Tag Archives: hearing

Weekend Edition: Petraeus – A 4 Star Scapegoat

Posted on by

General David Petraeus, head of the CIA, resigned last week.

His resignation was sudden and it was…

Convenient.

Just days AFTER the election and just days BEFORE he was scheduled to testify before congress regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi…General David Petraeus resigns.

Why?

Because of an extramarital affair? An affair uncovered by the FBI due to emails sent between Petraeus and his biographer with whom he was involved?

Those emails were sent, back and forth from Petraeus to Paula Broadwell, the “other” woman on his personal Gmail account. NOT his official CIA email which would lead one to believe that anyone attempting to hack his email would have ended up seeing ONLY personal messages and NOTHING to do with the closely held secrets the head of the CIA would be privy to.

Naturally, an affair opens someone such as Petraeus to blackmail but, that’s ONLY if someone such as Petraeus wants to keep the affair a deep dark secret and is willing to do ANYTHING to maintain that secrecy.

Petraeus, obviously, was NOT about to do that. In fact, by revealing the affair and “walking” away from his distinguished career, he proves he’s not willing to protect his private life over the security of the nation or the people he directs.

It seems that the FBI investigation uncovered this affair MONTHS ago. And if there was some concern over his ability to keep state secrets this all would have come to an end…MONTHS ago.

Also, by law, if the FBI comes to the knowledge of something that rises to the level of a threat to national security, they must inform the white house and the Senate Intelligence Committee immediately.

They did NOT.

Supposedly, James Clapper, the National Intelligence Director didn’t know anything about this until election day. Obama supposedly didn’t know about it until election day and…Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Intell Committee didn’t find out until it hit the press last week!!!

So…Why NOW?

Continue reading →

Share on TumblrSubmit to redditShare via email Share

State Dept. RUNS For Cover Up Cover

Posted on by

After the State Department said:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,” it said. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” – From the Embassy in Cairo

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.” – Hillary Clinton

“To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and provoke rage. But as we said yesterday, there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.” – Hillary Clinton

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.” – Susan Rice

And…

“I would simply say that … the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” – Victoria Nuland

They came out in the dark of night on Tuesday and said:

Continue reading →

Share on TumblrSubmit to redditShare via email Share

Obama Eligibility and a Decision of Tyranny

Posted on by

With the ruling by Judge Malihi in Georgia that Obama will remain on the ballot, tyranny has been established.

How else does one describe it when the President is above the law?

A court issues a subpoena to the President which is ignored.

The court rules against a motion to dismiss.

The attorney for the defendant, Obama, states he will not participate or provide subpoenaed material.

The Georgia Secretary of State says such action will be at the attorney’s and his client’s peril.

The hearing proceeds with the only evidence and testimony presented being against the defendant.

One week later, the Judge finds in favor of the defendant.

Clearly, speculation will be forthcoming. How did this happen? Was the Judge bought? Was he threatened? Was it all fixed before the hearing ever happened?

People will want to know the background of the Judge.

I’m SURE there are some coincidences involved.

Continue reading →

Share on TumblrSubmit to redditShare via email Share

FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING

Posted on by

For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.

What does it mean?

To answer that, one must look at the reason for the hearing to begin with.

For years, Orly Taitz and the Liberty Legal Foundation along with others, have questioned Obama’s legal right to serve. For years, that argument centered on the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in the United States.

What made this case and this hearing different, is that it mattered not where Obama was born rather, at the center of the stage, would be the nationality of Obama’s father.

Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered  into the official record this morning.

Another linchpin in all of this, is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” which one must be, by writ of the Constitution, to hold the office of President. According to the plaintiffs in this hearing, that definition can be clearly found in the written opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs Happersett from 1875.

That opinion, which by the way is backed up by several other Supreme Court opinions, states that for one to be a “Natural Born Citizen” both of one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.

Continue reading →

Share on TumblrSubmit to redditShare via email Share