Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

Harry Truman (Democrat) dawn of the muslim brotherhood

Black Republican http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourself/topic/4225164/1/

If you listen to the Democrats talk, you would think that they were Saints. Well I’m going to name some Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

1. Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.
A. Democrat President John Kennedy sent money and advisors to South Vietnam.
B. Democrat president Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam.
C. 2 Million people died in the Vietnam war.
4. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and another 350,000 were injured.

democrat wars  Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.

Democrats got America involved in the Korean war.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that sent Americans to fight in the Korean war.
B. 33,000 Americans were killed in that war.

3. Democrats used nuclear weapons on Japan.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan killing innocent women and children, killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.

 

Harry Truman (Democrat)  harry truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent women and children in japan

Harry Truman (Democrat)

worldwar1 Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1.

  1. Democrats got America involved in World War 1. A. It was Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1. B. 37 million people died in that war.C. 117,000 Americans were killed in that war.

united-states-national-cemetery Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2.

Democrats got America involved in World War 2. A. It was Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2. B. 70 million people died in that war. C. 406,000 Americans died in that war.

bay of pigs time magazine6. Democrats started the Bay of Pigs. A. It was Democrat president John F Kennedy that started the Bay of Pigs, which was a war against Cuba

A Libyan rebel prays next to his gun on the outskirts of Ajdabiya Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya 7. Democrats bombed Libya.
A. It was Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya killing 1000’s of innocent women and children.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2It appears that Hillary Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

The most well-documented example of Tawergha an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark -skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

 Hillary’s Dirty War in Libya: New Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration In US Govt

muslim brotherhood infiltrates obama adm 

People are stunned to learn that the head of the U.S. CIA is a Muslim!

Do hope this wakes up some! You mean until it hits you like a ton of bricks read it again, until you understand!

Do we now have a Muslim government?

John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

White House StaffSenior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, Valerie Jarrett Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.

McCain asked Huma Abedin got so close to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a long record of intimate, family relations with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hillary Clinton’s top adviser, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Huma has been questioned for suspicious ties to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who is best known for his love of violent jihad. (Source: National Review)

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim.

Elibiary-Caliphate-Tweet-HP Homeland Security Adviser, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim. Mohamed Elibiary was one of the speakers at a December 2004 conference in Dallas entitled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” the Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran and the violent Muslim global revolution to install a universal caliphate. When Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News called him on this, he threatened Dreher, telling him: “Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.” – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2011/10/mohamed-elibiary-homeland-security-adviser-allegedly-leaked-intel-shopped-classified-info-to-media. It is said Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power.

Elibiary, came under fire in June for tweeting about the “inevitable” return of the Muslim “caliphate.” His tweets were later praised by affiliates of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and potentially used to recruit extremist followers.  A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adviser long engulfed in controversy over his radical views was let go from his role in the department last week after a long fight by lawmakers and others to revoke the individual’s privileges at DHS.   Mohamed Elibiary was until last week a senior member of DHS’ Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). After years of controversy about his status at DHS, Elibiary announced his final day with the department on Twitter earlier this month and said he would remain close to the agency.

 Salam al-Marayati Obama advisor and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.  Al-Marayati’s record on defending terrorist groups and extremists is substantial

Obama’s Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim.Obama’s Muslim Czar, Islam embraced by Mogahed is decidedly fundamentalist — a brand that endorses Shariah or Islamic law

************

, Gehad el-Haddad was arrested in Egypt for inciting violence.  Before emerging as a top Brotherhood official  El-Haddad just happened to be a top official with the William J. Clinton Foundation for five years previously. The truth can be bizarre and very hard to swallow at times.

In keeping with Barack Obama’s shady Muslim history, when it comes to Islamist raping, engaging in cannibalism, attacking innocent Christians and Jews, waging jihad on various world leaders and societies, the Obama administration gives them a thumbs up. Islamists have a supremacy complex. They think non-Muslims are their servants and nothing but chattel and as a result they need to be removed from any power, including Egypt and the United States government.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/obama-to-egyptian-christians-stop-protesting-muslim-brotherhood/#BP29pl1DAcZxfZie.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies?

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret

By Victor Thorn

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Unites States Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On February 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison.

The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers. A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC. Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.”

Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order? Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries. Not surprisingly,

A leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable.

Hillary is the war on women says kathleen wiley

Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.” Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order

. LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

panneta and UN

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ” The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.” – See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=4207#sthash.KWS4wdOi.dpuf

Hillary more of the same

Obama,Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret ?

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in SecretObama, Clinton work in secret to surrender U.S. sovereignty?

By Victor Thorn: Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 40 books.

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Unites States Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On February 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?

Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.

Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”  

These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable.

27421988-sad-children-hugging-his-motherInterestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They parents have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.” Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

 

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.

LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers.

Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.      

male-crying-100100961In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space. When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership. In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul. If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .and create an international gun registry.”

Globalist Treaties Terrible for America

During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS,

Becky Fenger, A political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration

Hillary is the war on women says kathleen wiley “What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”    smiley-shocked028

When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”

According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental. “These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them.

Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”

She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”

Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.

“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history?

They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.” AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.

“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution.

Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.” The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good.

Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.

AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point. He agreed, telling this writer on May 11,

“Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”

Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House? Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?

Doubters should be reminded of a Febrary 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She Hillary has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.” Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s March 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast.

While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.”

Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable. A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.

While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”

To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitled Inside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations.

“She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.” The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career.

In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”

But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns. Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR (Council Of Foreign Relations )address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she traveled from country to country.

According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” –

Hillary more of the same

See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=4207#sthash.MXWW4xnr.dpuf

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 40 books.

 

 

Panetta’s Book Is A Contract Hit On Obama By Hillary

hillary head

By: Dick Morris And Eileen McGann on October 9, 2014

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff who was appointed with Hillary’s blessing, has written a book with one clear motive: To bolster Hillary’s narrative that the failures of the foreign policy that she designed were simply not her fault. Everything was Obama’s fault, not Hillary’s and, of course, not Panetta’s.

In the former Secretary of State’s book Hard Choices, she criticized Obama’s lack of strategic vision saying “not doing stupid stuff” is not an overarching foreign policy organizing principle.

Now Panetta echoes this criticism in his own book, Worthy Fights, describing a president who “avoids the battle, complains and misses opportunities.” He accuses Obama of “coordinating negotiations” to allow our troops to stay in Iraq to guard against an ISIS resurgence without “really leading them.”

According to Panetta, the White House “seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one” to keep our troops in Iraq, But, Panetta points out that without Obama’s personal involvement, it became impossible to convince Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki to reverse his position and agree to let a garrison of American troops remain. And Obama did not make the effort to persuade him.

Panetta amplifies the impact of the failure to leave troops there saying “To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.”

He said Obama had “kind of lost his way” and famously noted that the president too often “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.”

Panetta’s comments come as Hillary wrestles with a central threat to her candidacy. She was Secretary of State for four years yet the foreign policy crafted then has proven to be an unprecedented failure. Everything that she worked on has blown up in our face. The Arab Spring has become a nightmare.

We are on the verge of signing a phony deal with Iran that will let them enrich uranium far into the future so they can make a bomb anytime they want.

The reset button with Russia is a joke and we have made zero progress on human rights or fair trade with China.

Hillary realizes that this is not a record on which to predicate a presidential campaign. So if the foreign policy she helped to craft is a fiasco, she has to blame someone else — the president.

Hillary more of the same

Panetta stepped into help frame the issue. A Clintonista above all, he legitimized Hillary’s efforts to distance herself from the president on foreign policy without having to attack him herself. Now the negative points for disloyalty will accrue to Panetta not to Hillary.

The former defense secretary underscores the extent to which Obama’s failure to act against Syria when it crossed the “red line” he had drawn against the use of chemical weapons. He said “It was damaging.” Obama “sent a mixed message, not only to the Syrians, but to the world. And that is something you do not want to establish in the world: an issue with regard to the credibility of the United States to stand by what we say we’re gonna do.”

As our involvement in Iraq and Syria escalates into a full blown war — as it must now that our airstrikes are failing to do the job — the blame game will grow with it. Panetta’s comments are an attempt to swat the blame away from Hillary Clinton.

He will get his reward. Just wait.

View Dicks most recent videos in case you missed them!

ISIS War Endangers Hillary Candidacy – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

How The Midterms Are Stacking UP – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

National Security Is Driving A Republican Surge – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Ban Flights From Liberia NOW – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Attorney General Corruption In U.S History – Dick Morris TV: History Video!

Hillary More Of The Same

Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on Alinsky writings and Obama writes about him in his books. Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals

Hillary more of the sameSaul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today…….

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

All eight rules are currently in play

1) Healthcare Control healthcare and you control the people.

2) Poverty Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

shovelready   benghazi_banner   benghazi worst coverup than watergatereid   obama crimes                  Pictures can say a lot more

The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,

The American people—thanks to Hillary Clinton—now have a more complex understanding of how, by design, universal healthcare puts into place the foundation of regulations that will allow government to control not only the lives of the people, but their mobility as well. Universal healthcare provides government with the platform that will surreptitiously allow them to, ever so slowly, steal the liberty of the People under the guise of taking care of them.

A large faction of American people still dislike Clinton because, as First Lady with no constitutional authority to engage in the legislative process, she formed a healthcare task force out of the public eye and created the most without change or comment. Her plan, created with the assistance of Bill Clinton’s chief healthcare architect, Ira Magaziner, did far more than create a healthcare bill. Obamacare is Hillarycare with a few minor tweaks. Both, by the way, contained provisions for a federal Health Board whose job it would be to limit the government’s liability by rationing healthcare to those with terminal or catastrophic chronic illnesses for which there is no cure. Actuarially, old age is one of those catastrophic chronic illnesses since old age always results in death. Hillarycare also included a biometric national ID card that was disguised as a healthcare card. That same card will be included in any healthcare system enacted by Congress—including the healthcare co-ops if that becomes Congress’ only option to get government’s foot in the door.

Mary Therese Helmueller  an RN from Minneapolis authored an article in the Catholic magazine, Homiletic, in 1998. In the article she noted that while she was visiting in Mexico City in February of that year, her grandmother was admitted to a local hospital with a fracture above her left knee. According to the hospital records she personally examined upon her return, her grandmother was alert and oriented upon admission. But, the report added, she became unresponsive after 48 hours, went into a coma. She was transferred to a hospice two days later. Carefully tracing the events that led up to her grandmother’s coma, Helmueller discovered that her grandmother became unresponsive after each pain medication.

She was diagnosed as having a stroke and being in renal failure. Helmueller‘s grandmother died shortly after her arrival at the hospice. The hospital charts were normal. The CATscan was negative for stroke or obstruction. The EEG indicated no seizure activity. All the blood work was normal. She was not in renal failure. The only anomaly Helmueller found was the overmedication of her grandmother. She also noticed her grandmother was listed as a “No Code” patient.

Helmueller insists her grandmother had no terminal illnesses. Nevertheless, the hospice’s admitting records reveal that two doctors stated that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. The first doctor, the director of the hospice, never examined or evaluated her. Nor did he even read her chart. The second doctor was on vacation when she was admitted. He did not return until three days after her death. Yet, in their expert medical opinion, she was terminal when she arrived at the hospice.

The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,

(Hospices, for those who don’t know, are transitional care facilities. Those who are suffering either from terminal illnesses or progressive debilitating chronic illnesses are usually transferred to TC facilities which are generally referred to as “exit treatment” facilities—referring to an exit from life. Hospice patients usually arrive by ambulance and leave by hearse.)

No one better understood what was going on at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida than the pro-life disability rights groups like Not Dead Yet that showed up to stand, in solidarity, with Terri Schiavo and the Schindler family during Terri‘s deathwatch. Like thre rest of America, they have been watching the alarming growth of medical euthanasia over the past decade, and they find it troublesome that our courts are legalizing euthanasia by judicial fiat. While the catastrophic impaired—particularly when they are aged and infirmed—now have a court-protected right to die— with or without a Living Will, they no longer possess an unquestionable right to live. Not Dead Yet recently asked Congress to pass a law requiring federal courts to review all cases where the end-of-life wishes of the impaired person are not in writing and where family members disagree on end-of-life decisions.

Even if such a law were written, the courts can be expected to weigh in favor of those family members opting for euthanasia.

The federal government is increasingly faced with a catastrophic dilemma as America grays. Too many people living too long is now creating an unfathomable burden on the U.S. Treasury that the US government and the taxpayerscannot afford.

The American Court system is increasingly embracing the argument that beneficence prevents unnecessary suffering for the individual and saves the family—or the State—from bearing what could become a crushing financial obligation if the patient lingers too long. Beneficence—a selfless act designed to spare the loved ones of the patient from both physical and financial anguish—right-to-die advocates argue, justifies euthanasia. Even with the best palliative care there will always be patients for whom there will be no relief from suffering since there are no pain killers strong enough to dull the pain they endure daily. Right-to-die advocates maintain that since many of these people can’t even find temporary relief from the intractable pain that is an inescapable part of their lives, terminally ill or chronically ill patients should have an option that will allow them to escape the pain and misery that blankets their minds like a death shroud and makes them wonder, from day-to-day or hour-to-hour, what is the point of their continued existence.

While euthanasia may rightly be construed as an act of mercy for a handful of people in a handful of instances nationwide, the American people need to very carefully consider what they wish for when they demand the passage of “right-to-die” legislation since the Living Will does not give those signing them more control over their fate. It provides legal cover for its beneficiary—the medical care facility—who has been given the power to take your life.

The Living Will does not promote well-being—except perhaps for the “well-being” of the coffers of the government. Medicare, which foots the bill for medical care for the aged, is facing the same types of shortfalls as Social Security—a rapidly shrinking tax base as more and more members of grey America becomes eligible for benefits. The question lurking in the back of the mind of government is: at what point can Uncle Sam no longer afford to care for chronically ill patients? At what point does voluntary euthanasia, requested through a Living Will, become mandatory euthanasia?

If we accept the logic that it is morally defensible to demand that we be allowed to die to alleviate our own needless suffering from a chronic or terminal illness or injury that will ultimately result in our dying, then how can we reject the notion that government is not morally justified in establishing a mandatory criteria for doctors to follow in cases where patients are construed to be terminal? Or, where elderly patients are admitted with chronic medical problems that simply drain the system without any hope of the patient’s health improving?

The moral argument is a two-headed dragon. You can’t argue for the right of people to be allowed to end their own lives by rejecting extraneous measures to keep them alive and, in the same breath, reject the right of government to arbitrarily decide to end lives judged to be not worth living, or which are too much of a drain on the healthcare system to pay for the care needed to assure your survival..

Hollywood actor-director Mel Gibson, who had been in constant contact with the Schindler family through most of their 13-day ordeal, told Sean Hannity on Fox News that what was happening in Pinellas Park, Florida was a modern-day crucifixion with a pro-death agenda driving it. “It’s just completely wrong to deprive this poor woman of food and water,” he said. “It’s a prolonged and cruel execution. What happened to just being a human being, you know? It’s nothing more than State-sanctioned murder. All the big guys—they all have their hands tied up by some tinhorn judge down there. Come on. When they want to whip a judge, they got no problem doing it. Look what they did to [Judge] Roy Moore. So they can do it if they want. They just didn’t want to. It’s a precedent that they set.

We may be able to save a few Social Security dollars later on down the track simply by pulling the plug on the infirmed, or the disabled, or the aged. It’s the inevitability of gradualism. There is an agenda, and people say, ‘Well, they can’t all be in it together,’ but there’s no other way to explain this behavior.”

 

Tom Delay warned the State and federal judges that Congress ”…will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.” Delay added that he “…never thought [he’d] see the day when a US judge stopped feeding a living American so that they took 14 days to die.”

After the Schiavo incident was televised almost nonstop for 13 days on satellite TV, the Euthanasia Society distributed over 60 thousand living wills. The only one I know of that amended a Living Will to protect her from premature euthanasia was Michael Schiavo’s common law wife, Jodi Centonze—who suffers from nacrolepsy. Centonze amended her own Living Will to include a precaution about euthanizing her during a deathlike nacroleptic trance that resembles an irreversible coma. “I love Michael,” Centonze told the media, “and if/when we are married, I want a clear and lucid stipulation between a ‘vegetative state’ and ‘really, really tired.'” Centonze has made every effort to get her narcolepsy “on the record” so that, in the event she dropped into a narcoleptic sleep her husband would not be able to “litigate” her slumber. Knowing Schiavo’s penchant for discarding infirmed spouses, I guess she doesn’t want to be the next Fox News euthanasia special.

When the Netherlands enacted an euthanasia law on November 28, 2000, Pope John Paul condemned the law which violated the Geneva Accord of 1948. A Vatican spokesman said, “Again we find ourselves face to face with a state law that violates natural law and individual conscience…[that is] a grave problem of professional ethics for the doctors who must put it into practice.” Under the Dutch law, patients are able to make a written request for euthanasia, giving their doctors the right to use their own discretion when patients become too physically or mentally ill to make rational decisions on their own. Last year in the Netherlands there were over 2,500 physician assisted suicides. How many of them, I wonder, actually wanted to go through with it at the time their doctor arbitrarily acted upon their request?

In one case a man—a Catholic—who had been estranged from his family for quite some time developed terminal cancer. His doctor estimated he would die within a year or so. Knowing the pain he was going to face down the road, he signed a consent form. Shortly thereafter, he reconciled with his family. As the family reunification progressed, he began experiencing some new pain that was not alleviated by his current pain medication. His wife called the nurse who, in turn, relayed the wife’s message to the doctor.** Instead of asking the patient to go to his office, the doctor went to his home. The physician gave his patient an injection. The patient gasped and died. The wife screamed that she had not asked the doctor to kill her husband—who had not yet reconciled with God. Neither she nor her husband realized that the release he signed trumped his current desires. He gave his doctor the right to determine when he should die and the doctor exercised that option when his patient’s condition worsened.

Those who favor assisted suicide or euthanasia do so in the mistaken belief that being transited will assure them of a dignified and comfortable death.

There is no such thing. Death is never dignified. Nor is death a comfortable experience. What they are really saying is that most people fear suffering a painful death far more than they fear dying.

However, those who favor assisted death have not prudently weighed the pitfalls inherent with giving either a physician or a government board unprecedented power over their life or the lives of their loved ones. They assume because they live in a democracy that is governed by the rule of law, that government—which plays God with our lives anyway—will, for some strange and unfathomable reason, not abuse the power of life and death. Even without a national law authorizing the use of euthanasia to “protect the well-being” of the terminally-ill, there is already a killing field in every hospital in America. It’s called the “Transitional Care Unit.” That’s where “No Code” patients are taken to await death.

They may be terminally-ill, chronically-ill or simply too old and too much of a drain on Medicare for anyone to care. The most serious health hazard for many seniors when they are hospitalized today is simply their age. When you are old enough, age by itself is a terminal illness. Anything that can cause your death within six months of diagnosis at any age may be termed a “terminal illness.” Diabetes. High blood pressure. Heart disease. According to the yardstick applied by Judge Greer, if you have any of those chronic medical problems, you could be classified as having a terminal illness and denied medical treatment or even food and water.

 For some unexplained logic, medical caregivers honestly believe that their use of euthanasia—the intentional oversedation of patients or overdosing them with morphine or other painkillers—is the most common and humane method used to spare the family. The death certificates likely read “death by natural causes” or perhaps “death from complications of…” whatever chronic illness the patient suffers.

Today every hospital and healthcare facility is required to ask patients if they have a Living Will. Healthcare agencies risk losing federal funding if they do not ask. When an aged patient does not have a living will, hospitals are required to attempt to get them to sign a “do not resuscitate” form—so their “exit care wishes” will be respected. A sales pitch—given to the elderly—in the form of a horror story about a parent’s endtime medical bills destroying the finances of their children accompanies the form the patient has been asked to sign. The children of the elderly patient are generally told that Medicare and Medicaid will not pay for any extraordinary efforts to keep their terminal or chronically-ill parents alive. If extraordinary lifesaving procedures are requested, family members are told they, not Medicare, will be forced to bear the cost. The Living Will has been “packaged” as part of every hospital or hospice patient’s “bill of rights.” In realty, it’s a death warrant—your’s. Most people believe a Living Will places them in charge of their life—and their death. It does not. It removes choice from their hands and places it in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to cut costs—regardless of the cost.

For example, a 70-year old man who had previously signed a Living Will suddenly found himself admitted as an inpatient through the emergency room of his local hospital. He was suffering from respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator. As he struggled to breathe, he learned that his family was discussing removing him from the ventilator since, they were told, Medicare would not pay for the treatment and the most humane thing they could do for him was to let him go.

Unable to speak but very cognizant, the man scribbled notes to the nurses, saying “Don’t take me off this machineI changed my mind! I want to live!” The family, however, agreed with the doctor who felt it was stupid to waste their inheritance on hospital bills for a man whose condition was terminal. He was removed from the ventilator. Because he signed a Living Will, he was viewed as incapable of making a rational decision to recant the legal document he had previously signed in a more “lucid” moment. His wishes, as stated in the Living Will, prevailed. A man who was not terminal became terminal. He died.

 

In 1990, the American Medical Association adopted the position that physicians, with informed consent, could withhold or withdraw treatment from patients who were close to death. That “position” was pushed by the managed healthcare systems that were footing the bill for what that industry called “wasted treatments” on people who could not be rehabilitated.

Urged to do so by the HMO lobby, the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act that forced hospitals to tell patients [a] they had a right to either demand or reject treatments, and [b] it required all medical care facilities to ask if the patient had a Living Will—and to urge those without them to sign one. In 1993

Bill and Hillary Clinton went on the Living Will offensive, encouraging States to legalize them and working class people to sign them on the pretext that it was the only way people could protect their rights. By 1994 every State and the District of Columbia have Living Will provisions that allow physicians extreme latitude in dealing with terminal or chronic patients.

What American witnessed taking place in Pinellas Park, Florida between March 18 and March 30, 2005 only appeared to be a battle between Michael Schiavo and the Schindler family. They were simply pawns on the chess board of life. What actually transpired was America’s first naked look at the pure ugliness of State-dictated, court enforced euthanasia. But, strangely, America watched that spectacle through rose-colored glasses. They did not see what they should have seen. They should have realized that the courts denied Terri Schiavo equal protection under the law. Someone should have noticed that Circuit Court Judge George S. Greer sentenced an innocent woman to death. Someone should have noticed, and asked, why Greer denied Terri Schiavo sustenance consumed by swallowing. Instead, the American public—which has been brainwashed into believing that a Living Will is good thing—saw Terri Schiavo as less than human and somehow, less deserving to live

.

Yesterday the victim of forced euthanasia was Terri Schiavo. Who will it be tomorrow? Perhaps it will be…you. Have you signed a Living Will? You did? Yes, tomorrow, it will be you

 by Jon Christian Ryter.
.

Today it does not matter if you have a Living Will or not. Hospital officials in every city in the nation urge thefamily members to “no code” elderly relatives who are being admitted into the nation’s medical care facilities—even if they are diagnosed witnon-terminal chronic illnesses. “No code”denies any form of medical intervention to the patient in the event of an emergency situation like cardiac arrest or some other form of respiratory failure. It is the essential first step in euthanizing a terminal patient. Increasingly, it is used to quietly dispatch chronically-ill patients whose quality of life cannot improve and who have become a financial drain on the Medicare system and on their families.

Hillary Clinton George Soros Connection

Until June of 2004 George Soros and Hillary Clinton had gone to great lengths to conceal their collaboration from the Public eye.
The causes Soros champions are precisely those dearest to hillary’s heart. such as rationing healthcare, rolling back gun rights, and extending the votingfranchise to convicted felons. Hillarys radicalism is deep rooted and fundamental , bearing the clear imprint of her early mentor Saul Alinsky Hillarys 1969 senior thesis at Wellesley College was a 75 page salute to Alinsky.

Hillarys efforts to cultivate a “moderate” or “Centrist” Public image. faithfully reflect Alinsky’s teachings.

Unusual is the speed with which Hillary rose to party leadership,winning plumb committee assignments which normally should have gone to more senior colleagues.

*** In January 2003 Hillary was appointed Chair Woman of the powerful Senate Democratic steering and coordination Committee. This gave her authority to make or break Senate Democtats by blocking or approving their committee assignments. A Senate aid confided “The other Democrats resent her. bur they are so weak,their weakness permits her to grow.”

Hillary also gained control of the Democratic money machine.When Clinton loyalist Terry McAuliffe

became chairman of the Democratic National Committee. in 2001. This left McAuliffe and thus Hillary in charge of official fund raising for the Democratic Party.

Hillary helped set up a network of independant fund raising groups which could continue collecting unlimited donations outside official party channels. George Soros and Harold Ickes coordinated their activities.

Hillary and her partner George Soros remain secretive about many details of their collaboration, and with good reason

A political partnership between Soros and Hillary because it would be illegal by the campaign finance laws incorporated in the McCain Feingold Act.

Hillary Rodham Clinton in two years has taken over the Senate Democrats and the party it’s self. She runs a vast political empire for Globalization and Redistribution.

From “The Shadow Party”
David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

$2.8 Trillion in Social Security Surplus That Has Been Brazenly “Stolen” by Politicians.

by Steve Elliott
The federal government has raided and pillaged our Social
Security Trust fund — bilking more than $2.8 trillion
in an effort to hide the true size of the federal deficit!
For years Social Security ran at a surplus — but no more!

Every penny has been siphoned off, leaving Social Security
teetering on the very brink of insolvency. And unless
dramatic, financial measures are taken, Social Security
will collapse under the weight of the retiring baby-boom
generation

$2.8 trillion in Social Security surplus that has been
brazenly “stolen” by politicians from both sides
of the political aisle for decades!
Even worse than the corruption is the fact that politicians
are expecting senior citizens to sacrifice while their
bloated budgets continue to swell!

That kind of dishonesty may have worked once-upon-a-time, but
today’s grassroots citizens are engaged, informed and we know
the depth of mismanagement, corruption and waste that has
put our nation in such dire straits and we simply aren’t
going to stand for it anymore!

There is no doubt that unless citizens speak up, this kind of
financial debauchery will continue!

Seniors Suffer and Obama and Clinton Defy Congress and Give1.5 Billion of Our Taxes To Muslim Brotherhood

Obama to bypass Congress, Give $1.5B of your taxes to Muslim Brotherhood (updated)

Posted on March 22, 2012

He did it.

 via Obama Bypasses Congress, Gives $1.5 Billion to Muslim Brotherhood.

During a trip through Colorado in December of last year, President Obama spoke of his intention to implement his economic policies with or without the approval of Congress. Said Obama, “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” It now appears that such a mindset applies not only to economic matters but to the distribution of foreign aid as well–in particular, foreign military aid for the Muslim Brotherhood, who now hold the reigns in Egypt.

Congress has restricted and, in fact, halted military aid to Egypt until and “unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.” After all, Christians and other practitioners of non-Islamic religions have had a tough go of it there. And of course, many Egyptian officials harbor such hatred toward the U.S. that one of the candidates for the Egyptian presidency has openly referred to America as the “infidel country” in media interviews.

Nevertheless, the news breaking now is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce that President Obama will “resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite Congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.”

Even Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), a man with whom I’ve never agreed on anything, sees the foolishness of this endeavor: “I believe [sending the aid] would be a mistake. The new [restrictions were] intended to put the United States squarely on the side of the Egyptian people who seek a civilian government that respects fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to clearly define the terms of our future relations with the Egyptian military.”

Who knows; perhaps the Obama administration can also circumvent Congress and give the Iranians some nuclear materials or give Hamas some advanced weaponry? I know both ideas sound crazy, but they’re no crazier than giving $1.5 billion in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Not sure how many of you actually contact your elected officials and not even sure that has any affect any more with The Ascendence Of Sociopaths In US Governance.