Republican area picking a Republican member of Congress.

South Carolina’s Republican mapmakers have spent eons stuffing as many Democrats as possible into the House district represented by Democrat James Clyburn in order to keep the other six districts as deeply red as possible. Their party controlled the seats anyway, but you never knew when there might be some emergency, like a special election with a Republican candidate who was due in court two days after the balloting to answer charges of trespassing at his ex-wife’s home.

The political makeup of Congress will be unchanged; Sanford replaces Republican Tim Scott, who was promoted to the Senate to replace Jim DeMint, who recently retired to lead the Heritage Foundation and do war against the immigration reform bill. While Sanford was celebrating his victory, DeMint was unveiling a big study showing that immigration reform would cost the country trillions and trillions of dollars. Its methodology was ridiculous, and The Washington Post discovered its co-author had once argued that Hispanic immigrants would have “low I-Q children and grandchildren.”

Truly, South Carolina politics is a gift that just keeps on giving. Nobody outside the state seemed terribly thrilled by Sanford’s political resurrection. The National Republican Congressional Committee, which has a tolerance for screwing up that’s notably less extensive than God’s, had wiped its hands of his campaign awhile back. Gabriel Gomez, the Republican candidate in Massachusetts’ special Senate election, called him “pathetic.” And the House leadership needs another Tea Party zealot the way it needs another vote to repeal Obamacare.

“Mr. Sanford will have the opportunity to make a difference for his constituents as a member of the Republican House majority,” said a spokesman for John Boehner, in a statement that reflected the general euphoria over the ex-governor’s return.

So, Representative Mark Sanford. Where do you think he’ll live? Sanford was in the House once before and he slept in his office. This was possibly about staying close to his work but more likely about the same qualities of thriftiness that caused him to give his then-wife a $25 used bicycle for Christmas and her birthday combined. And what committee do you think he’ll serve on? Please God, let it be Foreign Affairs.

New Approach To National Security Exalts The President And A Crystal Ball

By mostfued On March 4, 2013 41 Comments

Both Republicans and Democrats are smart enough to understand that with our changing social environment, our approach to governing must evolve as well. Since national security is a large part of that process, it has been getting a lot of special attention behind closed doors in Washington and various other groups thereof.

Society has recently been shaken with advances upon the Constitutional Rights of U.S. citizens. We feel it is being threatened. The tension concerning gun control, free speech vs. censorship and the Internet, human rights, and government meddling in private business (to name a few) is palpable. Citizens that grew up in the 1920’s through the 1970’s know and feel that something is very wrong in government.

Based on findings in recent government documents, it is evident that our current government, including Congress, is embracing the development and evolution of new national and international security advice following the strongly suggested “Anticipatory Governance” outline, which will be explained in a minute.

We were studying a monograph issued December 13, 2012 (12-13-12 for you Masonic Numerologists) written by Jack  A. LeCuyer called “A National Security Staff for the 21st Century“. In this document, LeCuyer supports the notion that since the Cold War, our enemies are not so clearly defined and the U.S. has to adapt to new security strategies:

Former national security advisor to Vice President Gore, Leon Fuerth, echoing the PNSR in his recent article, “Operationalizing Anticipatory Governance,” has suggested that our national security concerns must also include:

• Security against societal collapse and demoralization as a consequence of massive economic failure;

• Maintenance of the foundations of national power by means of sound fiscal policy over time combined with long-term investment in elements of competitive strength, including physical infrastructure, public health, and public education, especially the nurturing over time of deep excellence in the sciences and engineering;

• Maintenance of the capacity to perform such guarantees as extended to formal allies and associates; and,

• Preservation of the ability to do all of these functions within the framework of the Constitution in a free society, governed by law, and transparently administered.

“Anticipatory Governance”

While studying the rather myopic view of national security through the eyes of Mr. LeCuyer, we discovered the document that is the foundation of what is now called “Anticipatory Governance”.

Mr. LeCuyer stated: “America suddenly finds itself in an unbounded space with multiple communities of interest operating and communicating through nontraditional social media in real time. Rather than the seemingly linear national security system of the Cold War founded on the twin pillars of military defense and diplomacy, we have a constantly changing Rubik’s Cube of multiple, complex, nonlinear systems, all operating at speeds facilitated by the technological and political revolutions that characterize the global commons today.”

These revelations appear to scare Mr LeCuyer and many other high-ranking officials because, it appears, the government has “lost control” of the people.

In order to “change” with the ebb and flow of the “constantly changing Rubik’s Cube of multiple, complex, nonlinear systems,” it seemed necessary to produce a new approach to national and international security with a new hierarchy of command to implement the strategies.

Mr. LeCuyer mentioned the beginnings of theory put to practice by Leon S. Feurth. Leon Feurth had been working on the concepts of “Anticipatory Governance”, which LeCuyer cited in his report. We took it upon ourselves to find out exactly what “Anticipatory Governance” entailed and found the latest report by Mr. Feurth,  ”Anticipatory Governance Practical Upgrades“ dated October, 2012 - a mere 5 months ago at the time of this writing.

From the Executive Summary of the document:

Executive Summary

If we are to remain a well-functioning Republic and a prosperous nation, the U.S. Government cannot rely indefinitely on crisis management, no matter how adroit. We must get ahead of events or we risk being overtaken by them. That will only be possible by upgrading our legacy systems of management to meet today’s unique brand of accelerating and complex challenges. responds to this need by introducing three critical elements to existing Executive Branch functions: fused to policy analysis; for mission-based management and budgeting; and to monitor and adjust policy relative to initial expectations. This report suggests practical upgrades to Executive Branch systems that are light on resources, compatible with the existing structures and processes of government, and fully executable under customary Presidential authorities (requiring no congressional action). (Bold and italicized emphasis added)

Upon further investigation, we found that Mr. Feurth’s 30 year span on Capitol Hill has spun it’s way to Forward Engagement ®

Forward Engagement ®is a process of thinking systematically about complex, interactive, and longer-range issues in a way that is applicable to public policy. That application has evolved into the concept of “Anticipatory Governance” a systems-based approach for enabling governance to cope with accelerating, complex forms of change.

It was probably evident to 99.9% of readers where President Obama’s “FOWARD”  2012 campaign slogan came from as soon as they saw “Forward Engagement ®”

The project’s entire focus and premise is to develop forward thinking, anticipating consequences ahead of time, and enacting laws VIA EXECUTIVE ORDERS, bypassing Congress in order to circumvent the hypothetical outcomes of each scenario they cook up.

There are already shocking examples of this “Foresight System” (see page 16) already in action.

  • Limit guns and ammunition in anticipation of civil unrest
  • Limit religious freedom of speech in anticipation of religious disagreement; i.e. inciting muslims
  • Reform immigration laws in anticipation of North American Union initiatives; anticipate and water down acceptance of illegals as “undocumented workers”
  • Isolate and escalate minority groups subject to violence and escalate penalties: VAWA (Violence Against Women Act - UN pressured Congress to pass VAWA before the UN March 4th International Conference addressing VAWA which allowed UN influence over US Congressional actions/voting)
  • Allow President Executive Authority without Congress approval via Executive Orders - example: Executive Order initializing war without Congressional Approval before leaving on South American trip over a weekend.
There are a plethora of examples in addition to the above list. Pay particular attention to the last bullet point. One of the most disturbing aspects of the push for “Anticipatory Governance” is the near-autonomous (dictator-style) power that is to be ushered upon the Presidential position. Congress is “strongly urged” to play by the Forward Engagement and Foresight System rules. Congress is to support the President without exercising their constitutional duties under these new, evolved rules. This is why main-stream media consistently pushes reports and speeches out of Washington lamenting the “out-dated-ness” of the Constitution and “how it doesn’t fit our society today”. Totally ignoring Constitutionality has to seem like the right thing to do.

Paving The Way For Dictatorship

On page 18, the inserted text box has the simplified outline to get a dictator-like, national security structure in place:
Criteria for Implementation
To comport with reality, the initiatives contained in this report have been designed, vetted, and validated against the following criteria:

  • very light on resources
  • executable under existing Presidential authorities (requires no Congressional action)
  • compatible with existing White House processes (adjustable arrangements for existing staff)

Additionally, initiatives are designed to be:

  • ultimately compatible with longer-range, more profound reform involving the executive branch as a whole, if and when that becomes possible; and
  • integrated with advanced methodological approaches, including methods potentially important to foresight generation and to systems operations.
The last time I looked, the Constitution provides that the Congress is the vehicle by which laws are passed. Under the “Foresight System, the opposite is the case:
“Policymakers take their cues from the President. If this is prioritized at the top, it will be taken seriously. Transition periods between administrations can be used to inaugurate systems changes.” - (page 6)
Interestingly enough, Speaker Boehner stated in his 2010 mid-term election victory speech,

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. “

The New Anticipatory Governance Explained:

“The initiatives proposed in this document represent a synthesis of the best ideas that emerged from the 2011 working group process on Anticipatory Governance held at NDU. The proposals have also undergone supplementary scrutiny in a series of individual encounters with very senior of?cials from the present and past administrations that took place from September 2011 to May 2012. All of these concepts can be put into place ef?ciently, quickly, and by means that are specifically suited to Presidential authority.” (Bold added for emphasis) - (page 6)

“This approach to fast-track implementation of Anticipatory Governance initiatives could be established by Presidential Order and designed to run until such time as the directive is revoked or for a specified time subject to continuation after review by senior advisors.” - (page 71)

As you can see, like with most “official” government-style reports, there is a lot of verbiage to cover. We have merely scratched the surface of the documents in order to bring these initiatives to light. Study the material thoroughly and start following their reference materials to other documents that will shed even more light on how the regime is planning to attack our Constitution.

It is imperative that you give this your undivided attention now. If we wait, it will be too late.

Chuck Schumer Universal Registration - Universal Background Check - The Same Thing

By mostfued On February 26, 2013 57 Comments

Chuck Schumer explains that Universal Backgound Checks are the same as Universal Registrations.

Can Citizens Buy Drones? Drone Website Shows Drone Manuvers

By mostfued On February 25, 2013 54 Comments

Recently, Americans have learned more about the drone program and just how much we’ve been kept in the dark about drone research and development. It has come to our attention that drones are being marketed - after gaining “approval” from the Department of Homeland Security.

The drone sales website, http://www.vanguarddefense.com, does not tell United States citizens if the spy drones are for sale to the general public. The three categories mentioned are military, public safety, and commercial. We already know of drone use in the military since the Obama administration has seen fit to launch drone attacks in current foreign conflicts away from and off of United States soil.

However, the use of drones on American soil is a reality. In 2011, Homeland Security (DHS) approved their use on US domestic soil after “successful” drone use in Afghanistan  and against Somali pirates (source: infowars.com) One wonders who will be given access to these drones besides law enforcement?

In this demonstration video that we pulled from YouTube, Vanguard plays Hollywood-like, dramatic music in the soundtrack which does add to the dramatic effect, but I think more importantly that the soundtrack covers up the loud engine noise of the “drone / mini-helicopter”. The noise can’t be a good covert selling-point. In my honest opinion, you’d have to be a stoned idiot to miss the thing hovering loudly in the air with a blue flashing light underneath, but I assume the law-enforcement-type blue light could be turned off.

Disturbingly, not enough information is on the web site to determine what regulations apply to the use of the drone in police or rescue scenarios. It does not address what commercial use would be limited to. There are no links to regulation information outside of the company that covers privacy or illegal use. So, exactly what are our rights as citizens. After all, WE ARE the TARGETS of such drone surveillance.

There are a few affiliate links on the Vanguard site that point to other companies that promote the use of unmanned robots or devices. One such site is Auvsi - http://www.auvsishow.org. AUVSI stands for Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. According to their site, a conference will be in Alabama in March of 2013 and a trade exhibit is scheduled for August 12 - 15, 2013. If you do not think there is a lot of interest, think again. This year, an estimated 8,000 attendees from over 40 countries will converge on Washington, D.C. for the largest international unmanned systems conference where over 600 exhibitors consume more than 350,000 square feet of exhibit space.

It appears that a LOT of people are interested in putting a little spy-in-the-sky, but again, I go back to the main question. What are YOUR rights as a citizen if spy drones are used in your area, over your property, or in public space? Who is the authority to dictate the use of drones and drone activity? If a drone is purchased for “commercial” use such as security surveillance of commercial property, who monitors to see that the drone is not altered to be armed or used for spying on commercial competitors? Who determines if the drones will be armed or unarmed? Yes - they have the capability to be armed. Would you believe with a 12 gauge or hand-grenade launcher? There is even capability for taser-wire with 4 barbed implements to be fired from 100 ft. This all sounds fun, doesn’t it?

Since Obama signed controversial bill–H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012—allowing the commercial use of drones in 2015, drones have been the focus of many would-be inventors. Don’t worry about paying $500,000 per drone. You can DIY your own drone foe a few hundred dollars. According to , the following list of baby drones have been developed with amazing accuracy and efficiency:

  • Maple seed-sized drones: in July Lockheed Martin demonstrated its mechanized winged seed, called the Samari. “You can literally pull this out of your pocket, throw it into the air, and it can start flying,” Borgia told TPM. “It can take off and land vertically indoors.” According to a video demo, the Samarai was meant to be deployed in industrial settings and farms, collecting surveillance videos (perhaps to ecatch industrial crimes).
  • Mosquito drones: In January the Washington Post discovered mockups of camera-equipped, mosquito-sized drones being developped by the CIA. The drones were able to take DNA samples or inject objects beneath the skin.
  • Supersonic mini drone: At the University of Colorodo, researchers are reportedly developing a 22 lb aerial drone that can be used to analyze storms (civilian purpose) or for military reconnaissance.
  • Laser-charged drones: Not so much about size, but this is quite a technology feat. Last week a laser company announced a novel way to charge drones using lasers, ensuring “practically unlimited flight endurance” a product manager told The Verge.- SecurityWatch - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that 30,000 civilian drones will swarm the country within a decade.

Your writer is usually a bit more snarky when writing, but this story has a somber, dark mood. It has a sinister plot. It has a big-brother choke-hold on all of humanity. The answers to all of these questions will only generate more questions that I’m sure won’t have satisfactory answers and we have to ask ourselves, “How far is too far?”

Michelle Obama Dances - Jimmy Fallon

By mostfued On February 24, 2013 30 Comments

Just when you think that things couldn’t be worse, they become worse. Barack and Michelle Obama are doing everything in their power to degrade of the office of the United States, they are behaving without personal integrity or respect. What next? Stripper pole lessons? The “FLOTUS” is, without a doubt, the most embarrassing First Lady ever to have existed in the history of the United States. See for yourself:

Michelle Obama obviously does not know what is expected of a true First Lady. From fawning over and immulating the Hoochie-In-Charge, Beyonce, to hip-grinding with mediocre comedian Jimmy Fallon on national television, Michelle Obama is by far the worst First Lady of the United States and a disgrace to our nation.

Obama Administration Selling-Out Legal Gun Owners to U.N. Demands

By mostfued On February 23, 2013 No Comments

You’ll never guess what happened within 24 hours of Obama’s re-election. Then again, maybe you can. Mr. Audacity’s administration went ass-over-teakettle to get a U.S. treaty to the U.N. (United Nations). Keep in mind, this happened more than a month before the Sandy Hook tragedy. The treaty in context obliterates border control and negates our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. Why the hurry? Oh, I’m sure they meant to do that before the election but it just slipped their minds - not.

With that move, America became the 158th nation to vote toward finalizing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) due to be conducted from March 18, 2013 through March 28, 2013. The U.N. has determined that this will be the final meeting and there will be a world-wide decision that directly affects YOU.

It won’t be hard for you to understand why the Obama administration did not make any full-fledged commitment to the U.N. before the election. The reason? The ELECTION. Obama’s self-serving and selfish motives were first-and-foremost before the election and then when the election was called, it was break-neck speed to file the proper paperwork to the U.N. in order to participate in the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. He and his administration did not want to give the Republican party the “anti-gun campaign ammo” to use during active campaigning. America caused the degradation of the July U.N. ATT Conference because of their non-committal stance at that time.  This is solid proof that Obama will say and do anything at any time to suit his own personal, political aspirations, regardless of how it affects the people he was elected to represent.

The United States has had a history of opposing any type of arms regulation or arms treaty that would even remotely affect the Constitution of the United States, up until 2009. The Obama administration changed our stance concerning the treaty and glossed over the action stating that the treaty does not affect our 2nd Amendment within the United States. They also stated that the treaty would only apply to international arms trade.

The U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) and verbiage in the treaty along with known rulings in documents opposing small arms ownership contradicts the Obama “feel good” statements about the treaty itself. One of CASA’s documents states that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and it demands that the “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would … minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.” That is a treaty that is wildly open for interpretation. And we know how well Obama makes words fit his purpose for each and every occasion when it suits the situation without regard to right or wrong, fair or unfair, legal or illegal, wanted or unwanted. Whatever he wants, goes.

If the U.S. is under the treaty, would our government be restricted from aiding allies around the world or helping them to defend themselves if we were not directly involved based on these wide-sweeping controls? Would other countries be forbidden to supply aid as well? Who decides in the world theater of global conflict, who has the gun rights?

Since the United States is one of an elite few countries with provision like the 2nd Amendment, we have to do everything in our power to protect it. Once lost, it would not be resurrected again unless world annihilation occurs. Under the 2nd Amendment, we can bear arms according to our founding fathers, against a tyrannical government. Current non-U.S. governments do not appreciate that. Current non-U.S. governments want this provision, this right taken away from us. Since Obama’s ultimate goal is to be a world leader, enshrined in the fold of the United Nations as a world figure, he is more than happy to use the U.S. as a pawn; a stepping stone to the U.N. throne. To Obama, it matters not that he treads on the backs and the souls of the American people to get there.

Congress is equally snookered by the singular Obama agenda. Most of Congress is not privy to his personal aspirations, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out this booby-trap. During the summer of 2012, Congress did act and communicate to both Obama and Hillary Clinton that they were concerned about the ATT. They expressed that the treaty would likely “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” Of course, it is evident that the concern fell on the POTUS’s deaf ears.

There are some who question the “timing” of the Sandy Hook shootings and what has transpired since then. There are many who “poo-poo” the idea of government involvement in anything that is subversive within the United States saying, “You are crazy! The government would never do something like that to us! Put your frickin’ tin-foil hat back on and go back to the looney-bin you came from.” Unfortunately, there are quite a few instances where government has been involved in operations you would never believe, if left to your own devices. Suffice it to say that nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, is off-limits as to what the Obama administration is capable of doing.

Under the Constitution, it is known that any treaty before the United States must be ratified by at least 2/3’s of the Senate. However, the Obama administration is well known for ignoring the very Constitution our great country was founded on. Obama has not shown as much delight and pride behind a podium as when he spoke unconstitutionally as the U.N. Chairperson in 2009. He has ignored Benghazi, Benghazi survivors, privacy, illegal search and seizure, drone implementation, and more recently the unconstitutional appointment of officials during Congressional recess issue.

Think about these issues hard. Be open to the facts. The man that has been elected President of our United States based on emotion and societal pressure issues does not have this country’s best interest at heart. Obama is a devious, calculating, selfish man with delusions of grandeur that he will not realize unless he proves to the U.N. that he can be as cut-throat as the rest of the money-changers that rule the world. People with true integrity and compassion aren’t allowed.

Banker’s Official Committee ADVISES the US Treasury Dept. Are you INSANE?

By mostfued On February 22, 2013 31 Comments

This is the classic case of foxes guarding the hen house. It is another good example of how ludicrous our government is. The money-changers are well represented in our national government which illuminates the fact that YOU are NOT well represented. Whose best interest do you think the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee looks out for? Certainly not yours or mine.

The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee is comprised of top banking actors. Peruse the TBAC members list and see if you are surprised:


  • Matthew E. Zames - Co-Chief Operating Officer - JP Morgan Chase & Co.


  • Ashok Varadhan - Managing Director - Goldman, Sachs & Co.
  • Curtis Arledge - Vice Chairman, CEO, Invest. Mgmt.  - BNY Mellon
  • Richard A. Axilrod - Managing Director - Moore Capital Management, Inc. Shady dealings are bringing attention - and demands from the SEC about Moore Capital - read CNN Feb 13, 2013 article.
  • Ian G. Banwell - CEO & CIO  - Round Table IMC
  • Jason Cummins - Managing Director  - Brevan Howard
  • Dana Emery  - Co President & Director of Fixed Income  - Dodge & Cox
  • Jon Kinol - Managing Director, Head of Global Rates - Credit Suisse
  • Carey Lathrop - Managing Director, Head of Credit Markets - Citigroup
  • Walter J. Muller III - Chief Investment Officer - Bank of America
  • Ruth Porat - Executive VP, CFO - Morgan Stanley
  • Stephen Rodosky - Managing Director - PIMCO
  • Stuart Spodek - Managing Director - BlackRock
  • Richard Tang - Head of North American Sales - RBS
  • Stephen A. Walsh - Chief Investment Officer  - Western Asset Mgmt. Co.
Citizens are taught to look toward the U. S. Treasury to be the controlling department for the funds of our great land. With investigation, it is clear we are duped into believing this lie. The control of our funds seem to be in anyone else’s hand besides the U.S. Treasury. Why in God’s name does the U.S. Government want this interference in the first place? It can only be attributed to manipulation, subvert activity, and special interests. You can rest assured it does nothing for the efficiency of the department or the people it should serve.

Our House and Senate are held hostage by outside influences and Executive Orders. Until Americans demand that the special interest groups, lobbies, and outside committees are prohibited from interfering with the operation of our Governmental Departments, we will continue to suffer at the hands of the private interests that truly do not represent the best interests of “We The People”.