Tuesday, April 30, 2013

‘Are You Human?’: Gosnell Trial Brings Fiery Claims, Murderous Accusations in Closing Arguments — Here Are All the Details

The courtroom was tense today during the closing arguments in Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial — proceedings that TheBlaze witnessed first-hand.

For more than two hours, the doctor’s lawyer, Jack McMahon, delivered compelling remarks directly to the jury, appealing for its members to be fair and judicious while considering the very-serious charges against his client. While McMahon painted Gosnell out to be a victim of a government witch-hunt of sorts, Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron’s remarks framed him as a dangerous and murderous doctor with little compassion for those he purportedly harmed.

THE DEFENSE’S CLOSING ARGUMENTS
McMahon offered a fiery diatribe, defending his client against the first degree murder charges for four infants allegedly killed after birth and a third-degree charge for the death of Karnamaya Mongar, an immigrant who died following an abortion. While admitting that the clinic, the Women’s Medical Society, wasn’t perfect, the lawyer launched into a major defensive, railing against the notion that it was a bloody “house of horrors,” as prosecutors, pro-life advocates and the media have maintained.

He defended Gosnell as an asset to the community who provided low-cost health care and an opportunity for young females in the neighborhood to learn. Rather than rooting its arguments in fairness, the attorney accused the prosecution of prejudice; he called the case against Gosnell “elitist” and “racist” and said that the charges and claims have been blown out of proportion.
Are You Human?: Fiery Closing Arguments Fly During Gosnells Murder Trial    Here Are All the Details
Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s defense attorney Jack McMahon walks to the Criminal Justice Center, Monday, March 18, 2013, in Philadelphia. Gosnell, an abortion doctor who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women at the Women’s Medical Society, goes on trial Monday on eight counts of murder. Credit: AP



“This isn’t a perfect place by any stretch of the imagination — but it’s not what they say it is,” McMahon continued, going on to claim that Gosnell was singled-out because he is an African American.
Of particular frustration to McMahon was the use of the aforementioned term — “house of horrors.” While he noted that it “sounds good” and “makes for good press,” he rejected the label and said that it has been manufactured to convince people to come alongside the prosecution’s concocted vision of what unfolded.
From showing images of a clinic that was clean and well-organized (to contradict the prosecution’s claims that the Women’s Medical Society was a dirty and disease-ridden establishment) to continuously berating the prosecution over its tactics and purportedly untrue statements, McMahon was candid.

“That, ladies and gentleman, is not a house of horrors,” he said, after showing the jury images of a clean and organized clinic environment.

After tackling the conditions within, McMahon moved on to denying that any babies were killed after birth. In making this case, he relied upon the testimony of witnesses that the prosecution called. Considering that the defense attorney didn’t call any witness of his own to the stand, he moved line-by-line through transcripts in an effort to both discredit statements and to poke holes in any indication that Gosnell might have delivered live babies and murdered them once they were outside of the mothers’ womb.

Kareema Cross, a former clinic worker who delivered some of the more disturbing testimony about what purportedly unfolded at the hands of Gosnell, was dismissed by McMahon as having a grudge against the doctor (read details about her testimony here). Other clinic workers, he alleged, were seemingly intimidated by the government into admitting crimes that they truly did not commit.
Are You Human?: Fiery Closing Arguments Fly During Gosnells Murder Trial    Here Are All the Details
Photo Credit: AP
And all of the neck-snipping, McMahon maintained, was done after the babies were dead. While this theory was advanced, there wasn’t much credence given to critics’ notion that spinal cords would not need to be severed if the babies were truly delivered deceased, as is the claim.
Interestingly, McMahon did leave the door open to the idea that Gosnell may have conducted abortions past the 24-week cap that is currently embedded in Pennsylvania law. He wasn’t explicit and he didn’t devote much time to tackling the subject.

In sum, the defense delivered compelling arguments. If the goal was to create doubt, then McMahon did so to the best of his abilities, it seems. The attorney found many areas of exploitation and holes in the narrative against Gosnell — vacancies he was able to fill with questions, curiosities and his own counter-theories.

THE PROSECUTION’S CLOSING ARGUMENTS
The prosecution delivered an equally compelling case, going through, one-by-one, all 54 witness testimonies to paint Gosnell as disorganized and murderous. Going into gruesome detail, the prosecution outlined the notion that the doctor slit babies’ spinal cords and essentially forced women to go through delivery, later terminating the children after birth.

Cameron wasted little time in responding to many of McMahon’s counterpoints, painting Gosnell out to be a doctor who kept poor records, who used untrained staff and, through witness testimony, a medical professional who put his patients at risk.

The assistant district attorney also appealed to the jury, noting that this case has been a turning point — one in which people will likely think twice before merely trusting their doctors’ qualifications and policies. Seeing as many of Gosnell’s patients were unaware of what was allegedly going on, Cameron attempted to use the case as a call for the jury to be more aware of whom they trust with their medical care (especially considering the charges against Eileen O’Neill, a clinic staffer who is also on trial for allegedly pretending to be a doctor).

“This case is not about abortion, he stressed, noting that the procedure is legal so long as it is conducted before 24 weeks and in a safe location.

“This case is not about racism or elitism. It’s not about a rush to judgment…it was conducted, held before a grand jury,” Cameron continued, replying directly to the charges that McMahon had waged against the prosecution during his closing arguments.

Cameron’s diatribe followed a similar layout. He noted the importance of having basic standards for clinics, regardless of whether they are in urban, suburban or rural areas. Citing Steven Massof’s testimony (another unlicensed doctor who worked in the clinic), he noted that the office was purportedly flea ridden and dirty.
The district attorney added that the women who saw Gosnell trusted him and that, by the prosecution’s assessment, the doctor failed to live up to the Hippocratic Oath – and to his responsibility to patients. Then, he proceeded to go through the testimony of all 54 individuals, using their words to highlight the prosecution’s belief that Gosnell killed babies after birth and that his clinic was, indeed, a “house of horrors.”
Are You Human?: Fiery Closing Arguments Fly During Gosnells Murder Trial    Here Are All the Details
This undated photo released by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office shows Karnamaya Mongar, left, and her husband, Mr. Mongar, no first name given. Credit: AP

In addition to allegedly killing the four babies after birth, Cameron accused Gosnell of hitting patients during procedures. Of Baby A, who he said would have had a 70 to 80 percent chance of survival (the prosecution estimates that he was killed at 29.5 weeks), he said that, “It had scissors jabbed into its neck and it slowly suffocated to death” (Baby A’s full story can be found here).

Cameron also argued that, at the least, it was Gosnell’s responsibility to keep the babies comfortable. He said, “Whether that baby’s going to live or not, you’ve got to make them comfortable,” claiming that, in the cases of these children, that simply didn’t happen.

Previously, Massof had said that “it would rain fetuses” at the clinic and that neck snipping was done to ensure that babies would die. If Massof’s claims are correct, then Cameron’s case is compelling.
For the jury and those in the packed courtroom, many of the gruesome details that were heard earlier in the case were recounted, including the notion that fetal remains were put through the clinic’s garbage disposal. Also, the assistant district attorney claimed that, according to testimony, Gosnell would eat cereal and talk on his bluetooth while performing abortions — bizarre allegations, to say the least.

The prosecution also mentioned Ashley Baldwin, a 15-year-old girl who apparently started working at the clinic after she completed the eighth grade. Now 22, Baldwin recounted helping in the abortion process — something clearly not appropriate for a young teen at the time. Baldwin also said during testimony that she saw babies breathe and move — obvious signs of life. A number of employees also heard noises coming from babies after birth.

“A baby making a noise has to have air, has to be alive,” said Cameron.

Later, while closing, Cameron turned to Gosnell, pointed and asked, “Are you human?” For those angry over the charges against the doctor, this statement will certainly resonate. But for those who agree with McMahon and believe that this entire scenario has been a witch-hunt, Cameron’s accusatory words will surely be met with disdain.

The jury is slated to be charged on Tuesday, with a verdict coming later this week.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/are-you-human-fiery-arguments-murderous-accusations-fly-during-closing-of-gosnells-murder-trial-here-are-all-the-details/

Obama as Messiah—Anointing Oil Included!.

Obama, Frackin' Capitalists



Recent developments in the American petroleum sector have utterly exposed the rhetorical excesses of Obama, suggesting his speeches are designed towards supporting a certain ideology over known facts. During a period where Barack’s energy policy can be succinctly quoted as, “We can’t drill our way out,” huge advances are being made in stateside production, daily. In fact, America recently passed Saudi Arabia as the world’s #1 petroleum producer. Moreover, the EIA announced the US will be fully energy independent by the year 2035.

It seems as if Obama is against developing new sources of native oil, given his recurrent embargoing of the industry. There are said to be few direct statistical correlations in economics, but one certainly stands out. Charles C. Mann declares this in What If We Never Run Out of Oil?:
...a basic truth: economic growth and energy use have marched in lockstep for generations. Between 1900 and 2000, global energy consumption rose roughly 17-fold, the University of Manitoba environmental scientist Vaclav Smil has calculated, while economic output rose 16-fold—“as close a link as one may find in the unruly realm of economic affairs.” According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the United States has experienced 11 recessions since the end of the Second World War. All but one were associated with spikes in energy costs—specifically, abrupt jumps in the price of oil.


I. Obama’s Anti-Oil Drilling Energy Policy

 

Given the importance of oil for America’s economy, one would expect our leader to put first securing supplies of the stuff. Sadly, this has not been the case. In fact, not only has Obama seemingly done everything in his powers to limit growth in the US energy sector, he has also stated blankly that America cannot meet its own needs by increasing domestic production. He stated: “You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.” (audio) This type of leadership is devastating for investors in American energy companies, not to mention private consumers!
A classic example has been Barack’s intransigent opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, which would have brought in almost a million barrels a day to the US, a significant part of our daily consumption. According to the WA Times, Obama has done the following to discourage development…
...barred drilling and exploration for oil on the vast majority of federal lands and waters, while camouflaging this policy by highlighting increased drilling on private lands that remain outside the scope of his anti-oil policies. Mr. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has created a blizzard of conflicting regulations on oil producers, fuel manufacturers and petrochemical plants that raise energy cots by billions of dollars, are sometimes impossible to comply with, and accomplish little or nothing for the environment. Almost daily he calls for discriminatory energy-tax increases that could further raise the costs of producing oil and manufacturing fuels. Mr. Obama has made it clear in the past that his chief energy goal is not to lower fuel prices, but to get Americans off fossil fuels as quickly as possible by forcing up the price of petroleum products and heavily subsidizing “alternatives.”

II. Recent Developments in US Petroleum—Boomtown

There has been an astonishing sea-change in America’s energy futures in just the last few years, after decades of diminishing output. The US Energy Information Agency states that American production is surging. Investor’s Business Daily reports:
The U.S. passed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest petroleum producer in November 2012, according to recently released data of the federal Energy Information Administration. Over the last 5 years, domestic oil output has risen 40% and continually outpaces projections. Last year, domestic output increased by 800,000 barrels per day, the largest increase in annual production since the first oil well was drilled in 1859 in Pennsylvania.
These facts are already shaking up the global order, according to NBC News:
Without fanfare, China passed the United States in December to become the world’s leading importer of oil—the first time in nearly 40 years that the U.S. didn’t own that dubious distinction. That same month, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania together produced 1.5 million barrels of oil a day—more than Iran exported.
This leap in production is caused by the new technology called “fracking”:
...hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”—a technique for shooting water mixed with sand and chemicals into rock, splitting it open, and releasing previously inaccessible oil, referred to as “tight oil”...fracking releases natural gas, which, when yielded from shale, is known as shale gas…it has unleashed so much petroleum in North America that the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based consortium of energy-consuming nations, predicted in November that by 2035, the United States will become “all but self-sufficient in net terms.”
In fact, America has so much oil in the ground that private citizens are actually procuring their own drills to drill on their own land, and hitting gushers like a real life Jed Clampett, as this article reveals: “‘Backyard Oil’ a real-life ‘Beverly Hillbillies’ as DIY drillers turn into millionaires overnight.
The facts on the ground are so different than the Obama administration has painted. He stated we should simply give up even trying to become energy independent for petroleum and simply accept the “Green Economy” without a fight. But why would a sitting president want his own people to give up and accept diminished economic circumstances? Simply as a result of ideology overriding facts on the way to trying to collect more power. Socialism is simply the aggrandizement of power by government, whereas they seek to become the major domo in every undertaking instituted by a society.

III. Sowell’s Conflict of Visions

The current fissure in American society is well-explained by Thomas Sowell in The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. This work examines how the elite class, aka the “anointed”, sells crises and their antidotes as a way of taking increasing control over the masses. These self-anointed elites have a vision of life which Sowell opposes with the “tragic vision.” The tragic vision is the basis for the Conservative, or Classical Liberal, movement which accepts life can never be perfected, only its opportunities maximized. The anointed vision is essentially progressive, and therefore utopian—and claims that the costs of perfecting the world are worth the outcome. Sowell says the tragic vision is realistic and can create a good world, whereas the vision of the anointed is essentially so unrealistic it is cruel and unhinged.
A question which must be asked is, Why would a politician pretend there is a problem and then propose a very painful and expensive solution? The answer to this is disappointing to state. First, the more crises a politician successfully presides over, the more essential the person is seen as being. Second, certain political ideologies are based upon the notion that they are only a few elites in any society, and these have a noblesse oblige, a sacred duty, to care for others not fit for leadership. Third, another some politicians simply crave power over others, which is why they entered politics to begin with. And increasing their own power maximizes their enjoyment.
Sowell describes how the crises are presented that the elites use to promote their ideas. These are promoted as having the following characteristics:
  1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious
  1. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
  2. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either.
Sowell maps out how the essentially contrived crises and their failed responses play out:
A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages:

STAGE 1. THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for years.
STAGE 2. THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest.

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.

STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.

Conclusion

In a shocking number of scenarios, the elite class—whether in the form of the media, the academics, or in entertainment—presents a crisis to the society, and the “only way” the crisis can be solved. Invariably, the solution is worse than the often non-existent “crisis.”
One such example is currently Obamacare, and how this threatens to undermine the very best medical system in the world. And so it is with energy, where the petroleum sector has been attacked relentlessly as greedy, polluting, and focusing on rapidly diminishing supplies. Now one can only hope that Obama will stop pretending the “green economy” is more important than real oil for real Americans. Our horribly battered economy sure could use some good news after five years of ineffective DC fixes.

 

 http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54794?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=577baa6f60-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

Benghazi Lies: All Americans should find the Benghazi attack and the total lack of response and seeming indifference to it at the highest levels of our government deeply troubling.?

At an April 17 session before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, lightly dismissed the assassination of a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel in Benghazi, Libya, saying “I don’t think anybody lied to anybody. And let’s find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need—we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.”

This has been the party line of the White House since the attack occurred on September 11, 2012. The initial response was to send out the hapless lackey, then-US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, to tell absurd lies about a video that incited the attack. Even the Libyan president dismissed that.
Operating on the belief that the longer the attack recedes into the past, the less likely it will be a political problem, the administration continues to stonewall. That’s not going to happen. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), speaking on Fox News on April 27 promised “explosive” congressional hearings regarding the Benghazi attack, saying they are “coming soon.”

Larry Bell, a Forbes columnist, noted that “The House interim report states that ‘reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton.’”

A group, Special Operations Speaks, recently sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, raising the following questions:

1.Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

2.Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not? If so, were they alerted?

3.Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

4.Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?
Were any US Army/Navy/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

5.What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?
What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

6.How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

7.Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

8.Where are the survivors?

9.Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

10.Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

11.Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett, and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

12.Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away), never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support—General Dempsey’s words) arrived?

13.Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

14.Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?
 
15.What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings?

16.What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?
Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis in Benghazi?

17.What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

18What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

19.Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel who were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign non-disclosure statements?
“As veterans of Special Operations, we find this deeply troubling.” All Americans should find the Benghazi attack and the total lack of response and seeming indifference to it at the highest levels of our government deeply troubling If it turns out that the alleged witnesses to the attack begin to turn up dead that would be especially troubling.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54836?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=577baa6f60-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

Is Obama Threatening Benghazi Whistleblowers?While the Bush administration treated whistleblowers unmercifully, the Obama administration has been far worse. It is actually prosecuting them, and doing so under the Espionage Act — one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against an American. The Espionage Act is an archaic World War I-era law meant to go after spies, not whistleblowers"


 Note Salon.com is a political "Progressive" news website  applying to the part one of  blog post.







For two years I have been writing about the criminalization of whistleblowing, or as Glenn Greenwald has put it more aptly, the “war on whistleblowers.”  I’m an attorney with the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower organization.


How did I get into this line of work?  Because I myself was a whistleblower when I worked as a Legal Advisor at the Justice Department and blew the whistle when my advice not to interrogate “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh without an attorney (and, parenthetically, not to torture him) was ignored and then “disappeared” from the file in contravention of a federal court discovery order. After I blew the whistle, the Justice Department retaliated against me by, among other things, placing me under criminal investigation, referring me to the state bars in which I’m licensed as a lawyer based on a secret report to which I did not have access, and putting me on the “No-Fly” List. (The D.C. Bar charges are still pending 8½ years later.) I write about the experience in my new book TRAITOR: The Whistleblower and the American Taliban. Glenn Greenwald, for whom I am substituting here, wrote an eloquent foreword for the book.

While the Bush administration treated whistleblowers unmercifully, the Obama administration has been far worse. It is actually prosecuting them, and doing so under the Espionage Act — one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against an American. The Espionage Act is an archaic World War I-era law meant to go after spies, not whistleblowers. Strangely, using it to target the media and sources is the brainchild of neo-conservative Gabriel Schoenfeld, who would have sources who disclose information to reporters, journalists who then write about it for newspapers, the newspapers that publish the information and the publisher itself all be held criminally liable.

Everyone wants to know why Obama, with his pledge to “protect whistleblowers,” would do this.  After all, Obama’s transition agenda recognized that “[o]ften the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.”  That’s not just a broken promise, it’s a complete reversal.
At first I thought Obama’s war on whistleblowers was meant to appease the intelligence establishment, which saw him as weak. I soon recognized this assault as a devious way to create bad precedent for going after journalists. All the Espionage Act cases involve allegations that the government employee “leaked” information (or retained information for the purpose of leaking it) to journalists.

The government’s spectacularly failed case against NSA whistleblower Tom Drake claimed that he allegedly retained allegedly classified information for the purpose of leaking it to Siobhan Gorman, then with the Baltimore Sun. It turned out that he disclosed unclassified information about a failed and wasteful (multi-billion dollar) NSA spy program that compromised Americans’ privacy. FBI translator Shamai Liebowitz pleaded guilty to leaking information to a blogger. Leibowitz made his disclosure because of an all-too-real fear that Israel might strike nuclear facilities in Iran, a move he saw as potentially disastrous. State Department arms expert Steven Kim is accused of leaking to Fox News that North Korea was planning to respond to a U.N. Security Council resolution by setting off another nuclear test — surely of public interest to China and South Korea. And, of course, Army Private Bradley Manning is accused of leaking to WikiLeaks.

In the most extreme proof yet that the war on whistleblowers is also a war on journalists, Glenn Greenwald’s explosive piece last night detailed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repeatedly detaining and interrogating Oscar- and Emmy-nominated documentarian Laura Poitras, who has filmed three of my NSA clients for the third installment of her War on Terror trilogy. Not surprisingly, her latest film will be about the government’s ever-expanding secret domestic surveillance, NSA treating our nation like a foreign country for spying purposes, and the war on whistleblowers.

In yet other examples, for the Espionage Act prosecution of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, the government has subpoenaed New York Times journalist James Risen three times to testify about whether Sterling was his source. The issue is on appeal in the 4th Circuit from a lower court ruling that Risen had a “qualified reporter’s privilege” not to do so. Going after the media is also evidenced by last week’s Indictment of CIA officer John Kiriakou, which is laced with thinly-veiled references to “Journalist A” (Matthew Cole of ABC News) and “Journalist B” (Scott Shane of the New York Times). “Journalist C” (Richard Esposito of ABC News), mentioned in the charges, mysteriously disappeared from the indictment.
Kiriakou is charged with identifying a covert agent, three Espionage Act counts, and making a false statement, for which he faces 50 years in prison. In the government’s own words: “The charges result from an investigation that was triggered by a classified defense filing [by attorneys

representing Guantánamo detainees], which contained classified information the defense had not been given through official government channels, and in part, by the discovery . . . of photographs of certain government employees and contractors in the materials of high-value detainees.” In other words, instead of investigating the government’s withholding of exculpatory information from Gitmo detainees’ lawyers, the government investigated how the lawyers obtained the information. And instead of investigating the approximately 70 names and 25 photos of the detainees’ alleged torturers, the government investigated how the prisoners found them out.

Count I accuses Kiriakou of allegedly confirming the name of an allegedly covert agent — even though the covert agent’s name has never been made public. Count II alleges that Kiriakou violated the Espionage Act by affirming the allegedly covert agent’s (the same one whose name has never been made public) involvement with the “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation Program.” Counts III and IV stem from Kiriakou’s alleged communications with New York Times reporter Scott Shane, for a story he wrote in 2008 and for which Shane had some 23 other sources.  Count V alleges that Kiriakou tried to trick the CIA, but failed, during the pre-publication review process for his book, “The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.” The Indictment leaves out that Kiriakou took the “trick” information out of his book, and that the CIA cleared Kiriakou’s book in its entirety. More likely, the government is actually upset that Kiriakou’s book sharply criticizes the CIA’s torture program and reveals embarrassing information about the FBI – namely that the FBI shelved potentially-actionable intelligence in the aftermath of 9/11.

The indictment of John Kiriakou, like that of Tom Drake, is meant to chill whistleblowers and the journalists who report their stories.  After the Justice Department’s case collapsed, Drake’s prosecutor requested at sentencing that the judge impose a steep fine of $50,000 “to send a message” to intelligence community employees “who live by these non-disclosure agreements.” (“Non-disclosure agreements” are not to be confused with Omertà-style loyalty oaths. Federal employees do take an oath: to the Constitution, not to the President, an Agency, a boss, or a broken classification system.) The judge gave Drake no fine, but the government’s desired message is especially odious because Drake and Kiriakou are the only people to be prosecuted in relation to two of the Bush administration’s biggest scandals—warrantless surveillance and torture. After being put through what a federal judge called “four years of hell,” Drake is out a career, a federal retirement package, and almost a hundred thousand dollars in attorneys’ fees. Kiriakou himself has also spent tens of thousands in attorneys’ fees and is struggling to raise the million dollars his defense is expected to cost. Intelligence community employees with mortgages and mouths to feed no doubt get the message.

Kiriakou’s Indictment fails to mention that Kiriakou served the CIA and the United States at great personal peril – he survived at least one assassination attempt — for almost 15 years and was trusted with the country’s most sensitive secrets and counter-terrorism operations. It also fails to mention that he was the first CIA officer to call waterboarding “torture” and that he revealed that the CIA’s torture program was policy rather than aberrant playtime.  The law-breaking telecoms who received retroactive immunity from Congress, the interrogators who tortured prisoners, the officials who gave the orders, the attorneys who authored the torture memos, and the CIA agents who destroyed the interrogation tapes have not been held professionally accountable, much less been charged with crimes. National security and intelligence whistleblowers have become the glaring exception to the Obama administration’s mantra of “looking forward, not backward.”  If you committed crimes under the guise of national security and the war on terrorism, you will not be held criminally liable, but if you blow the whistle on crimes, you risk criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.

As I keep saying, John Kiriakou is the new Tom Drake — an assessment with which Drake himself agrees. And the government’s latest dirty little secret?  For these heavy-handed, oh-so-serious, America-harming, foreign nation-benefitting Espionage Act charges, the government was willing to let Kiriakou plead guilty to a single felony with no jail time.  Desperate.

UPDATE: Journalist Jane Mayer (who won the prestigious George Polk Award for Magazine Reporting for her New Yorker story on NSA whistleblower Tom Drake) just e-mailed me that during the awards ceremony, “I pointed out that when our sources are prosecuted, the news-gathering process is criminalized, so it’s incumbent upon all journalists to speak up.  I thanked the Polk judges especially for picking Tom’s story, for that reason.” She’s paraphrasing, of course, because the transcript of the awards ceremony is not yet available, but her point is clear.


http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/journalists_casualties_in_the_war_on_whistleblowers/


 Part two of  blog post.










At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers, or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistleblowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of September 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to September 11, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded; and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials falsely described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.

“It's frightening and they're doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘We're going to kill you,’ or not ‘We're going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”

Federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistleblowers.” The laws aim to ensure these individuals will not face repercussions from their superiors, or from other quarters, in retaliation for their provision of information about corruption or other forms of wrongdoing to Congress, or to an agency’s inspector-general.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on April 26 to complain that the department has not provided a process by which attorneys like Toensing can receive the security clearances necessary for them to review classified documents and other key evidence.

“It is unavoidable that Department employees identifying themselves as witnesses in the Committee’s investigation will apply for a security clearance to allow their personal attorneys to handle sensitive or classified material,” Issa wrote. “The Department’s unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress.”

The Obama administration maintains that it has been more than forthcoming on Benghazi and that it is time for the State Department to move on.  At a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry noted that administration officials have testified at eight hearings on Benghazi, provided twenty briefings on the subject, and turned over to Congress some 25,000 documents related to the killings.
“So if you have additional questions or, you think there's some document that somehow you need, I'll work with you to try to get it and see if we can provide that to you,” Kerry told committee chairman Rep. Ed Royce, also a Republican from California, on April 17. But Kerry added: “I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking about Benghazi.”

  State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell 


 Asked about Issa’s complaints about attorneys not receiving security clearances,
on Monday indicated that – far from threatening anyone – the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases. “I'm not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or -- or anything to that regard,” Ventrell told reporters.


 “I'm not aware of whistleblowers one way or another.”
Ventrell cited the work of the FBI – whose probe of the attacks continues, almost eight months later and without any known instances of perpetrators being brought to justice – and the Accountability Review Board. The ARB was an internal State Department review panel led by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. An unclassified version of the ARB’s final report that was released to the public contained no conclusions that suggested administration officials had willfully endangered their colleagues in Benghazi or had misled the public or Congress.

“And that should be enough,” Ventrell said at Monday’s press briefing. “Congress has its own prerogatives, but we've had a very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and [which was] transparent and shared.  And there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”

Inside Source: Military Forces Could Have Responded to Benghazi Attack in Time The source contradicts the Obama administration's claim that no help was available.











Obama  has insisted from the start that there was no help available for the Americans under assault in Benghazi on September 11. The first in three exclusive reports alleging that that claim is false aired on tonight’s Special Report.

Because the special operator in the video above is fearful of reprisal, his identity was concealed. The man, who watched the events unfold and has debriefed those who were part of the response, told Fox News’ Adam Housley that the C110 special forces group “was doing a training exercise not in the region of Northern Africa but in Europe. And they had the ability to react and respond.”
The operator believes that the force would have been able to be travel from Croatia to Benghazi within four hours – in time for the second attack.

He says that many connected to Benghazi are afraid to talk. “The problem is you’ve got guys … in the special operations community who are still active and still involved. And they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high-level commanders.


Obama Denies Any Knowledge of Benghazi Whistleblowers Being Threatened


In a press conference this morning, Fox News Channel’s Ed Henry asked President Obama about accusations that Benghazi whistleblowers have been blocked from coming forward.

“Ed, I am not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying, so what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to,” President Obama said.
He stressed that he’s been clear that U.S. officials need to find out what happened in Benghazi, bring the perpetrators to justice, and make sure that other U.S. embassies are safe


Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/30/press-conference-video-president-obama-denies-any-knowledge-benghazi-whistleblowers-being#ixzz2RxyoTIpe

Gosnell is not alone’: Undercover video reveals gruesome details of late-term abortions at Bronx clinic.

A pro-life organization Sunday released undercover video of a counselor at a Bronx abortion facility offering graphic details about what happens to a baby who survives an attempted late-term abortion.

In the film, created by the pro-life organization Live Action, an abortion counselor at the Dr. Emily Women’s Health Center in the Bronx explains the gruesome late-term process to an undercover Live Action investigator seeking an abortion at 23 weeks (abortion is legal in New York State until the 24th week.)
In the video the counselor describes how the “fully grown” fetus will be sucked out with a “sucking tool that they hold, and it sucks it in” and how the fetus will come out in pieces because it will “start falling apart.”
If the fetus comes out in one piece, however, they put it “in a jar — a container, with solution,” the counselor explains — adding that everything that comes out in an abortion has “to go to the lab” to be disposed of.
Watch the undercover video: 
YouTube Preview Image
  • Get Your Veteran ID CardLargest US Veteran Website ID card Benefits, discounts & service pride 
If the baby is “twitching,” the counselor says, “the solution will make it stop… That is the whole purpose of the solution.”
If the baby is breathing, the counselor goes on, the solution stops that too. “It will automatically stop. It won’t be able to breathe anymore. Not in the — not with the solution.”
When asked if the solution is “toxic,” the counselor — who reveals she has been working at the clinic since she was 16 years old — answers in the affirmative.
When asked what to do if the investigator goes into labor before she returns to the clinic, the counselor advises she “flush it,” but still come back into the clinic to “make sure that everything came out.” She adds, however, that they have “never had a situation like that.”
If it is born on the floor of the investigator’s home, the clinic worker advises, “put it in a bag” and bring it to the clinic.
The counselor adds that if there are issues with the procedure at home, don’t call the hospital, “call us.” The clinic worker explains that the hospital “won’t take you. They won’t touch you, either, because we started it. So whoever starts it has to finish it.”
Another clinic worker highlighted in the video says that if the fetus comes out alive they will send it to a hospital, but that the abortionist does the “termination inside, and then he removes the pregnancy,” to avoid that.
Forty-one percent of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion, the Live Action video explains.
The video is the first in what the pro-life group says will be a series of undercover videos called “Inhumane: Undercover in America’s Late-Term Abortion Industry,” which were shot at clinics that engage in late-term abortions.
“Dr. Kermit Gosnell is not alone,” said Live Action president Lila Rose in a statement. “The gruesome and inhuman practices exposed in Gosnell’s ‘House of Horrors’ are business as usual for the abortion industry in America. These children’s lives are brutally destroyed when they are the most defenseless. This isn’t ‘choice’; this is murder.”

Obama Waives Bush Law Banning Child Soldiers.

 
New York) - Under a new law signed today by US President George W. Bush, leaders of military forces and armed groups who have recruited child soldiers may be arrested and prosecuted in the United States, Human Rights Watch said today. The law could apply to leaders of dozens of forces that have recruited and used child soldiers in over 20 armed conflicts.
The Child Soldiers Accountability Act makes it a federal crime to recruit knowingly or to use soldiers under the age of 15 and permits the United States to prosecute any individual on US soil for the offense, even if the children were recruited or served as soldiers outside the United States. The law imposes penalties of up to 20 years, or up to life in prison if their action resulted in the child's death. It also allows the United States to deport or deny entry to individuals who have knowingly recruited children as soldiers.
"The US is saying to the world that using child soldiers is a serious crime and that it will take action," said Jo Becker, children's rights advocate for Human Rights Watch. "Military commanders who use children can no longer come to the United States without the risk of ending up in jail."

The legislation was introduced by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and adopted unanimously by both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate in September 2008.

In a statement issued on October 3, Senator Durbin said: "The United States must not be a safe haven for those who exploit children as soldiers. Period. The use of children as combatants is one of the most despicable human rights violations in the world today and affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of boys and girls who are used as combatants, porters, human mine detectors and sex slaves. The power to prosecute and punish those who violate the law will send a clear signal that the U.S. will in no way tolerate this abhorrent practice."

The recruitment and use of children as soldiers was recognized in 1998 as a war crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In 2007, four former military commanders from Sierra Leone were convicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for recruiting and using children as soldiers. Rebel and military commanders from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda have also been charged under the International Criminal Court with recruiting and using child soldiers, though none have yet gone to trial.
"This new law is a breakthrough because it no longer leaves the prosecution of child recruiters to international tribunals and the national courts of conflict-affected countries," Becker said. "The United States is stepping up to hold these war criminals accountable in its own courts."

Children are currently used in armed conflicts in at least 17 countries. Countries and territories in which children are known to have been used in hostilities between 2004 and 2007 include: Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Nepal, Philippines, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand and Uganda. Between 2001 and 2004, child soldiers were also used in Angola, Republic of Congo, Guinea, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Iran, and Yemen.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/03/united-states-bush-signs-law-child-soldiers

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


a headline we’ll guarantee you simply won’t find in the mainstream media –
On October 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law “Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008,” a law that made it a federal crime to recruit or use soldiers under the age of 15. The law also gave the United States authority to “prosecute, deport or deny entry to individuals who have knowingly recruited children as soldiers.”
The bipartisan law, which was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress, drew the applause of several international human rights organizations:

“The US is saying to the world that using child soldiers is a serious crime and that it will take action,” said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocate for Human Rights Watch. “Military commanders who use children can no longer come to the United States without the risk of ending up in jail.”

Over the weekend, while most Americans were too busy spending time with their children and keeping up with the latest sporting events to worry about executive orders, President Obama removed the teeth from this law; effectively making it void in the nations most guilty.  The result - thousands of children throughout the Middle East and Africa may be drafted into foreign militaries, with the full blessings of the United States.
Sunday afternoon, President Obama signed a Presidential memorandum, stating the following:

“I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA [Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008] with respect to Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen…  and the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin defense articles; and I hereby waive such provisions accordingly.”
Section 404(a) deals with exporting arms to countries that allow child-soldiers.
With the stroke of a pen, President Obama did two very frightening things:

1. He authorized the United States to sell military weaponry to the nations of Libya, South Sudan, Yemen and Congo.

At a time with such unrest in the world, there is now a very significant chance that American weaponry will soon be delivered to a Yemen and Libyan port.

2. President Obama has undone much of the progress made in the fight against child-soldiers won over the past decade.  Jesse Eaves, a senior policy advisor for child protection at World Vision stated the following:
“At a time when Congress is locked in one of the most difficult budget battles I’ve ever seen, it is shameful that a portion of federal funding continues to help support governments who are abusing children. At its core, this is a missed opportunity to show leadership on this issue and protect thousands of vulnerable children around the world,” adding, “Frankly, we expected more from our nation’s leaders.”

Unfortunately, as originally stated, this is a headline that you simply will not see ran across the screen of MSNBC.
Read original here: http://constitutionschool.com/2012/10/02/big-news-obama-waives-bush-law-banning-child-soldiers/#.URE3rQLLUqY.facebook


 

Monday, April 29, 2013

Virginia Abortion Clinic Owner: 'I Can Stick Needles in Babies' Lungs. I Can Put Tubes Up P... other win for right to life!, abortion provider, the Hillcrest Clinic, closed its doors last week after 40 years of aborting babies in the state rather than comply with Virginia's regulation.

CNSNews.com) - In an editoriallamenting a new Virginia state regulation requiring abortion clinics to comply with higher licensing standards, the Washington Post quoted one abortion-clinic owner who noted that he can do such things as "stick needles in babies' lungs" and "put tubes up penises," but now he is going to have to deal with the "nonsensical" demands of Virginia's regulation.
"Some of the clinics, including those operated by Planned Parenthood, which has a national fundraising network, will survive," said the Post. "Many others, which are run as small businesses, probably will not."
The Post pointed to a quote from Dr. David Peters, a Virginia abortion clinic owner, that was published in The Virginian-Pilot.
"I can do plastic surgery. I can stick needles in babies' lungs. I can put tubes up penises and into bladders, and do all sorts of crazy stuff in my office with no regulations whatsoever. No government supervision," Dr. David Peters, who owns the Tidewater Women's Health Clinic in Norfolk, Va. "But for an abortion, I've got to have the sterile room--the size of the building matters--so, it just becomes nonsensical."
The Post editorial lamented that another Norfolk, Va., abortion provider, the Hillcrest Clinic, closed its doors last week after 40 years of aborting babies in the state rather than comply with Virginia's regulation.
"Hillcrest performed more than 1,600 abortions last year, about 7 percent of the state total," the Post said.
The Post editorial argued that the new Virginia regulations on abortion clinics are an example of big government run amok.
"What’s more, the upgrades they face are arbitrary manifestations of the state’s overweening power," said the Post.
The 1,600-plus abortions that the now closed Hillcrest abortion clinic did last year equaled more than four abortions a day.
Having closed, the clinic aborted no babies yesterday.

Obama: Pass My Budget or Suffer More 'Pain'


n his weekly address, Pres. Obama threatened Americans with more sequester "pain" if they don't convince Congress to pass his budget.
"Because of these reckless cuts, there are parents whose kids just got kicked out of Head Start programs scrambling for a solution.  There are seniors who depend on programs like Meals on Wheels to live independently looking for help.  There are military communities - families that have already sacrificed enough - coping under new strains.  All because of these cuts."
"This week, the sequester hurt travelers, who were stuck for hours in airports and on planes, and rightly frustrated by it."
And, there's more pain on the horizon, Obama warned: "These cuts are scheduled to keep falling across other parts of the government that provide vital services for the American people."
Then, Obama declared that the only way to avoid more sequester pain is to pass his budget:
"There is only one way to truly fix the sequester: by replacing it before it causes further damage.
"A couple weeks ago, I put forward a budget that replaces the next several years of these dumb cuts with smarter cuts; reforms our tax code to close wasteful special interest loopholes; and invests in things like education, research, and manufacturing that will create new jobs right now."
Obama warned of the "pain felt by kids kicked off Head Start, or the 750,000 Americans projected to lose their jobs" due to the sequester.
Children and workers are being hurt and "That pain is real" - and more will follow if Congress doesn't pass his budget, Obama warned:
"The American people worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one economic crisis just to see your elected officials keep causing more."

Obama's Borrowed More Per Household ($53,616) Than Median Household Earns ($50,502)


(CNSNews.com) - Under President Barack Obama, the federal government's debt has increased by an amount per household that exceeds the annual median household income.
Since Obama’s first inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal debt has climbed $6,167,472,778,984.22. That equals about $53,616 for each of the 115,031,000 households the Census Bureau currently estimates are in the country.
By contrast, the Census Bureau’smost recent estimate of the median household income was $50,502 (for 2011).
If the federal government increased taxes sufficiently to take from the private sector the equivalent of $50,502 for every household in the country—that is, an amount that equals the median household income multiplied by the total number of households ($50,502 x $115,031,000), it would only take in $5,809,295,562,000.
That $5,809,295,562,000 tax increase would not be enough to pay back the $6,167,472,778,984.22 Obama has borrowed so far on the credit of American taxpayers.
To actually pay back what Obama’s has already borrowed, the federal government would need to tax away from the private sector an amount that equals more per household than the median household earns--and then it would need to refrain from spending those additional tax dollars on new or expanded government programs so the money could be used to pay down the debt.
On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama first took the oath of office, the federal debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. At the close of business on April 25, 2013, it was $16,794,349,827,897.30.

WHAT OBAMA HAS IN COMMON WITH THE GAMBINO CRIME FAMILY?


Can you guess who is the deadliest crime family in our country’s history? If you guessed the Gambinos, you’re wrong. It’s the Obama Crime Family. The Obama gang is killing jobs, strangling business, intimidating opponents, making the energy industry extinct, and wiping out the middle class.
Don Obama and his cronies are very much like the Gambino Crime Family- except the Gambinos were nicer. You see the mafia almost never goes after “civilians.” They only intimidate, extort, and kill other mobsters or “associates” active in the insular criminal world. If only Obama was that discriminating!
The Obama Crime Family goes after every taxpayer in America. Obama desperately needs your money, and he’ll stop at nothing to confiscate it. Whether it’s raising income taxes, payroll taxes, Obamacare taxes, online sales taxes, taking away exemptions and deductions, he’ll find a new and creative way to claim your money as his.
How does Obama steal your money? My new book, “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide” paints the full picture- but let me share a few highlights of Don Obama’s larceny in action…
First: through massive taxation and redistribution of wealth. Don Obama targets, hunts, demonizes, intimidates, and punishes his best customers (business owners and high income taxpayers). Even the Gambinos treated their best customers better than this!
But taxation is only the tip of the iceberg for the Obama Crime Family. They can rob widows and orphans blind without ever touching their bank accounts. The Obama Crime Family’s weapon of choice is the Federal Reserve. If Don Obama can’t get his hands on your money, he merely orders the Fed to print trillions in new dollars. That makes your life savings worthless. It threatens your retirement. It even threatens the financial future of your children and grandchildren.
All of those trillions of fake dollars printed by the Fed need to be repaid by future generations. That “Obama money” that props up the stock market…and pays for “free” Obama phones and “free” healthcare…isn’t actually “free.” It’s debt—and it all must be repaid by YOUR kids.
Don Obama is a genius. He has enslaved your heirs to a life of misery, unimaginable debt, and excessive taxation- even though some aren’t even born yet. That qualifies Don Obama as the meanest, most dastardly, gangster that ever lived! No wonder babies cry upon taking their first breath. At the moment of birth, they owe over $300,000.
This Don Obama is one bad-ass killer.

 Just last month 660,000 Americans left the workforce. In one month! There are now 90 million able-bodied, working-age Americans no longer working. That’s almost one third of the country’s population. The workforce participation rate is the lowest since 1979. For men it’s the lowest since 1948. Don Obama has killed so many jobs, he should be on top of the FBI’s “Most Wanted List.”
But Don Obama also kills spirit. He overwhelms business owners with so many taxes and regulations, they live in despair and depression. Don Obama is a ruthless enforcer- he created 6,118 new government regulations in just the first 90 days of 2013. He is snuffing out the economy like a hit man.
Even worse, he is like a Mafiosa drug dealer. Except Don Obama’s drug of choice are entitlements. He has addicted the whole country to welfare, food stamps, disability, unemployment, free meals at school, housing allowances, free healthcare. He’s turned almost the whole population into addicts, with their hands out waiting for their “Obama money.” Even the Gambinos could never destroy the moral fabric of the whole country. Take notes Mr. Gambino, this Don Obama is good!

But intimidation is Don Obama’s real calling card. IRS audits are up dramatically- specifically on small business owners. Why? As bank robber extraordinaire Dillinger said, “That’s where the money is.” Obama smells money and he must grab every last nickel. Even the Gambinos left a taste on the table. Not Obama. What’s yours is his.
As a bonus, since business owners write most of the checks for Republican candidates and conservative causes, Don Obama is slowly bankrupting his political opposition.
Then there’s the intimidation against “ratings agencies.” Standard & Poors downgraded the debt of America under Obama- for the first time in history. So guess what happened to Standard & Poors? A government indictment. Next Egan-Jones downgraded America’s debt—twice. Can you guess what soon followed? A government indictment. Egan-Jones was recently sentenced with a big fine and banned from telling the truth about America’s finances for 18 months.
Were these indictments a coincidence? No more than if a business owner stopped paying kickbacks to the mafia and suddenly winds up firebombed. These were messages.
Then there’s Obamacare. The IRS predicts the typical family will soon pay $20,000 per year for healthcare. Since no one in this Obamageddon economy has $20,000 to spare, Don Obama will turn us all into wards of the state, dependent on government to pay for our healthcare.
But Don Obama saves his real mafia tactics for the energy industry. He despises oil, coal, nuclear, and fracking. A true Marxist, Obama wants energy bills to go through the roof, so that we all need government handouts to survive. So he uses every trick in his book to destroy the energy producers- from EPA regulations to Executive orders. A federal court recently threw out an Obama biofuel tax on the energy industry. It was quite simply unconstitutional. How did Obama respond? He DOUBLED the tax. Don Obama takes killing to a whole new level.
My new book, “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide” gives you chapter and verse on the man ruining our country and killing our economy. The Obama Crime Family is in a league of their own.
My apologies for insulting the Gambinos by comparison.

Obama Still Creating a Toxic Environment for Trump’s Policies at EPA, Think Progress deems iI “A Punitive … Assault On Science? Like Let Talk About “A Punitive Assault On Science ? Like Were The Science TO Prove Gender Identity?

“ Pay no attention to that man behind that curtain!” The Wizard of Oz had a good reason for trying to distract Dorothy when his tru...