the blaze
The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson reported that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi national who was briefly named a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombings, is being deported on Tuesday. He based his information on a number of his confidential sources.
“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday,” Emerson said.
Host Sean Hannity referenced a report by Reuters that revealed President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House Wednesday. They reportedly discussed the conflict in Syria.
“The meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule,” the report adds.1. One source at the FBI and another at the Saudi Embassy referred to the student as connected to an important Saudi family.
2. An “event” was created on this guy three days ago. An event is a file. The file contains his deportation record and the reason he is being deported. According to ICE the reason is under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities”
3. His visa has been revoked.
4. The FBI said a file was started “just in case he was found to be connected to the crime,” however, the file shows he was scheduled to be deported.??? This was not a precaution, it was in “orders.”
5. One source said they believe a “voluntary” departure has been signed — that means the Saudi Student could be out of the country as early as today.
6. The file was immediately classified. We believe the deportation order will be classified as well — requiring a FOIA to get it.
7. The story was going to be “he wanted to go home,” however he was actually being deported.
8. Our source said the FBI believes the Saudi student is tied to 2 to 3 more people.
9. Our source said this “looks like they were trying to make this a ‘lone wolf’ crime
Appearing on “Hannity” Wednesday night, the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s – Steve Emerson reported that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi national who was briefly named a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombings, is being deported on Tuesday. He based his information on a number of his confidential sources.
“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday,” Emerson said.
A report by Reuters that revealed President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House Wednesday. They reportedly discussed the conflict in Syria
“The meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule,” the report adds.

Watch out Rural America. Community Organizing is coming fast and furious to your Hometown. The Obama Administration says they are coming to improve your life. Take a look at the 25 executive branch departments, agencies, and offices that will be changing your world.Executive Order 13575—Establishment of the White House Rural Council which is agenda 21 also known as sustainable developement. check out the usual cretins who will run it. (scary)The last free area - Fly over country is under attack.

Administration of Barack Obama, 2011
Executive Order 13575—Establishment of the White House Rural Council
June 9, 2011
Establishment. There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).
Sec. 3. Membership. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:
(1) the Department of the Treasury;
(2) the Department of Defense;
(3) the Department of Justice;
(4) the Department of the Interior;
(5) the Department of Commerce;
(6) the Department of Labor;
(7) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(9) the Department of Transportation;
(10) the Department of Energy;
(11) the Department of Education;
(12) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(13) the Department of Homeland Security;
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(15) the Federal Communications Commission;
(16) the Office of Management and Budget;
(17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
(19) the Council of Economic Advisers;
(20) the Domestic Policy Council;
(21) the National Economic Council;
(22) the Small Business Administration;
(23) the Council on Environmental Quality;
(24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;
(25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.
Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and

quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.Oh No !

Council shall:
(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to

improve the quality of life in rural America;
(b) coordinate and

increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental .(community organizers ?)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Despite their initial, vehement protests, a growing number of Republican governors are giving their blessing to expanding Medicaid in their states
Some 15 states have chosen to participate so far, with another 10 leaning towards expansion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group.

Though many Republican governors say their state can’t afford the cost of expansion, the political resolve of some has crumbled over the past two months in the face of heavy pressure from hospital associations, medical groups, local governments and others. Providers — particularly hospitals, where many uninsured folks go for care — say their costs of treating those without coverage would fall under the expansion.
. Some 14.3 million citizens would be newly eligible if every state enrolled.
Various interest groups have put a full-court press on governors and lawmakers, said Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which opposes broadening Medicaid. “They want to get their hands on that money,” he said.
The financial argument helped sway Scott, who still has to convince a Republican-led legislature to sign on. Some 1.3 million adult Floridians would become eligible for Medicaid under the expansion.
“While the federal government is committed to paying 100% of the cost of new people in Medicaid, I cannot, in good conscience, deny the uninsured access to care,” he said Wednesday when announcing his decision to participate for three years. (Government only pays for a limited number of years and then the state pays)
Now that Scott is on board, Texas remains the last big holdout.

Florida under Scott was among the first states to sue to overturn ObamaCare. I guess if you can’t beat Chief Justice John Roberts and Obama you might as well join them. Scott’s decision has to be passed by the state legislature. But what are the odds of them saying no to “free” federal money,

Scott’s one concession seems to be the Medicaid expansion will be administered through a system of private plans he’s created. One problem, that plan has been a failure to date.

The privatization expands on a five-county pilot program that has been rife with problems. Critics worry for-profit providers are scrimping on patient care and denying medical services to increase profits. Some doctors have dropped out of the pilot program, complaining of red tape and that the insurers deny the tests and medicine they prescribe. Patients have complained they struggled to get doctor’s appointments. Several health plans also dropped out of the pilot program, saying they couldn’t make enough money. Patients complained they were bounced from plan to plan with lapses in care. Nearly half of the 200,000 patients enrolled in the pilot have been dropped from at least one plan, federal health officials noted at one point during negotiations. Lawmakers say they have fixed the pilot program’s shortcomings, with provisions including increased oversight and more stringent penalties, including fining providers up to $500,000 if they drop out. The measures also increase doctors’ reimbursement rates and limit malpractice lawsuits for Medicaid patients in hopes of increasing doctor participation in the program.

I’m sorry but a government program that fines people for leaving it because the program cost them money doesn’t sound very conservative or free market to me. Scott just agreed to kill the state of Florida.

Medicaid serves about 3.3 million people in Florida at the moment, so another million people will be roughly a 30 percent increase. 30 percent of current $21 billion annual cost that is “consuming Florida’s budget” is $6.3 billion. When the state ends up covering 10 percent of that, it’ll add up to a cool $630 million – probably more, since these figures are unlikely to hold steady through 2020.

So a system that is a failure in a few county pilot program is now going to expand exponentially and work just as forecast? Sure. Oh and once we do amnesty and all those newly created legal residents are eligible for full medicaid benefits, what happens to the budget? And this is from a “conservative” governor.

By Kirsten Powers

This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.

There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.
Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network

. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.” WHAT!!!!!!

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.

Sure, everyone understands how some of Fox’s opinion programming would get under President Obama’s skin, the same way MSNBC from 4pm until closing time is not the favorite stop for Republicans. But it’s not okay — or presidential — to continue smearing an entire network of hard working journalists because you are mad at Sean Hannity.

During the initial launch of the war on Fox News in October 2009, then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the New York Times of Fox News, “[W]e don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” On CNN, she declared that Fox was a “wing of the Republican Party.” Then: “let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Gosh, this sounds so familiar. In fact, it’s exactly the line that Media Matters used in a 2010 memo to donors: “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.

Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.

On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.” Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn’t a news operation?

A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.

We defend freedom of the press because of the principle, not because we like everything the press does. For example, I defend MSNBC’s right to run liberal programming to their hearts content.

Monitoring the media is actually a good thing; the media should be held accountable, including Fox News. When MMFA began I was supportive of their endeavor and even used some of their research. They seemed a counterbalance to conservative media monitoring organizations.

But now the mask is off. They make no bones about their intentions, and it’s not a fair media. It is clear now that the idea of freedom of the press actually offends Media Matters. In their memo, they complain about “an expansive view of legal precedent protecting the freedom of the press, and the progressive movement’s own commitment to the First Amendment” as an impediment to be overcome or changed. They say they are “consider[ing] pushing prominent progressives to stop appearing on Fox News.” For those who defy the order, they threaten to start daily publishing the names of Democrats who appear in order to shame them. If that doesn’t work, presumably they will just shave our heads and march us down Constitution Avenue.

When Anita Dunn was informing America – as a senior government official – which news organizations were “legitimate,” she conveniently deemed CNN, which rarely challenges the White House, as a “real” network. Presumably she believes MSNBC is “legitimate” also, despite their undisguised disgust of the GOP and hagiography of the president, not to mention more opinion programming than any cable outlet.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume she thinks CBS is “legitimate” after they just ran what amounted to a 2016 ad for Hillary Clinton on “60 Minutes.” CBS is the same place that has a political director who also writes for one of the most liberal outlets in the country, Slate. Who also just wrote in that publication that the president should “pulverize” the GOP. Imagine a political director at CBS hired away from the Weekly Standard who then wrote an article about “pulverizing” Democrats. I know, I lost you at the part where CBS hired a political director from a conservative outlet.

Last week Rolling Stone editor Michael Hastings – who is a liberal and said recently, “most journalists I know are liberal” – discussed his time covering Obama on the campaign trail. Among the things he witnessed was a reporter trying to interview Obama using a sock puppet.

He told MSNBCs Martin Bashir, “That’s the presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day. When they are near him, they lose their mind sometimes. They start behaving in ways, you know,that are juvenileand they swoon.”Hastings admitted that the presence of Obama made him go gooey too. “Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not.”

I guess this is what the White House and their friends at Media Matters call the “legitimate” media.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/29/obama-vs-fox-news-behind-white-house-strategy-to-delegitimize-news-organization/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2JQF0X6Es

　Exclusive: David Kupelian exposes most despicable form of election fraud

Barack Obama’s two-pronged, slash-and-burn re-election strategy:1) Tell astonishingly bold lies about your opponent;
2) Bribe the heck out of all your constituencies in hopes of cobbling together a winning voting coalition in November.

Thus, voters daily hear that Mitt Romney is a felon, has neglected to pay taxes for 10 years and gives people cancer.

Simultaneously, Obama bribes every group he can, wooing female voters by ridiculously conjuring up a Republican “war on women,” endearing himself to homosexuals by embracing same-sex marriage, making an audacious play for Hispanic votes with his surprise amnesty edict – an executive action

he himself previously claimed would be illegal, alluring college students with promises of student-loan rate extensions, homeowners with mortgage aid programs, union member exemptions from Obamacare requirements, and on and on.

But to put himself over the top – to capture that last few percent of votes necessary to win a close election – Obama needs one more voting bloc on his side. That would be the shadow group comprised of non-citizens, illegal aliens, repeat-voters, multiple-state-voters, dead people, felons and others ineligible to vote but who will vote anyway – for Obama.

To help this last “constituency,” Obama’s administration is currently engaged in what can reasonably be called a massive nationwide campaign to enable voter fraud. The current issue of Whistleblower magazine, which I serve as editor, tells the whole insane story – but don’t read it if you have a heart condition.

However, what I want to focus on here is without doubt the most despicable tactic the Obama camp has yet pursued in its efforts to stay in power through tampering with America’s hallowed election system. I’m talking about something even more outrageous than the Holder “Justice Department” attempting to block states from enforcing Voter ID requirements or purging dead people from their voter rolls – and even more corrupt than the left’s ACORN-style “swamping” of election officials with thousands of new (and often bogus) voter registrations at the very last minute and their national campaigns soliciting foreigners to vote.

As you may know, last month the Obama re-election campaign sued Ohio state officials in an attempt to suppress, in that pivotal swing state, the votes of America’s military men and women – people who traditionally lean conservative and vote Republican

. Now, the Obama camp vehemently denies any and all suggestions it is suppressing the military vote, claiming it simply wants an even playing field for all.

However, beyond a few right-thinking bloggers, reporters and talk-show hosts, the vast, perpetually mesmerized pro-Obama media – and even the establishment’s arbiters of All Truth On The Internet, Snopes,Politifact and FactCheck – side with Obama and characterize as “shameful” the comments made by the Romney campaign and the few analysts who see the Obama lawsuit for what it is – an attempt to restrict military voting.

Indeed, the elite press currently overflows with articles accusing those claiming the Ohio lawsuit is bad for the military of being both wrong and dishonest. Really?

Is that why no fewer than 15 military organizations have joined together to fight this particular Obama-machine lawsuit in court?

The National Guard Association of the United States
The Association of the U.S. Army
The Association of the U.S. Navy
The Marine Corps League
The Military Officers Association of America
The Reserve Officers Association
The National Association of the Uniformed Services
The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S.A.
The Army Reserve Association
The Fleet Reserve Association
The Special Forces Association
The U.S. Army Ranger Association, Inc.
AMVETS
The National Defense Committee
The Military Order of the World Wars

Are America’s armed forces wrong and dishonest? Do the Army, Navy and Marine organizations listed above not understand the issues of military voting as thoroughly as the experts at Snopes and Media Matters? Are the Special Forces and Army Ranger groups just plain dumb? Or

– is it just possible our military knows something about military voting that Obama and his sleazy lawyers don’t know? Yes, “sleazy.”

A Democrat lawyer in Florida, circulated a memo to members of his party throughout the state instructing them on how to disqualify overseas military ballots.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/yes-obama-really-is-suppressing-the-military-vote/

Four dead in a seven-hour attack, two of them died in the final hours. This government made not one move, with full knowledge of what was going on, to protect those Americans. We had hundreds of people watching in real time, as 30 Americans were being attacked for seven hours. Nobody rode to their rescue.”

Obama and Hillarey Clinton lied They knew exactly what happened and who was responsible for it They knew it was not a video they knew it was not a protest that had gotten out of hand. These people did not have to die this way. Obama chose death for them because he refused to act. and when it was over he went to Las Vegas laughing and joking.

Facebook reportedly took down an image, or a meme, posted by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) that was critical of President Barack Obama’s handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. You may have actually seen it before it was taken down — it had earned roughly 24,000 “likes.”