The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

 
» Posts tagged 'Obama'
 
 

Obama

russian-obama-deprive-nobel460

Published time: October 30, 2014 09:50

A representative of the populist LDPR nationalist party claims in an official letter that the US President should be blamed for thousands of innocent people’s deaths and therefore cannot keep his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

More and more international experts are calling Obama’s presidency dark times. The reason for that is the brutal policy that he is conducting all over the world, like Napoleon or Hitler had done before. But I want to warn Obama so that he pays more attention to history and understands that he can end up like Hitler,” MP Roman Khudyakov said in an interview with Izvestia daily.

The politician added that under Obama the United States participated in the “dirty war” in the Middle East, financed the armed conflict in Ukraine and violated international law by torturing suspected terrorists. All this makes the US President complicit in the violent deaths of several thousand innocent civilians and such a person cannot remain the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize, Khudyakov said.

In addition, the lawmaker suggested to pass the Peace Prize taken from Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “He stopped the war in Iran, in Syria and he is still saving a lot of people from major bloodshed. He is a vivid example of a politician who preserves peace and love in the world.”

Khudyakov is not the first Russian politician who has suggested stripping the US President of his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. In August this year, the head of the LDPR party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, wrote in a public address that Obama was not worthy of the honor.

Zhirinovsky stated that the fact that the Peace Prize was given to Obama in 2009 caused bewilderment from the very beginning – the award went to the man who had occupied his post for less than a year and had not claimed any real achievements, but instead started wars in the Mideast, Afghanistan and Ukraine. The Russian politician added that he himself had worked in the Peace Committee and previously the whole world had been proud of Nobel laureates. He noted that giving the Peace Prize to Obama “had done huge damage” but the mistake could still be corrected.

In March, senator, Lyudmila Bokova, asked the Nobel Committee to annul Obama’s peace prize claiming that the double standard policy of the US administration helped develop the political crisis in Ukraine.

In November last year, two Russian military-related NGOs, Officers of Russia and Soldiers’ Mothers, addressed the Nobel Committee with a request to evaluate Obama’s inhumane statements about drone warfare – the US President had reportedly told his aides that he was “really good at killing people” while evaluating drone strike results.

So far, all calls from Russian activists and politicians have gone unanswered. It should be noted, however, that the statutes of the Nobel Foundation forbid the revoking of prizes as well as any appeals against Nobel Committee decisions.

Read article here: http://rt.com/politics/200767-russian-obama-deprive-nobel/

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here: http://rt.com/

chillingfreespeech460

JudgeNap

Judge Andrew Napolitano | Oct 23, 2014

Earlier this week, the federal government’s National Science Foundation, an entity created to encourage the study of science — encouragement that it achieves by awarding grants to scholars and universities — announced that it had awarded a grant to study what people say about themselves and others in social media. The NSF dubbed the project Truthy, a reference to comedian Stephen Colbert’s invention and hilarious use of the word “truthiness.”

The reference to Colbert is cute, and he is a very funny guy, but when the feds get into the business of monitoring speech, it is surely no joke; it is a nightmare. It is part of the Obama administration’s persistent efforts to monitor communication and scrutinize the expressions of opinions it hates and fears.

We already know the National Security Agency has the digital versions of all telephone conversations and emails sent to, from or within the U.S. since 2005. Edward Snowden’s revelations of all this are credible and substantiated, and the government’s denials are weak and unavailing — so weak and unavailing that many NSA agents disbelieve them.

But the government’s unbridled passion to monitor us has become insatiable. Just two months ago, the Federal Communications Commission, which licenses broadcasters, threatened to place federal agents in cable television newsrooms so they can see how stories are generated and produced. The FCC doesn’t even regulate cable, yet it threatened to enhance its own authority by monitoring cable companies from the inside.

What’s going on here?

What’s going on here, and has been going on since President Obama took office in January 2009, is a government with little or no fidelity to basic constitutional norms. There is no defense under the Constitution to any aspect of the government’s — federal, state, regional, local or hybrid; or any entity owned or controlled by any government; or any entity that exercises the government’s coercive powers or spends or receives its money — monitoring the expressive behavior of anyone in the U.S., not in a newsroom, on social media or anywhere else.

The NSF’s stated purpose of the Truthy squad is to look for errors in speech, particularly errors that fuel hatred or political extremes. This monitoring — this so-called search for error — is totalitarian and directly contradicts well-grounded Supreme Court jurisprudence, for several reasons.

First, for the government to gather information — public or private — on any person, the Constitution requires that the government have “articulable suspicion” about that person. Articulable suspicion is a mature and objective reason to believe that the person has engaged in criminal behavior. Without that level of articulable belief, the government is powerless to scrutinize anyone for any reason.

The articulable suspicion threshold is vital to assure that people in America have the presumption of liberty and are free to choose their behavior unimpeded or threatened by the government. The feds cannot cast a net into the marketplace of ideas and challenge what it brings in. Were they able to do so, the constitutional protections for free expression and the primacy of liberty would be meaningless.

Second, the courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment needs breathing room, and they also have held that government monitoring of speech curtails that breathing room. Stated differently, a person under observation changes behavior on account of the observation. Thus, by the very act of monitoring our words, the feds will have the effect of curtailing them.

The virtual or physical presence of the monitors would give people pause, cause them to reconsider offering opinions, induce them to refrain from expressing their true thoughts and even drive their speech underground. This is called “chilling,” and it has been condemned by numerous Supreme Court decisions.

The principal purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the marketplace of ideas, and any governmental behavior that influences the exercise of the freedom of speech — no matter how gently, indirectly, innocently or secretly — violates that principle and provides the basis to sue the government to have its Stasi-like monitoring of speech enjoined. Another prime purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, unfettered and robust debate about the policies and the personnel of the government. Who can engage in that with Big Brother watching and keeping score?

All presidents push the envelope when it comes to exercising their constitutional powers. But we never before have seen in modern times a president like the present one. From his halcyon days as a senator fighting for civil liberties, he has descended into a totalitarian darkness. How can he ask soldiers to defend a Constitution with their lives that he disregards with his deeds?

The government is worried about speech. Big deal. Speech is none of the government’s business. History teaches that the remedy for tasteless speech is not government repression — it is more speech. In a free society, when the marketplace of ideas is open and unfettered, the truth is obvious. But in a repressive society, the truth becomes a casualty. Which society did the Framers give us?

Read the (2 page) article here: http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2014/10/23/chilling-free-speech-n1908722

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here: http://townhall.com/

licensed-to-lie

A group of Washington overlords—federal prosecutors—sometimes break rules and wreck people’s lives. President Obama may soon appoint one of them to be America’s next Attorney General.

The prosecutorial bullying is detailed in a new book by Sidney Powell, Licensed to Lie. She reports that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) narcissistic and dishonest prosecutors destroy people by doing things like deliberately withholding evidence.

Remember the Arthur Andersen accounting firm? It was killed off by ambitious prosecutors who claimed the company helped Enron commit accounting fraud and then shredded the evidence.

But instead of charging people who allegedly ordered evidence destroyed, the DOJ indicted the entire company. That destroyed the accounting firm. Publicly traded companies cannot do business with companies under criminal investigation, so Andersen lost most of its clients.

The prosecutor’s purpose, says Powell, was to chill resistance from other companies that might dare fight the Feds. The message: cooperate, or we will destroy you! These pressure tactics were appropriate, said one prosecutor, because shredding documents “attacks the justice system itself by impeding investigators and regulators from getting at the truth.”

But who actually hid the truth? The prosecutors, writes Powell. In fact, Andersen had saved most of its documents and gave them to the government. The prosecutors simply lied to the court about it.

Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Arthur Andersen’s conviction. But by then, 80,000 employees had lost their jobs—80,000 people who’d done nothing wrong.

You’d think that this would teach federal prosecutors to obey the law. Paul Kamenar of the Washington Legal Foundation said, “this decision will send a strong message to the Justice Department to stop this kind of abusive prosecutorial misconduct.”

So were the prosecutors fired or jailed? No. Many were promoted. Washington’s overlords protect their own.

Next, some of the same prosecutors accused four Merrill Lynch executives of falsifying Enron’s books. The government lawyers told the media that Enron “conspired with Wall Street bankers to carry out a sham transaction.” The Merrill Lynch executives charged with fraud got three- to four-year jail sentences.

But Powell writes that the government “failed to allege anything that actually constituted a crime by the Merrill Lynch executives. Instead it cobbled together parts of different statutes to make up some kind of new crime that didn’t even make sense.”

Sure enough, an appeals court tossed most of the verdict, and the Merrill executives were released. But that was after they had spent a year in jail.

Did the prosecutors hang their heads in shame? No. Far from it. Some of them then went after Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, the prosecutors claimed, took $250,000 in gifts from rich donors and never reported that.

But later it was revealed that the prosecutors withheld evidence that showed Stevens had not taken anything like $250,000. A judge threw out that conviction, too. But by then, Sen. Stevens had lost his Senate seat. His replacement, a Democrat, became the deciding vote for Obamacare.

So was the lead prosecutor, Matthew Friedrich, finally punished? Again, no. He took a higher-paying job at a private law firm. Leslie Caldwell, who helped destroy Arthur Anderson, got promoted to assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. Andrew Weissmann, who helped prosecute the Andersen and the Merrill Lynch employees, was made deputy director of the FBI.

Finally, prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler, who helped manipulate the system to unfairly jail four Merrill Lynch employees, was promoted to deputy attorney general, then promoted again to White House counsel. Now Bloomberg reports that she’s President Obama’s first choice to replace Eric Holder!

If you find these charges as hard to believe as I did, you can read Powell’s supporting documents at LicensedtoLie.com. We invited prosecutors Ruemmler, Friedrich, Caldwell and Weissmann to reply to the charges laid out in Powell’s book and on my TV show, but they didn’t respond.

Federal prosecutors always have a big advantage over anyone they attack. The U.S. government has endless time and money. Only multi-millionaires can afford to fight back. Most people accused, even those who are innocent, just settle with the prosecutors and get punished. Prosecutors abuse this awesome power and get promoted for it.

Read article here: http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/22/federal-persecutors

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here: http://reason.com/

ISIL

By: Finian CUNNINGHAM

US President Barack Obama hosted a top-level war council this past week in Washington with the military leaders from 21 countries in attendance – under the official remit of coordinating tactics to defeat the Islamic State extremist group in Syria and Iraq.

The titular American commander-in-chief spoke with the gravitas of a decorated soldier. «This is going to be a long-term campaign and like all military campaigns there will be ups and downs», said Obama to the assembled military chiefs at Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington DC.

Obama’s presumed military authority was something of an achievement, considering that he is, by profession, a community activist, a professor of constitutional lawyer, and a former senator. The 53-year-old politician has never served a single day of his life in the US military, let alone seen combat action or having been awarded medals for bravery.

But that’s not the only anomaly that sprung to mind about Obama’s war council in Washington. Together with the usual Western allies of Britain, France, Canada and Australia, there were military top brass from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. 

Yet, all these Middle Eastern «partners» are documented as having deep logistical links with the Islamic State and other related jihadist terror groups marauding in Syria and Iraq. 

Joe Biden, the US vice president, admitted this terror connection between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil monarchies in a public debate at Harvard University earlier this month. Although Biden was later forced into making cringing apologies to the said offender countries, his initial blundering confirms the paradox that the US-led anti-terror coalition is comprised of, well, state-sponsoring terrorists. 

The terror sponsors include the US and Britain, who together spawned the Al Qaeda-linked network in their laboratory of illegal occupation of Iraq from 2003 onwards. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) later mutated into Islamic State (IS, ISIL or ISIS) during the West’s covert war for regime change in Syria, which has been raging since March 2011, with a death toll of nearly 200,000, more than six million people displaced, and half of Syria’s 23 million total population living in dire humanitarian conditions, according to the United Nations. 

The open secret of weapons supplies to extremists from the US, coordinated by its Central Intelligence Agency and routed through Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, is not even a matter of controversy in the Western media. It has already been reported with mundane indifference by mainstream Western media outlets, such as the New York Times and the Daily Telegraph.

A further striking anomaly from Obama’s war council in Washington – scarcely reported in the Western media, not surprisingly – was the complete absence of military representatives from the much-heralded «moderate Syrian rebels».   

Bear in mind that Obama’s strategy for allegedly eradicating the IS extremists is based on two fronts. The first is the coordinated aerial bombardment of militants, involving warplanes from the US, Britain, France, Australia and all of the above Arab states; the second is the purported training of «moderate» Syrian rebels, who will take the fight to the Jihadists on the ground. With the anticipated defeat of IS and related extremist Islamist groups, such as Jabhat al Nusra and Ansar al Sham, the Western-backed «moderate» rebels will then be empowered to pursue their noble rebellion against the «despotic» Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad – or at least so goes the theory.

President Obama has already won the backing of the US Congress to train vetted, moderate Syrian rebels with a budget of $500 million – in a revamp of the Free Syrian Army. The American military training is to take place in undisclosed camps located in Saudi Arabia, as well as now Turkey belatedly offering its territory for that same purpose following top-level negotiations in Ankara last week with US former marines General John Allen.  

Hold on a minute. Congress has approved $500 million to train a new cohort of the supposedly moderate and secular Free Syrian Army; and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are providing bases for that undertaking. But at Obama’s seminal war council on «coordinating» plans there was not one representative from the much-vaunted moderate rebels who are assigned this crucial military role. 

A US official attempted to explain the absence of Syrian rebels at the Washington summit by saying that such a participation was «not ready at this stage, and there is still a lot of training to do». 

In other words, the so-called moderate rebels that the US is touting do not actually exist. It’s therefore less a case of Free Syrian Army and more a case of Fictitious Syrian Army.

This conceptual void has long been pointed out by many observers of the Syrian conflict. The notion of a moderate Free Syrian Army fighting a virtuous fight against a tyrannical regime is but a figment of Western government and media imagination, aimed at giving the Western powers a political and moral cover to indulge in its criminal regime change machinations against Syria.

Many of the supposed FSA brigades are in fact integrated with the extremist networks of IS, al Nusra and Ansar al Sham. Not only fighters, but also weapons and funding are recycled in a revolving-door relationship between these groups. Yes, there have been feuds, but this infighting is borne out of turf wars over criminal booty, not anything to do with ideological ethics. 

However, Western governments and their dutiful media cannot admit this reality because that would leave them open to public vilification. Hence, they have projected the illusion, with Western media assistance, that there is a «moderate» legitimate Syrian opposition, whom the West supports and whom the West is concerned to elevate over «rogue» terror groups.

This fiction was apparent from the resounding absence of any such nominated moderate group at the Washington anti-IS summit. 

It was also confirmed in a subsequent report from the McClatchy Washington Bureau, published Wednesday, the day after Obama’s war council. Under the headline ‘It’s official: US will build new Syrian rebel force to battle Islamic State’ the newspaper reported that «the United States is ditching the old Free Syrian Army and building its own local ground force to use primarily in the fight against the Islamist extremists».

Forget about the misnomer of the «old Free Syrian Army». There was never one to begin with. The point to take away is that the US is in effect admitting that there isn’t a force worth talking about. 

McClatchy quotes General John Allen, the US envoy to the anti-IS coalition, as saying: «At this point, there is not formal coordination with the FSA».

It’s worth clipping the following editorial paragraphs from the same

McClatchy report:

«For most of the three years of the Syrian conflict, the US ground game hinged on rebel militias that are loosely affiliated under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, or FSA.

«Their problems were no secret: a lack of cohesion, uneven fighting skills and frequent battlefield coordination with the al Qaida [sic] loyalists of the Nusra Front.

«This time, Allen said, the United States and its allies will work to strengthen the political opposition and make sure it’s tied to «a credible field force» that will have undergone an intense vetting process.

«It’s not going to happen immediately», Allen said. «We’re working to establish the training sites now, and we’ll ultimately go through a vetting process and beginning to bring the trainers and the fighters in to begin to build that force out».

This is a stunning admission, hardly picked up in the Western media. Washington is confirming that there is no such thing as a moderate rebel force in Syria. But what Washington and its fellow state terrorist sponsors are doing is throwing $500 million into a project of creating the semblance of «a credible field force». This creation will then give Western powers and its Arab allies a legitimacy to escalate their criminal covert war for regime change in Syria. 

No wonder Obama warned his war council in Washington that this would be a «long campaign». For the arsonists have become the fireman, the poachers have become gamekeepers, and the deluded have become the therapists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TLB recommends you visit

See featured article and read comments here: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/10/18/washington-admits-fsa-equals-fictitious-syrian-army.html

 (EDITOR’S NOTE:  WITHOUT RESERVATION, THE LIBERTY BEACON PROJECT ENDORSES THE INFOWARS NATIONAL STRIKE TO FORCE OBAMA TO SECURE AMERICA AGAINST THE EBOLA OUTBREAK)

Administration committing criminal neglect by failing to secure America against outbreak

#StopEbolaStrike: National Strike to Force Obama to Block West African Flights

By PAUL JOSEPH WATSON & ALEX JONES | OCTOBER 18, 2014

INFOWARS

obama-ebola

Infowars.com is calling for a general strike across the United States in response to the federal government’s botched response to the Ebola outbreak and the Obama administration’s refusal to block flights coming in from West Africa.

Countries bordering those in West Africa impacted by the Ebola outbreak have been successful in stopping the spread of the virus by blocking flights, including Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, and yet the Obama administration has refused to do likewise despite innumerable public figures calling on the White House to take action.

Numerous airlines have also restricted flights to Ebola-affected countries and yet the United States remains wide open to potential Ebola patients not only via airports but also via the country’s porous southern border, where hundreds of illegal aliens from Ebola-hit countries have poured across in recent months.

Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, has also warned that if the Ebola outbreak continues to rage it could cause “mass migration into the United States” of victims seeking treatment.
By refusing to block flights or tighten border security, the Obama administration is aiding and abetting the spread of Ebola and engaging in dereliction of duty by refusing to adopt the default position under such circumstances.

That’s why we’re launching a national campaign for all non-essential workers in the United States to strike from Monday through Wednesday next week.

We are calling on everyone to get behind the strike by tweeting under the hashtag #stopebolastrike and by personally participating in the general strike from Monday to Wednesday. We also invite other media outlets and media personalities to support the strike.

We have also launched a petition at WhiteHouse.gov which we encourage all Americans to sign here.

If the Obama administration fails to respond to the strike by Wednesday, it will be prolonged until the federal government is forced to take proper action to fight Ebola.

The CDC has proven itself to be dangerously inept and woefully unprepared to deal with a wider Ebola outbreak in the United States after two nurses who should have been properly protected contracted the virus from patient zero – Thomas Eric Duncan.

The CDC also gave express permission for Ebola victim Amber Vinson to travel on a commercial airliner after she had frequent contact with Duncan during his treatment at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, potentially exposing 132 passengers who also flew on the Frontier Airlines plane.

The federal government is committing criminal neglect by failing to implement the very measures that have proven successful in other countries in stopping the spread of the Ebola outbreak.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

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

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

See featured article and read comments here: http://www.infowars.com/stopebolastrike-national-strike-to-force-obama-to-stop-west-african-flights/

putin-nuke-consequences

Image Credit: Plavevski / Shutterstock.com

By: Mac Slavo

When the leadership of North Korea or Iran suggests a nuclear attack against the United States the threat is usually dismissed as mere posturing by extremist regimes.

But when the President of a global military super power like Russia makes such a threat, then perhaps it’s time to start paying attention.

In an interview with Serbia’s Politika newspaper Vladimir Putin did not mince words about his feelings surrounding the recent sanctions against his country’s economy and monetary system. He believes the actions of Europe and the United States to be hostile acts and he warns that Russia is prepared to go all the way if the hostilities continue.

It’s futile for the U.S. and its allies to “blackmail” Russia over the Ukraine crisis, President Vladimir Putin said in a newspaper interview today.

Russia’s partners should remember the risks involved in disputes between nuclear powers, Putin said.

He accused Barack Obama of adopting a “hostile” approach in naming Russia as a threat to the world in the U.S. president’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24.

“We hope that our partners will realize the futility of attempts to blackmail Russia and remember what consequences discord between major nuclear powers could bring for strategic stability,” Putin told Serbia’s Politika newspaper on the eve of his visit to the Balkan nation today.

Putin said that Obama had identified Russian aggression in Europe as one of the three “major threats facing humanity,” alongside the Ebola virus and Islamic State.

“Together with the sanctions against entire sectors of our economy, this approach can be called nothing but hostile,” Putin said.

Attempts to pressure Russia with “unilateral and illegitimate restrictive measures” will impede efforts to settle the crisis, he said.

“How can we talk about de-escalation in Ukraine while the decisions on new sanctions are introduced almost simultaneously with the agreements on the peace process?” he said. “If the main goal is to isolate our country, it’s an absurd and illusory goal.”

Bloomberg via Zero Hedge

Did Vladimir Putin just threaten Western powers with nuclear war if the perceived hostilities continue?

If he didn’t have several thousand nukes ready to deploy at the push of a button we might ignore him. But this is the President of Russia, and unlike some Western leaders who talk a big game, we are fairly certain that Putin is prepared to stand by his rhetoric.

He has just deployed nuclear weapons systems into Crimea, so you can forget about that territory ever going back to the Ukrainians. Thus, the question is how far are President Obama and our European allies willing to go? And what exactly is the intention of the sanctions? If it’s to make Russia give Crimea back, then someone is living in a dream world. If it’s to punish Russia, then we can see based on Putin’s most recent comments what the end game of that strategy will eventually lead to.

In his documentary Strategic Relocation well known survival expert Joel Skousen discusses the real possibility of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. He, like many others, see the writing on the wall. We didn’t build all these nuclear weapons just to sit there and look at them. And, as should be obvious, the East and West have completely different ideologies and visions for what the world is supposed to look like. Both sides are actively working to minimize or destroy the influence of the other.

Strategic Relocation

See original video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzjm9MJFSA8&feature=youtu.be

It’s machinations like these that have led to great wars throughout human history.

It took decades of buildups, standoffs, posturing and threats before a bullet from the gun of Gavrilo Princip eventually triggered an unprecedented death spiral in the summer of 1914. Today, one hundred years later, the chess game remains in full swing and it should be clear that it is only a matter of time before the next Princip event triggers a global apocalypse on a scale that most can’t even imagine.

Of course, we could be totally overreacting. Vladimir Putin threatening a nuclear destabilization is probably just all bark and no bite.

About the author: Mac Slavo is the Editor of SHTFplan.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TLB recommends you visit SHTF plan.com for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/vladimir-putin-responds-to-obamas-hostile-acts-warns-of-nuclear-consequences_10162014

obama blames

By: Michael Lotfi

On Tuesday, President Obama identified a new scapegoat with regards to his poor approval ratings. Obama told a group of wealthy donors that the media was to blame for his dismal dip in approval ratings and implied that the mainstream media was also responsible for the unpopular public image of his tenure. Obama’s approval ratings continued to plummet in September, reaching an all time low of 38%.

Obama stated, “Frankly, the press and Washington, all it does is feed cynicism.” Obama’s criticism struck many as absurd considering what some have referred to as the media’s “kid-glove” handling of the President. So far this year, none of the big 3 media powerhouses has even mentioned Obama’s spiraling poll numbers.

This is not the first time Obama has blamed the media for his failed policies and public image. At a Labor Day event in Milwaukee earlier this year, Obama slipped another slant against the media into a speech praising the economy under his presidency, a speech that ignored the $7 trillion debt deficit added to the nation under Obama and the 10 million Americans who have given up on finding work under the President’s devastating policies.

At the Milwaukee event the President stated, “So, look, I’m saying all this just because sometimes, you know, if you’re watching TV, it’s just kind of a whole downer.” At another event this past Friday, while speaking to donors at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in New York, Obama again disparaged the media, making a specific knock at social media stating, “The truth of the matter is, is that the world has always been messy. In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael LotfiAbout the author: Michael Lotfi is a political analyst and strategist living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Lotfi also writes a column at The Washington Times called “American Millennial”. Lotfi graduated in the top 5% of his class with honors from Belmont University, an award winning, private university located in Nashville, Tennessee. Follow on Facebook & Twitter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TLB recommends you visit: benswann-logo(Click on banner to visit site)

See featured article and read comments here: http://benswann.com/guess-who-obama-is-now-blaming-for-his-poor-approval-ratings/

obamatank

By Brandon Turbeville

Nearly two years ago, in November, 2012, Barack Obama made his now infamous remarks that “there’s no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.”

Obama’s statements, of course, were designed to act as cover and protection for the Zionist settler state of Israel as it launched and continues to launch violent campaigns of slaughter and extermination against the Palestinians. Obama reiterated his position by stating that the United States supported Israel in its “right to defend itself” against “missiles landing on people’s homes and potentially killing civilians.”

The idea, obviously, was that Israel was being forced to defend itself against terrorism, i.e. the bombing of civilians and the launching of missiles across the border into its territory.

While leaving the Israeli question aside, and while neglecting to point out that, at the time of the statement, Obama’s own government was involved in the bombing of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and had just concluded the bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, one might fast forward to 2014 as the United States rains down bombs on sovereign Syrian soil.

Of course, only a day after the United States launched airstrikes against alleged ISIS targets in Syria, the real reasons behind these specific targets gradually became clearer.

U.S.-led airstrikes targeted Syrian oil installations held by the extremist Islamic State group overnight and early Thursday, killing at least 19 people as more families of militants left their key stronghold, fearing further raids, activists said.

[...]

The Islamic State group is believed to control 11 oil fields in Iraq and Syria. The new strikes involved six U.S. warplanes and 10 more from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, mainly hitting small-scale refineries used by the militants in eastern Syria, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said.



RT reports further on the strikes citing Agence France-Press,

Yet while the mainstream media and the U.S. government are attempting to portray the strikes against the Syrian oil refineries as a strike against ISIS, the fact of the matter is that they are a strike against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.

Strikes Against Refineries Hurt Syria More Than ISIS

Although it is true that ISIS/ “moderate death squads” had seized control over the oil refineries in Eastern Syria and were using them for their own strategic purposes ( with the help of NATO command ), it is also true that, in a large portion of these areas, the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) was poised to retake control.

This is particularly the case in Dayr el Zor, where the SAA had recently launched a major offensive against the death squads causing ISIS fighters trapped by aerial bombardment and escape routes cut off by the SAA . In other words, the death squads were trapped in Dayr el Zor, the city was weeks away from being liberated, and the surrounding areas were set to be reconquered by the SAA. This, of course, would have led directly to the retaking of the oil refineries by the Syrian government. Unfortunately, that opportunity has now been lost as a result of the U.S. airstrikes which destroyed the refinery infrastructure.

It should also be remembered that most of the death squads fled these areas after being given forewarning of a series of imminent American airstrikes, thus causing the civilian casualties to be higher in number than those of the ISIS fighters the strikes were allegedly targeting. Indeed, many of these fighters later appeared in Northern Syria on the Syria/Turkey border reinforcing other death squad battalions in efforts to reopen supply lines from Turkey.

Similar situations are found in the other locations mentioned as targets of U.S. airstrikes such as al-Hasakah where the SAA had made significant gains alongside Kurdish forces.

Thus, as SAA forces moved in to retake control of the oil refineries managed by terrorists funded by Western powers, the United States initiated airstrikes just in the nick of time to deprive SAA forces of the opportunity to seize some of the oil refinery infrastructure it desperately needs.

It is also important to note that virtually none of the infrastructure being destroyed by the United States airstrikes was built by ISIS. It was built by the Syrian government. The reality of the bombing campaign is that the United States and its allies are destroying important regions of Syria and leaving nothing of real value for the Syrian military to retake after its long-fought battles against ISIS.

Thus, headlines across the world should more accurately have read “US Bombs Syrian Oil Refineries To Prevent Assad From Retaking Them.”

Still, one should keep in mind that it was not only the oil refineries which were being targeted but whole neighborhoods filled with civilians . One such neighborhood was the town of Kfar Daryan.

ISIS As An Oil Company?

The excuse peddled by Western governments and their lapdog media outlets to justify the bombing of Syrian oil refineries is that the goal is to disrupt ISIS oil revenue and thus break its funding. The narrative provided to the general public is that ISIS is funding itself by oil sales on the black market to the tune of millions of dollars per day. Of course, while it is most likely true that ISIS is using their commandeered oil sites to support themselves on a number of fronts, and even attempting (with some success) to sell that oil, the idea that ISIS is somehow able to evade the most sophisticated monitoring network in the entire world during the process of obtaining, refining, selling, and delivering oil across the region is entirely unbelievable.

Regardless, it must be pointed out that, among the countries listed as hosting ISIS customers by mainstream outlets like CNN, Turkey and Jordan are at the top of the list , both close American allies and one a member of NATO. Even more interesting is the fact that ISIS has also allegedly sold “black market” oil to buyers in a number of EU member states .

Yet the idea itself seems like more of a cover to mask the true nature of the funding of ISIS and other takfiri militants operating in Iraq and Syria, namely that the funding is coming from the United States, NATO, and the GCC. Like the ridiculous claims that ISIS was funding itself entirely through secretive private Twitter donations, the “oil sales” argument is one that should be taken with a healthy dose of salt. After all, mainstream outlets are also asserting that ISIS is selling some of this oil to the Syrian government, a lose-win-lose situation for both sides and a rather poor attempt to portray Assad as an ally of ISIS.

Attacks On Syrian Food Storage

In an airstrike campaign that took place September 28, “coalition” aircraft struck “mills and grain storage facilities in Manbij,” a town in Northern Syria which was controlled by Western-backed death squads.

Manbij is located slightly northeast of Aleppo, the largest city in Syria which is itself the scene of fierce fighting between the NATO-directed ISIS forces and the Syrian government. The SAA began focusing on Aleppo intently in the last few months.

The attack on grain facilities by NATO/GCC forces is yet one more example of how the bombing of Syria is not aimed at destroying the West’s ISIS proxy army but at crippling and destroying the Assad government.

Just like the bombing of Syrian oil refineries, the effect of bombing Syrian grain silos is to prevent the Assad regime from retaking much needed resources to provide for its citizens or its military after long fought battles with ISIS.

The elimination of the grain silos would, of course, do nothing to stop ISIS but it will go quite some distance in adding to the burdens of an already oppressed and hungry people barely surviving under the rule of the so-called “moderate rebels” also known as ISIS.

Interestingly enough, when Bashar al-Assad’s forces have blockaded ISIS controlled areas in the past, no matter how lenient the blockade may have been in terms of food shipments, the West has responded with claims that he was “starving his own people.” Yet, when death squads banned food and baby products from being shipped in to areas that they themselves controlled, the West ignored and silenced the reports. When the West directly bombs food storage, it is presented as bombing for democracy and freeing the people from ISIS.

Unsurprisingly, no death squad fighters were killed in the attack on the Manbij grain stores, only civilians. Even death squad supporter Rami Abdulrahman, the director of the propaganda outfit called Syrian Observatory For Human Rights, was forced to admit the results of the U.S. bombing only produced civilian casualties.

‘These were the workers at the silos. They provide food for the people.’ The airstrikes ‘destroyed the food that was stored there,’ said Abdulrahman .

The United States military, typically, refused to acknowledge the fact that any civilians were killed.

While any unintentional killing of Syrian civilians by the Assad government was presented to American audiences as premeditated slaughter against innocent people, American airstrikes continue to be presented as manna from heaven, designed to rid the world of Islamic terror and brutal dictators at the same time.

Of course, in the twilight zone of American media, the truth is that the United States has created, funded, armed, and directed the Islamic terror for decades and that the “brutal dictator” is actually fighting for the survival of Syria. Little details like facts and reality, however, have never gotten in the way of Western media outlets.

Killing Civilians ‘OK’ If America Does It

Following its illegal and immoral attacks on the Syrian people which have produced alarming amounts of civilian casualties within only a matter of days, the United States recently announced that it is “relaxing” its policy on civilian killings in Syria. Indeed, the White House is now backing away on claims that it will only use lethal force where there is a “certainty or near certainty” that no civilians will be killed.

Such “policy changes” led Joaquim Moreira Salles of Think Progress to write that “Reports last week of significant civilian casualties as a result of U.S. airstrikes were the first indication that the Obama administration is ignoring its own rules in the war on terror.”

Yet the reality is that the United States has never been worried about civilian casualties, neither during the tenure of this President or that of the last. Any pretense to the contrary is naivete at best. As Salles also writes,

Similarly, drones are touted for their “surgical” precision and “laser guided” targeting system, yet they have killed civilians in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and more notably in Pakistan, which has been the subject of over 390 covert drone strikes since 2008.

Independent groups like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimate that 710 civilians had been killed by drone attacks. Amnesty international claims the number of civilian casualties in Pakistan alone can be as high as 900. Coming to an accurate number is extremely difficult, but when human rights groups are able to go into the affected areas and investigate individual strikes, the number of civilian casualties is always substantially higher than reported by the government, which counts all men of military age as enemy combatants.

In other words, when civilian casualties become too evident in the eyes of the public or too politically damaging, the answer is to change your semantics and wording of policy so that the casualties disappear from the radar screen of public opinion.

Thus, Barack Obama, while setting the international standard for response to bombing a sovereign nation and killing its civilians by his statement regarding Israel’s so-called safety, in essence, openly stated that the United States is guilty of terrorism, a claim that few of its victims will argue against.

Yet it appears that some people are more equal than others. Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Somalians, Yeminis, are acceptable casualties. Israelis are not. Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalians, and Yemenis are required to accept “missiles landing on people’s homes and potentially killing civilians” without resistance. Israel can act with impunity.

Obama’s hypocritical statement is not out of the ordinary. The White House has repeatedly denounced the killing of civilians in Syria. Unfortunately, the U.S. has attempted to blame the secular government of Bashar al-Assad for the deaths of Syrians (there has never been any evidence that the SAA has targeted civilians) and not the death squads that the United States armed, trained, funded, and directed from the very beginning for the purposes of overthrowing Assad.

At the end of the day, Presidential statements mean very little in the way of actual policy. Hypocritical proclamations and even outright lies serve only to mask the true agenda lurking underneath. Informed observers already know this. Those who take such statements seriously have much to learn.

Recently from Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Read article here: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/10/obama-accuses-himself-of-terrorism.html

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here: http://www.activistpost.com/

Ebola False Flag

By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

The Washington Post reported that a major Liberian newspaper, the Daily Observer, has published an article by a Liberian-born faculty member of a U.S. university who is strongly implying the epidemic is the result of bio-terrorism experiments conducted by the United States Department of Defense, The professor, from Delaware State University, Cyril Broderick, is the professor making these claims. This and other similar claims begs the question, “Is Ebola a manufactured crisis that is being allowed to purposefully spread to countries in the West, including the United States?

The Odds of Ebola Spreading to the West

A series of highly sophisticated scientific and statistical analyses are strongly suggestive of the fact that the best chance that the West has to contain the spread of Ebola is to shut down their borders and to ban all direct and indirect flights from West Africa into Western nations.

A PLOS analysis of disease spread patterns and airline traffic data suggests that the virus has a 50% chance of reaching Great Britain by October 24. Experts have also predicted there is a 75% chance the virus could reach France by October 24. Belgium has a 40% chance of seeing the disease imported, while Spain and Switzerland have lower risks of 14% each. That is not much comfort for Spain because the Washington Post is reporting the following: “In the first known case of Ebola transmission outside of Africa, a nurse in Spain has contracted the deadly virus after caring for a sick priest who had been flown back from West Africa for treatment, Spanish health minister Ana Mato said at a news conference Monday“. The Spanish case points to the fact that one can establish odds, but when it comes to Ebola, but it only takes one infected person getting through to pose a major health crisis.

Meanwhile, in Spain, the potential carnage does not stop with one nurse. Spanish health authorities have now confirmed that three more medical personnel at the same hospital are being isolated because of Ebola symptoms.

The multiple PLOS analyses also stated that if authorities were to take steps to reduce air travel from West Africa to Britain and France by 80%, France’s risk would be lowered to 25%, while Britain’s risk would be reduced to 15%.  The most effective Ebola countermeasure is to stop Ebola from reaching the United States is to ban flights from the infected areas.

Yet, and inexplicably, The World Health Organization (WHO) has not placed any restrictions on travel and the WHO has actually gone so far as to encourage the various airlines to keep flying to the countries with the biggest Ebola outbreaks. However, this makes a great deal of sense since the WHO blocked Ebola treatments from reaching West Africa.

Even Fox News, in a recent editorial, is enraged by the fact  that Obama has failed to initiate a travel ban on West African flights.

Presidential Inaction

In light of this information, any reasonable person should be compelled to ask these questions, ” Why won’t President Obama take the most basic steps to protect Americans from Ebola by stopping direct and indirect flights from West Africa? And why won’t he also mitigate the bio-terrorism threat which could come from our wide open southern border”?

Mike Adams the owner of Natural News has pointed out on The Common Sense Show (October 5, 2014) “Thomas Eric Duncan walked freely through our airports and entered the general population without ever being asked by U.S. security personnel about where he was from or if he had any health conditions”.

Not only is Obama negligent, he is not following federal guidelines and procedures according to several sources. This has led some federal employees to assert that Ebola is a manufactured crisis. According to one insider source that I spoke with yesterday, if the proper procedures were being enforced, we would see the following response from government in response the Ebola case in Dallas:

1. The National Guard would seal off any area connected to an Ebola outbreak.

2. Health authorities would redirect the population to hospitals, churches and schools.

3. The redirected population would be screened for possible infection or contamination.

4. If an individual(s) tested positive, they would be evacuated to a quarantine camp or military based and treated and kept until they were cured or they died.

5. All uninfected individuals in said area would be forcibly vaccinated.

6. There would be no travel allowed, in or out, of the area connected to the outbreak.

7. The geographic source area of the outbreak, if foreign, would be banned from travelers coming into the U.S., or travelers leaving!

8. All public events (school attendance, attending football games, rock concerts etc.) in the impacted area would be indefinitely suspended until the health crisis had passed.

Did anything close to the these procedures happen in Dallas? It is very difficult to conclude that Ebola is not a false-flag type of manufactured crisis. This belief is bolstered by the following revelation by a CIA insider.

Flashback: Ebola False Flag Predicted By CIA Insider

Airing on September 18th 2014 Alex Jones spoke with former CIA operative Robert David Steele who predicts an Ebola related false flag. Steele stated that a simulated attack on America, using Ebola, will be initiated.

Instead of the employment of known and effective containment procedures and moving to mitigate the bio-terrorism threat coming through our southern border, the Obama administration, instead, gives us this meaningless rhetoric  from federal health officials. The professionalism of these empty reassurances sounded more like a pep rally than a medical news conference designed to outline clear and concise medical plan of action.

Obama’s Leadership: Ineptitude or Treason?

I have come to an undeniable conclusion,  in the fact of this coming pandemic, I cannot trust my government to make wise and prudent decisions on my behalf.  I am on my own when it comes to the present crisis. I can trust nothing that this government says. We are all on our own.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the Author

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular radio talk show, which airs from 9 PM to Midnight (Central). The show can be heard by clicking the following icon in the upper right hand corner of The Common Sense Show.

© 2014. The Common Sense Show. The Logo and Articles are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Dave Hodges. Copyright 2014. Dave Hodges. All Rights Reserved

TLB recommends you visit Dave here:

CSS-Offical-New-Logo

See featured article and read comments HERE

Barack-Obama

Commentary by: Roger Landry (TLB)

It is so easy to blame someone else! We have all been guilty of this at least once in our lives, but we are not the Commander In Chief of the most powerful military force in human history. We are not responsible for the safety and protection of an entire country of over 300, 000,000 people in times of chaos.

Excuses are easily overlooked by individuals who’s actions provide minimal or extremely localized ramifications, but to expect anything less than focused dedication from our most powerful leaders is suicidal … this IS their job!

57% is almost 3 out of every 5 vital briefings skipped … This is the man who dictates our military policy (via his masters) abroad, and as it relates to the protection of the homeland. In a time of chaos and crisis is this acceptable?

Which president has the most tee times, the most vacation days, the most opulent vacations, even though his second term is but half over. Are these valid questions? In light of the graphic presented below … I would have to connect the dots and say yes!

Yes a picture is worth a thousand words and presents a blatant look into the priorities of this individual. It is obvious even to the most casual of observers … that priority is not  so much you and me … or America …

isis-and-obama

When Piers Morgan (of all bleeding Liberals) comes down on Obama with the power of a pile-driver for his lackadaisical performance as the (so called) Leader of free world, this shows blatantly just how far the President has fallen from the graces of those who once supported him without question! Read more here:

Piers Morgan BLASTS Obama in Daily Mail Editorial

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Original image and title from TLB Contributor Dave Hodges,

The Common Sense Show

Please visit Dave for more great/pertinent articles and information.