Obama’s Military Purge


israeli_tv_obama_to_announce_possible_military_action_against_iran_during_trip_to_israel.siIs the Obama administration in the midst of a military purge? This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort. “I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website. ”Remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.” The general spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still provides the government with services and believes this administration would retaliate against him.

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a “stand down” order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham “retired” less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three for the Navy, was relieved of duty for allegedly using profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.” Though he was cleared of criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, administrative penalties have effectively ended his career. In testimony regarding Benghazi, Gaouette, who was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea on the night of the attack, told Congress there may not have been time to get flight crews to Libya. But under cross examination, he admitted he could have sent planes to that location.

Major General Baker, a two-star general who served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa, was fired for alcohol and sexual misconduct charges. The U.S. reportedly runs counter-terror operations out of Djibouti, and once again, military officials told TheBlaze Baker was involved in some aspect of Benghazi.

The other six were terminated for a variety of alleged offenses. Army Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, commander of Fort Jackson beginning in 2011, was fired for adultery. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, was terminated over a successful attack on that facility by the Taliban, resulting in two American deaths and the destruction of eight American planes. Sturdevant claims British forces were responsible for security at the base prior to the attack.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus was terminated for questioning the “winning hearts and minds” policies that led to “green on blue” murders of American officers by “trusted” Afghan recruits. Other Afghan recruits led a platoon into an enemy ambush. Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship,” according to the Department of Defense. A blog written by a 26-year-old cadet medically discharged from West Point claims the three-star general was under investigation because a West Point Superintendent “improperly used” his office, and because of an insufficient investigation of a lewd email chain perpetrated by the men’s rugby team. Nothing was officially released by the DoD regarding any of the charges.

The last commanders, three-star Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, and Major General Michael Carey, were fired within 48 hours of each other. Giardina was the deputy commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, an entity that oversees all nuclear-armed missiles, bombers and submarines. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Groups 9 and 10, which comprise all 18 of our nuclear-armed submarines. He was fired for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino. Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force, a role that put him in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings, was fired “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment,” said Air Force spokesman Brig. Gen. Les Kodlick. The decision to fire Carey was made by Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the head of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Obama fired Giardina.

The firing of military leaders goes much further than top generals, however. On its Facebook page, Breitbart.com compiled a list of more than 197 military commanders, mostly at the rank of Colonel or above, who have been purged by the Obama administration since 2009.

According to military.com, allegations of sexual misconduct account for the firing of 30 percent of military commanders over the past eight years. That figure that increases to 40 percent when “ethical lapses” such as sexual assault and harassment, pornography, drugs and drinking are lumped together. But there are other dubious reasons why these commanders have been terminated, ranging from unspecified dereliction of duty, to improper saluting.

One of the largest purges occurred on the last day of November in 2011, when the administration terminated 157 Air Force Majors, a move the Chapman University of Military Law and its associated AMVETS Legal Clinic characterized as illegal. They noted that the Department of Defense specifies that absent extenuating circumstances, service members within six years of retirement would ordinarily be retained, and allowed to retire on time and collect benefits.

The Air force cited budget shortfalls as their primary reason for the terminations. Yet as institute director Maj. Kyndra Rotunda explained, based on the Defense Department’s Instruction 1320.08, “derogatory information” is the only reason officers can be terminated. “The defense department’s own regulation does not authorize what the defense department is doing,” Rotunda contended at the time. “The Airmen relied on the law when they entered service and now the Secretary wants to change that law, without authority.”

Earlier that same month, two-star Major Gen. Peter Fuller was relieved of his command in Afghanistan, after he told Politico that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials in that country were “isolated from reality.” Ironically, Fuller was fired by Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who was himself the subject of an FBI investigation a year later, for his role in the sex scandal that led to the resignation of CIA Director and retired general David Petraeus. Despite the FBI informing the Pentagon it had uncovered thousands of pages of emails between Allen and Florida socialite Jill Kelley, President Obama subsequently expressed ”faith” in Allen’s ability to continue doing his job. It is impossible to determine whether Allen’s ideology played a role in maintaining that faith.

2012 also saw several terminations of officers based on questionable rationale. In May, Commander Derick Armstrong, commanding officer of the guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans, was relieved of duty by Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe ”as a result of an unprofessional command climate that was contrary to good order and discipline,” according to a Navy news release. A week earlier, the Navy relieved Cmdr. Dennis Klein of command of the submarine USS Columbia, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to serve effectively.

Stars and Strips listed several other Navy commanders relieved of duty in 2012. While some on the list were terminated for seemingly legitimate reasons, a curious lack of specificity applied to others. They include Capt. James CoBell, commanding officer of Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic, who was let go for “leadership issues”; Cmdr. Franklin Fernandez, commanding officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24, for a “loss of confidence” in his ability to command due to allegedly “driving under the influence”; Capt. Marcia Lyons, commander of Naval Health Clinic New England, for problems with her “command climate”; and Capt. Sean McDonell, commander of Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 in Jacksonville, FL, for mismanagement and unspecified “major program deficiencies.” Several others were fired for “inappropriate personal behavior” or “personal misconduct.”

Theories for these purges run the gamut. One posits that anyone associated with Benghazi had to go. Another states that many of these firings are an effort to clean up “operational failures,” most notably a 2007 incident in which six nuclear-tipped missiles went missing for 36 hours. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, believes it is part of the president’s strategy to reduce America’s standing in the world. “[Obama is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he contended.

Vallely’s assessment was echoed by a source at the Pentagon who wished to remain anonymous because the source was not authorized to speak on the subject. He or she contended that “young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job–just keep your mouth shut.”

This theory finds validation when one considers the Obama administration’s larger assault on the military. The military is the last organized bastion of conservative values, due in large part to the nature of the military itself. Yet in recent years, the push to embrace progressive values, such as openly gay servicemen, women in combat and diversity worship have been pursued with vigor. Even the aforementioned effort to “win the hearts and minds” of Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to pursuing victory, marks a sea change from traditional military values.

Not only is the Obama administration apparently on a mission to undermine the integrity of the military in this way, but it has also revealed itself to be entirely intolerant of dissent of any kind. Whether it is reporters or domestic opposition groups such as the Tea Party, Obama has made clear he will aggressively pursue anyone who defies his agenda. Now it seems that chilling message his been sent to the military as well.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • truebearing

    Obama is purging the military because he fears what happened in Egypt, where the military threw the Muslim Brotherhood out of power. He knows that, as his hidden agenda rolls out, the military is bound by oaths to protect the nation and uphold the constitution. Obama wants to replace these officers with homosexuals, minorities, leftists, and Muslims that will gladly enforce his agenda, including disarming American citizens.

    This is a coup, and it has reached the advanced stage where Obama feels the need to weaken the only entity that could stop his evil coup. Once Obama has supplanted the patriotic officers with his evil minions, we will be hard pressed to ever get him out of office. Hillary better not get too excited about becoming president. Obama wants the job for life.

    • davarino

      Our only hope would be the men and women of the military that would oppose their commanders. Couple that with an armed populace and I dont see him winning this one. I’m a “cup is half full” kind a guy :)

      • truebearing

        I hope you’re right.

      • DJH

        That’s exactly what I’m hoping hoping for is true patriots who won’t stand for Obastards evil intentions, one way or another this c…k sucker will pay for all his evil deeds!

        • smrstrauss

          We, the 65.9 million AMERICAN voters who voted for Obama, disagree with you.

          • defcon 4

            How many of you were citizens though?

          • smrstrauss

            Exactly the same percentage as those who voted for Mitt Romney. Don’t believe that? Well, tough. If there were a shred of evidence that significant numbers of foreigners voted for Obama, Mitt Romney and the Conservative leaders would have said something—and they didn’t.

          • defcon 4

            Well, we’ll never know, after all it was your regime that opposed and opposes voter ID regulations.

          • smrstrauss

            We already have voter ID in virtually every state. Think about it for a moment. When you go to vote, you are asked to give your ADDRESS (that means that someone who wants to vote illegally has to know the address of a registered voter in order to vote, and he or she has to know that that person has not already voted). And then, you are checked off of that list to prevent double voting.

            Voter ID laws with photo ID are and, must be, IN ADDITION to that check off process. Why is that? Because voter ID does not prevent double voting. It only prevents someone who is not allowed to vote from voting. So, the states that have adopted strict voter ID will have to do the check-in process to prevent double voting AND they will have to check the voter IDs—which will double the time involved.

            Well, if as currently is the case, it usually takes a line of 100 people about 30 minutes to go through the address check-in, it is likely to take 60 minutes to do the voter ID too. And sometimes lines are 200 or 300 or 500 people long. And sometimes it rains.

            If conservatives want liberals to agree to voter ID, all you have to do is to write into the legislation a provision that the state will guarantee that no one has to wait online beyond say 45 minutes, and if they do, they have to send additional checkers and voting machines to the place. But states do not want to do it. Some states feel that the fewer the people that vote, the better the chances for Conservative candidates.

            Well, that may be true, but, guess what, we know that fact.

            Oh, and if you have to wait an hour or more to vote in the next presidential election in a voter ID state, you will know the reason.

          • delahaya

            Yeah, getting addresses is so hard. How did you become such a douche smrstrauss. Why do you like a president that has given us record unemployment, record homelessness, record food stamp dependency, record deficits, and so on?

          • smrstrauss

            It is easy to get ADDRESSES. But to use them is difficult.

            Say you want to make ten thousand illegal votes, enough to change the election. That means that you have to get ten thousand people (or one thousand ten times each) to to the polls and claim to be such namess and addresses as, say, John Smith of 43 Pleasant St.

            But for that to work, John Smith could not have already voted, because if he did, it would have been noted, his name would have been checked off. But say that John Smith had not already voted. So, when John Smith does vote, he finds that someone has already voted in his name—and he raises a row, and everyone then knows that this kind of voter fraud is going on, and the real John Smith THEN shows proof that he is John Smith, and they cancel the illegal vote.

            But (1) there is no evidence of that havinig happened significant times in the 2012 election, or the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN officials of the swing states would have said so; (2) A voter ID would NOT prevent double voting, it only shows who the person is, so they still have to have the address check-off, so the time online would involve both the check of the IS and the address check-off, adding significantly to the wait online—which if there is rain could reduce the turnout and throw the election to the less popular of the candidates.

            Re Why like? The choice was between Obama and Mitt Romney. I rest my case.

          • A WILLS

            Good Christ how stupid are you people? He explained it exactly. Do me a favor. Go fight for the Democrats. You and the Pee Party are ruining everything. You can’t use it again asshole. One address line per voter’s sheet. If two people try, one gets caught. It is even MORE simple than your brain.

          • Alan Porter

            Actually he did not win a SINGLE state that has voter ID law. This is a published fact. Look into it yourself. He lost every state with voter ID laws. The dems have taking over many of the voter registration offices and the counting of votes in heavy dem districts is done by dems with one agenda. We need a national voter id card. The dems don’t want it because they say it will disfranchise the Black voters who won’t be able to get out and get their IDs.

          • smrstrauss

            Brilliant.

            There were only four states with strict voter ID laws in the 2012 election. Only four, and those four were, wait for it, RED st ates, states that would have gone for Romney no matter what. Those four states were: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee.

          • Alan Porter

            Explain how Walthall County, Miss., had 124 percent more registered voters than voting-age-eligible residents.
            In Ohio,He received over 99% of the vote in districts where GOP inspectors were illegally removed. Next, he won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland. The list goes on and on.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Explain how Walthall County, Miss., had 124 percent more registered voters than voting-age-eligible residents.”

            Answer: The state of Mississippi went for Mitt Romney by 55% of the vote for Romney to 43.8% for Obama. Obama did not protest the fact that he lost Mississippi. He knew that he would lose, and he did.

            No GOP inspectors were illegally removed—or Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Karl Rove or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee or Ann Coulter or the National Review would have said something about it, and not one of them did.

            Re winning 100% of the vote in some districts (in several states by the way). Those are mainly small BLACK voting districts, and when the overall black vote for Obama is 90%, there likely to be some small black districts that will record 100%. In any case, the Republican governors and Republican senators and Republican secretaries of state of those states did not claim that there was significant voter fraud—and they would have if there was a shred of evidence that there was.

          • smrstrauss
          • A WILLS

            Good Lord why don’t they publish these people’s responses. I despise this entire extremists’ movement. I am about to turn Lefty if it gets any worse.. Seriously, level headed responses from you smrstrauss. I appreciate it. Will you please join the republican party?

          • smrstrauss

            I am an independent and intend to remain so.

          • Donna J. Black

            I live in GA, where we have voter ID. It is a very quick process,,,you just hand your license to the poll worker, she finds your. A&E in a book, has you sign a short form ,, she then hands your license back with the card for the voting machine….All within 30 seconds or so. Doesn’t take any longer than just giving them your info verbally.

          • smrstrauss

            A question. Does GA guarantee that everyone who wants a voter ID will get one despite their not having money to get to the office where the IDs are issued? Do they guarantee that a person who is an invalid will be taken to the place where the IDs are issued? IF not, well GA is obviously trying to keep some people from registering—I wonder why?

            Second, thought you imagine that the time involved in checking the photo ID takes in total only about 30 seconds, I’d guess it was closer to a minute. IN my state, where we have only the check-off system (virtually every state has check-off to prevent double voting) it takes about 30 seconds.

            That doesn’t seem like much, but if 200 people are on line, 30 seconds each is 60 minutes. If 1,000 people are online—and in downtown Atlanta that is likely to happen, the wait could be five hours. And, what if some higher level official with connections to one or the other political party says “slow down the line”? What then? Why the poll worker who is looking at photo IDs could take a minute or even more to look at each one.

            I believe that people should try to vote despite there being long lines and it is their responsibility to vote despite the lines. But, duh, people with two jobs would have difficulty if the line was long and slow. Women with children that have to be picked up would have difficulty if the line was long and slow.

            People with two jobs and women with children that have to be picked up are just the kind of people who should be voters.

            So, what is the solution? Obviously, we who opposed voter ID would join you and support it voter ID IF the voter-ID supporters would (1) write into the voter ID law the RIGHT of everyone to get a voter ID regardless of the cost—the state would have to pay the money involved in the ID itself and the transportation to the place where it is issued if they do not have the money (or pick up people); and (2) a guarantee that no voting line will take more than 60 minutes (or, ideally, even less) and if there is such a delay, the state guarantees to get additional voting machines and poll workers where there is a delay, and guarantees to do that within 30 minutes.

            In short, we’d support voter ID, if it were not such a blatant way of attempting to get fewer people to vote.

            And, remember, the voter check-off system already catches virtually all the fraudulent attempts since a person attempting to vote must identify her or his place of residence, and it must be on the list, and the person at that address must not have voted already. And, if all of that happens, and then the person at that address DOES try to vote and finds that someone has already voted using that address THEN we know that there was a fraud.

            What you are asking for now is both the check-off system (which must always continue to prevent double voting) AND a voter ID check in addition to that. Doubling the time and allowing poll workers to slow down the line to check voter ID if a superior official with political connections says “slow down the line.”

          • Donna J. Black

            It takes only a few seconds to look at your I.D. and then check off your name. And everyone has to have an ID to get their SS, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid. Also when you go to a doc for the first time, they first off ask for your ID. You have to have it to buy alcohol, cigarettes, some OTC cold medicines, spray paint, glue. You cannot survive in this life without having ID. So, no it is not to keep people from voting.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “YOu cannot survive in this live without having ID.”
            However the facts are that there simply ARE people without a valid official ID. You have to be crazy to claim that every eligible voter has a valid official ID, There are millions of people in every state who are US citizens over the age of 18 and do not have a driver’s license because they do not drive, and the state has not made another photo ID available to them.
            And, since the offices that issue those voter IDs in the states with strict voter ID laws are not open on weekends or late in the evenings, and since those states do not guarantee to provide a voter ID free to people who cannot afford it, and do not guarantee to provide transportation to the place where the ID is issued—THOSE STATES ARE SHOWING VERY CLEARLY AND OBVIUSLY THAT THEY DO NOT WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR AND HAVE TO WORK MULTIPLE JOBS TO HAVE VOTER IDS.
            Moreover, the “it takes only a few seconds” argument is baloney. If a top official tells the checking people to “slow down the line,” each voter IS could take 30 seconds or 45 seconds or a minute. If there are 500 people online, 30 seconds each takes 4.12 HOURS. How many people with two jobs can afford a four-hour wait. How many women who have to pick up their children after school can afford a four-hour wait?
            IF your state or any state were to guarantee that voter ID would be provided FREE to the poor, and provide transportation to them to get their voter ID and have the voter ID registration places open on weekends and evenings so that people with two jobs had a chance to get them (or, better still sent the voter ID people around to workplaces and homes when requested), they we would know that the real motive behing the voter ID law was simply to check the ballots and not to provide poor and working people of their votes. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
            And if the Voter ID laws guaranteed that no voting line would take more than, say, an hour, and if it did the state would have to provide additional machines and checking staff to lower the wait time, then we would know that your real motive was not to prevent working people and women with children in school from voting. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
            There are no such provisions in the laws of those states.
            And, as I said, the residence checkoff is already in effect in those states and it prevents virtually all illegal voting because for a person to vote illegally she or he has to know the address of someone and their name AND THAT THE VOTER HAS NOT ALREADY VOTED, and then if the illegal voter knew all of that and then voted, the scheme would be uncovered as soon as a few real voters showed up and found that someone had already voted using their names.
            And the voter ID checkoff will have to continue IN ADDITION to voter ID, because voter ID does not prevent double voting.
            In principle voter ID is fine. In pratice, it is a way for the current political leaders of states to ensure that people that they think will vote against them do not vote. You could change all that by making voter ID free and easy to get, and by guaranteeing that lines are not hours and hours long—but so far there is no such legislation.

          • Donna J. Black

            How people survive without one. Most high schools provide students with ID. Anyone who ever served in military has one. I went to the doctor today and then went o pick up my Rx. Had to show my ID both places. People who are truly poor must have ID to get welfare, SSI, Medicaid, EBT cards. If they want a beer, a pack of cigarettes or cash in a lottery ticket, they have to have ID.
            When I had my phone, cable installed, had to have ID. To rent an apartment, I had to have ID, to buy a house, ID. If you don’t have one, then a person must live off the grid and never get sick and grow or kill their own food.

          • smrstrauss

            First off, you are claiming, based merely on your speculation, that there are no eligible voters without valid photo IDs, and duh, there are people without valid photo IDs. That is simply a fact.

            A study by New York University’s Brennan Center claimed that of the US population that is of voting age, 11% lack government-issued photo IDs.[30] (Maybe that is high, but say that there is only 7%. That is still a fact, and an important fact. And, n many states it would be higher than the national average.)

            Second off, the photo IDs of high schools do not work, in most states with photo ID laws the only ID that counts is one that is issued by that state or by the federal government (did you imagine that elections clerks would have sufficient skill to determine the validity of dozens of different kinds of birth certificate?)

            Are you saying that 7% of the population (or 2% or 1% or whatever) should not vote? If not, then why shouldn’t states make it easy for them to get their photo IDs? Well, the trend is that states are NOT making it easy to get photo IDs. They do not have services to provide them to patients in hospitals, for example. Nor are the offices where the photo IDs are issued open on weekends or late in the evening. NOR do states provide money for people to go to the places where the photo IDs are provided.

            Getting back to “slow down the line.” Here is what can happen with a photo ID. (In fact, it has happened in the past). People from one political party vote early and are at the head of the line or early in it, and then each one deliberately has difficulty in getting his photo ID out of his pocket or purse—-DELIBERATELY slowing down the line. Then, of course, voting officials have the right to take as long as they want to in scrutinizing the photo—again deliberately slowing down the line.

            And, as mentioned before, people with two jobs or with children that they have to pick up after school cannot wait a couple of hours online.

            IF states made it easy to get photo IDs and IF states guaranteed that if lines were over, say, an hour’s wait, they would provide immediate relief to get the lines moving quickly, then we would know that the true motive behind the voter ID laws is simply to ensure that only legal voters vote. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Neither is true. States have not made it easier to get photo IDs (in fact, they are making it harder, closing the offices earlier and not opening them on weekends) and they have provided NO relief and have no intention to provide relief when lines run an hour, two hours or more.

            The MOTIVE is clear, to reduce the number of poor and working class people who vote.

          • A WILLS

            >PHOTO< ID. I was in the military (honorably discharged) and do NOT have an ID from them. I also lived for 3 years recently without an updated ID.I am a born and bread Missouri Redneck with all rights intact. Explain that. And I voted in two elections in that state.

          • jim

            I didnt realize there were THAT MANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND MORONS HERE

          • smrstrauss

            Dream on jim. If there were significant numbers of illegal immigrants voting for Mitt Romney, Obama and his supporters would have said. If there were significant numbers of illegal immigrants voting for Obama, Mitt Romney would have said. So, it is moronic to think that significant numbers of illegal immigrants influenced the election.

          • jim
          • smrstrauss

            Re Redstate:

            http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/13/is-it-time-to-roll-up-the-welcome-mat-here/

            Re every state with ID laws. Turns out that there are only four states that had strict laws requiring you to show a photo ID that were in operation during the 2012 election: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee:

            Strict photo ID in effect: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and
            Tennessee. In addition Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin have strict photo ID laws that are not yet in effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States)

            The latter group had no effect on the election since the laws were not yet in effect. Yes, Romney won and Obama lost in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee: What did you expect?

            However, Obama won by 170,000 votes in Ohio, and the conservative governor and conservative secretary of state of Ohio did not say a word about election fraud. And he won by 70,000 votes in Florida, and the conservative governor and conservative secretary of state of Florida did not say a word about election fraud (neither did Karl Rove or for that matter Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or the National Review).

            If you cannot convince even Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan that the election was fraudulent you will have an enormously difficult time in convincing the average independent voter. Oh, and the US congress confirmed Obama’s re-election UNANIMOUSLY in the 2012 election as it did in the 2008 election, and that meant that Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul voted to confirm.

          • Christopher Tutt

            Once again Obumma did not “win” OHIO it was FRAUD and you are too blind to see it. Stay blind senseless one.

            http://writeinron2012.com/writeinBlog/2012/11/13/election-fraud-confirmed-in-ohios-cuyahoga-county-machine-rigging-places-obama-into-presidency/

          • smrstrauss

            That article is nutty. Sure there were some precincts that voted 100% for Obama. That is perfectly possible, and in fact it is easy. When the black vote goes 90% for Obama, then, duh, some small black precincts are likely to go 100% for Obama. And that is what happened in Ohio,and in some small black precincts in Pennsylvania as well.

            The anecdotal stuff is what you’d expect. One or two Conservatives lying when they do not like the results of the election.

            It is nutty to believe that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (and Karl Rove) allowed Ohio to go to Obama if they really thought that significant vote fraud cause them to lose the election. The same goes for the CONSERVATIVE governor and CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Ohio. They all admitted that they lost the election. Grow up.

          • Jilli Brown

            Good lord man, your resistance to facts is…astounding.

          • smrstrauss

            Brilliant. There were only four states with strict voter ID laws in the 2012 election. Only four, and those four were, wait for it, RED st ates, states that would have gone for Romney no matter what. Those four states were: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee.
            If in any of the swing states that Obama won there was signficant voter fraud, the Republican and Conservative officals of those states WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT, as would have Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and the National Review—-and Karl Rove—-and none of them said anything.

          • Christopher Tutt
          • smrstrauss

            As I said, that article is nutty. See above, and see:

            http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/13/is-it-time-to-roll-up-the-welcome-mat-here/

          • defcon 4

            Are your sources for your claims approved by the current presidential regime?

          • smrstrauss

            The two sources shown above state the facts.

          • Christopher Tutt

            I guess my intentions are lost on someone so slow as you. Look above where you advised some 65.9 mil americans voted for the Tyrannical fucktard. I am telling you that those numbers are BULLSHIT.

            Oh and I am NOT a republican’t nor a deamoncrat. Both side pitch for the same team. I am sorry that you don’t understand that either.

            Come to think of it do you pay attention to anything at all?

          • smrstrauss

            And I am telling you that what you are saying is BULLSHIT.

            You can keep on screaming “Romney really won” all that you want to, and sensible folks will regard you as a NUT. Look, if you cannot convince Mitt Romney that he won, it is highly likely that he didn’t win.

            So keep on yelling “BULLSHIT” all you want to. That is what is coming out of your mouth.

          • Jilli Brown

            “…I am NOT a republican’t nor a deamoncrat” nope, you’re just a run of the mill doofus.

          • Christopher Tutt

            And you are so enlightened.. lol Please.

          • A WILLS

            Yes ACTUAL fuctard, you are worse than either party. You are a representative of the vast sea of idiots we have taking over this country in an effort to sell pot. Extremists all. And I sincerely pray that you all choke on bong water.

          • delahaya

            How would they know? Campaigns don’t run elections. Many states have Democrats Secretaries of State the refuse to investigate or prosecute voter fraud.

          • smrstrauss

            Other states have REPUBLICAN Secretaries of State, and they did not find significant numbers of voter frauds either. Sure, there is always a few, but not enough to affect the election.

          • A WILLS

            Dig deeper pal. Please for god’s sake go join the Democratic party Lughead.

          • aunti obama

            ARE YOU PART OF THE DEAD WHO VOTED FOR HIM OR THE CHEATERS WHO USED MACHINES THAT MARKED TWICE FOR ONE VOTE???

          • englishrancher

            The Chicago way, “Vote early and vote often”

          • englishrancher

            You, the 65.9 million, so called Americans, has shrunk to ~40%. I dare you call yourself an American, You do so only in mockery.

          • smrstrauss

            Presidential popularity ratings go up and down. I’m an American and proud of it.

          • englishrancher

            From 65.9% to 40% and falling? That not a fluctuation, thats what you call a Plunge. You must have caught “tingly leg syndrome” from Chris Matthews. But you are right about one thing…you are proud.

          • smrstrauss

            The approval rating of the Republicans in Congress is at most 25%.

            http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

          • englishrancher

            And I’m one of those 75% that disapproves. Compared to Democrat approval ratings which also suck, but they will always hold a ~30% approval rating because that’s about the percentage of the minorities in this country – those who consistently vote themselves money. But anyway, whats your point? If either party was doing its job, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
            My vote isn’t based on personal gains or motivated by envy, it’s based on this countries founding principles, against the enemies of freedom.

          • smrstrauss

            What’s your point? Both parties are doing a lousy job. So, who told you that they would do a good job? In most elections we have to decide between a candidate who is lousy and a candidate who is even MORE lousy. In any case, Obama is the president of the USA, and you’ll just have to live with whatever job that he does until the next president is sworn in in January 2017.

        • A WILLS

          Yes we can. Yes we do disagree with you. The quasi-conservative movement of today is filled with ignorance and hate. But there are some ACTUAL conservatives who are patriots and will fight ANYONE attacking our government, especially ignorant rabble rousers like yourselves. I am sick to death of listening to this hate mongering.My gun toting hand will be the first in your face. My finger is already shaking just listening to you. I’m pissed.

          • englishrancher

            Talk about hate. ^ You just defined it.

          • A WILLS

            Yes, I did and proudly too. Poetry in motion is that I am and you are – two months late and a 98¢ short. Look more. Definition is that which I do. I project and reflect. Why don’t you?

          • englishrancher

            You’re also on drugs

          • A WILLS

            Ghastly predictability. Is this where you start talking about people living in their mother’s basements. I only suppose that the drug comment and all following to be shear projection. That makes you a very black pot and myself a ghostly image of a projected simmering kettle upon a faded US flag. Love it or leave it. I grew up in a great country. It will stay that way and I am seeing to that one moron at a time. You are on that list moron #000,002,198. Yes I have lots more to do (but, at least I am dealing with a minority).

    • Drakken

      I am starting to think that the American public is too stupid and too ignorant to care as long as they get their free stuff. Maybe ole Heinlein was right in his book Starship Troopers, to be a citizen, one must have served in the military, maybe he was on to something. I truly believe we are at the edge of the abyss, and what it takes to push the whole lot of us in it will take an event or action, at that point, I would welcome a military coup and a purge of our political leadership. Maybe we can get it right once again.

      • smrstrauss

        The 51% of AMERICAN voters who voted for Obama on November 6, 2012 disagree with you. And, we are eager to elect another Democrat to the presidency in the 2016 election.

    • Leland64

      The “fundamental transformation of the United States” will be complete once the military is compelled to pledge personal allegiance to Obama. Obama’s non-military force (HHS, NSA, ATF, FBI, IRS, EPA,etc) will fill the role as protectors of transformed America and Obama personally from internal threats.

    • J.

      I agree, but he will accomplish his own vision of “change” that he wants. He might succeed at subverting America but he won’t hold his place of power, more than likely with everything going on, scandals, conspiracies, economic turn down, riots will ensue. He still has yet to take our guns, invade Iran, and start WWIII if he doesn’t succeed, his successor will. The goal of the elite, is different from Obama’s communist delusions. I believe the goal here is to stir up global chaos, ushering in the anti-Christ to come on stage as a savior.

      • truebearing

        Obama is clearly an ally of evil. He plays for the evil team, and he will cause great pain and suffering, not just in the US, but everywhere the vacuum of US power is being felt. If I found out tomorrow that Obama was sent to prepare the way for the Anti-Christ, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.

        • smrstrauss

          We, the 65.9 million US voters who voted for Obama, disagree.

          • defcon 4

            Of which ten million voted illegally right?

          • smrstrauss

            Dream on. If ten million, or five million, or one million, or even 500,000 had voted illegally, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan or Karl Rove or Gingrich or Santorum or Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck would have said something about it. IF there had been significant illegal voting in any state, the Republican officials in that state would have said something about it. None of them did.

            Dream on.

    • AnotherVoice

      I often wonder what man-made catastrophe will be launched before the 2016 elections to ensure that he doesn’t leave office.

      • smrstrauss

        Dream on.

    • englishrancher

      My thoughts exactly!

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    Everybody needs to be thinking about who will be propped up after Obama’s term. Is Hillary possible? Or will she just be fly paper for the GOP while they slip in yet another magic rookie that nobody ever heard of? Look to everyone Valerie Jarrett has been speaking with and watch ever dime Soros showers onto this next bait & switch candidate. Democrats are going to be starting a massive campaign to prove that everything the GOP is saying about them is a lie.

    In other words, Benghazi wasn’t Hillary’s fault, it was the GOP. ACA didn’t fail, the GOP hackers messed it up. The “War on Women” is a GOP campaign. And we don’t have a serious black crime problem in the US, the GOP is making it up.

  • joshuasweet

    Why have they not acted on their Oaths of Duty to the People and the Constitution of the United States of America? The treasonous actions by the Obama administration have been numerous and adeptly guilty of breaking the law concerning Treason.
    It should be the Generals that make Obama leave.

    • Richard Cotromano

      Your right,I would also go as far as supporting a military coup if they arrested the TRAITOR,and held a new election immediatly!We need to do something to restore the republic back to what the founders intended.

      • defcon 4

        It would be a good idea to investigate the entire federal government for corruption and if any are found to be taking bribes from islam0fascist states or NGO’s — a good neck stretching.

    • Freddy

      It’s sad to see the people unwilling to give up their lifestyles to fight for this country. They are not loyal to America or the constitution. The military, the police and everyone else is loyal to whoever signs the paychecks. As long as they can keep the status quo, nothing will happen. The money rolls in and everyone is happy. The government can do anything it wants as long as the sheeple are fed and housed. By the time they wake up it will be too late. Those who love freedom and America will be gone.

    • tagalog

      The last thing ANYONE should want is the military ousting the President.

      Then the mocking of us, that we’re no better than some banana republic, would be true.

      And we’d be exposing ourselves to military rule. If we think Obama is incompetent to rule, wait until some general is making the rules.

      • kibitzer3

        But joshuasweet has a point, tagalog. It is the military of the U.S. who have taken an oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. They NEED to be called on – as part of their JOB – when the Republic is threatened.

        As it is now. From within. By a Usurper in the Oval Office; bent on destroying the Constitution, and its Republic. Thus, the Occupant is not only dishonoring the office. But despoiling it. So they have PLENTY of reason to come to the aid of their country; in its time of great need of such.

        • kibitzer3

          P.S. As for “some general making the rules”: Their whole POINT of coming to the aid of their country wold be to return it to its constitutional roots, just as soon as possible, in aid of its patriot supporters. This would not be the action of a military in a “banana republic”. It would be an arm of The People. Or at least, The People of the federal constitutional Republic of the United States of America; the ship of state having been defended by both its civilian and its military citizenry, from having been boarded and being taken over by socialists, who want to merge it into their vaunted New World Order, of totalitarian/minded intent. We just need to ask the military to come to their Action Stations, is all – or have them do it automatically.

          Before the patriots amongst them are all purged, and the Quislings amongst them take over. And destroy the last, best hope of mankind, for the flame of Liberty to shine as a beacon for TRUE Hope.

        • smrstrauss

          Obama is not a usurper. He really was born in Hawaii, and every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

          “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin
          G. Hatch (R-UT).

          “Under the longstanding English common-law
          principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less
          certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

          (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

          (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

          (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

          If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

          So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

          • JosieCat

            He wasn’t BORN in a foreign country. But he grew up in Indonesia was schooled there, and took on Indonesian citizenship. There’s no indication he ever renounced that citizenship — and he gamed the system by getting through college as a foreign exchange student. Probably a major record why he immediately moved to seal all his past records. Not exactly legal. Nor, I think, is a dual citizen legally able to be President.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama did grow up in Indonesia. But he was NEVER an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm. ((202) 775-5200 and ask for the press officer). The story that he applied to college as a foreign student was an APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE picked up by birther sites and never confirmed, and, since Obama received US government student LOANS (which are only for US citizens), he could not have been a foreign student.

            Obama has not sealed his past. His private records are covered under the same state and federal privacy laws as anyone else—and that is all.

            The definition of Natural Born Citizen makes no exclusions for dual citizens at birth or even when they were president (and James Madison was a dual citizen when he was president since he had been made a full voting citizen of France during the French Revolution). Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen at birth since his mother never renounced her British subject status. And, most importantly, the definition of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes EVERY child born on US soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats. There is no exception for dual citizens.

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-being-a-natur/179567

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

            Moreover, the notion of dual citizenship affecting Natural Born Citizen status goes completely in the face of CONSERVATIVE legal principles, which have always held that foreign laws cannot affect our law AT ALL.

      • joshuasweet

        at least we would be rid of the element that is failing US. and be able to right the wrong that has so weakened us. to make a fresh start of it a reset on the way it is supposed to be not the bastardization we have over us

      • jim

        so by YOUR own logic tagalog…WE are already a joke because WE FOUGHT AGAINST ENGLAND IN THE REVOLUTION?

        • Omar

          We fought against Britain. England has not been a country since 1707. Calling Britain (or the UK) “England” is offensive to the people living in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which, along with England, are the other internal parts of the UK.

        • smrstrauss

          Yes, we fought against Britain. But what is the evidence that we scrapped the common law and picked up something else? There’s no evidence at all. The common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise. Vattel is not even mentioned once. The Declaration of Independence says that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

          So, if the birthers were right and the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president, they would not be equal to the US-born children of US citizens. Well, IF that were true, if the writers of the US Constitution had scrapped both the common law and “all men are created equal”, don’t you think that they would have told us? But there is no article or letter by any of the writers of the Constitution that says anything like that at all.

          And, we have the evidence of US legal scholars at the time that the writers of the US Constitution did use the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law, and that they considered that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen. (Both of these men knew the writers of the Constitution.):

          “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.” …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

          “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

          As you can see, both use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that it was used in the common law. So, duh, if the writers of the US Constitution had really meant to change from the common law to something else, well they sure should have said so. But they didn’t, and in fact there is no evidence that they wanted to do so.

      • joshuasweet

        we already are being treated as a third world nation!
        The military by their oaths need to defend the Constitution and the people from this despots regime of treasonous people.

    • smrstrauss

      Because, duh, Obama has not committed treason.

      • joshuasweet

        “Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
        The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
        So yes indeed the President, the Secretary of State, several members of Congress.

        Starting with Obama inclusion of the enemies to our very way of life, liberty and pursuit’s of happiness, Inside of Homeland Security, the office of the President and attached to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

        Just look at all the deals and transfers of weapons and who in the Arab World are actually getting them.
        How is that for a start?

        • smrstrauss

          Obama has not sent a cent more to the Arab World than George W. Bush did.

          https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=582&q=bush+arab+princes&oq=bush+arab+princes&gs_l=img.3…1421.4581.0.5212.17.8.0.9.9.0.106.553.6j2.8.0….0…1ac.1.29.img..8.9.464.EJIK0gR_daM

          http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/05/egyp-m22.html

          http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32260.pdf

          • joshuasweet

            it is the groups that Obama is sending that money are not the same established ones

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “it is the groups that Obama is sending that money are not the same established ones.”

            Evidence please.

          • joshuasweet

            Obama is trying to stop further payments to Egypt now that they removed the Brotherhood from power.
            He removed Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi.
            rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt (twice), Libya, and Yemen; civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain and Syria;major protests have broken out in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan; and minor protests have occurred in Mauritania, Oman,Saudi Arabia,Djibouti, Western Sahara, and the Palestinian Authority.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Obama is trying to stop further payments to Egypt now that they removed the
            Brotherhood from power.”

            Which, duh, will save about a billion dollars a year.

            Re: “He removed Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi”

            And you seem to think that that was a bad thing (?) Gaddafi was a dictator, a terrorist and an enemy of the USA. During the Reagan administration, the United States regarded him as “Public Enemy No. 1″[351] and Reagan famously dubbed him the “mad dog of the Middle East”.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

            Re: “rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt (twice), Libya, and Yemen; civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain and Syria;major protests
            have broken out in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan; and minor protests have occurred in Mauritania, Oman,Saudi Arabia,Djibouti, Western Sahara, and the Palestinian Authority.”

            And that is because of aid that Obama gave to somebody? (If so, who, when and how much?)

            Re “rulers have been forced from power”:

            Answer: So what else is new?

          • joshuasweet

            it is not that he advanced assisted and sponsored the change but who it benefited.
            He is stopping the Payments to Egypt till they bring back the Brotherhood.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “He is stopping the Payments to Egypt till they bring back the Brotherhood.”

            Which, of course, they won’t, and so we will save about a billion bucks a year. Got anything against saving a billion or so bucks a year?

          • Christopher Tutt

            Can we do that with Israhell too… Since we are throwing them money like we have tons of it.

          • smrstrauss

            You have something against supporting Israel?

          • joshuasweet

            he will kowtow yet again and make it happen just like the delivery of the helicopters is a sure thing.

          • smrstrauss

            And you know this–how?

          • joshuasweet

            just look at who it is I am speaking about!

          • smrstrauss

            Facts please.

          • joshuasweet

            read the news and look for Obama and the current events.
            then show me where he is not involved

          • smrstrauss

            Evidence works the other way. You have to show that somebody did something, or else there is no evidence that he did it.

          • joshuasweet

            if I can not get him to see that his actions in support and advancement of the Muslim Brotherhoods is the evidence why bother?

          • smrstrauss

            So, there is no evidence.

          • joshuasweet

            just the bills we have to pay.

          • smrstrauss

            IF we were paying any money, any money, any money at all, to the Muslim Brotherhood, there would be evidence of it. So your remark “just the bills we have to pay” is not proof. Where is your evidence?

          • joshuasweet

            there is none that will please you:
            $1 billion worth of German U-boats at US taxpayer expense
            At least 20 F-16 fighter jets
            $250 million in taxpayer money
            4 More F-16 fighter jets
            Sent US troops into Egypt to quash protests against the Muslim Brotherhood earlier this year
            Sent $1.3 billion
            Arif Alikhan – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
            Mohamed Elibiary – Homeland Security Adviser, whom we called out on this occasion and this occasion.
            Rashad Hussain – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference.
            Salam al-Marayati – Obama Adviser, founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director.
            Imam Mohamed Magid – Obama’s Sharia Czar, Islamic Society of North America.
            Eboo Patel – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.
            John Brennan – Central Intelligence Agency Director
            Obama administration has been secretly arming Syrian jihadists since 2012. Now reports are coming out that the Central Intelligence Agency, headed by Muslim John Brenner,has been delivering light machine guns
            other small arms to Syrian rebels for weeks
            The Arab Spring was perceived to be a spontaneous movement whereby one by one, secular leaders were replaced by Islamic dictators. But it was in fact a tightly orchestrated operation conducted by the Muslim
            Brotherhood, George Soros front groups, our own State Department, and especially the community-organizer-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

          • smrstrauss

            Shocking. AMERICAN citizens who have Arabic names and who are Muslim are being treated like citizens with Anglo-Saxon names and of the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish religion.

            Re payments in U-boats and other weapons. All such military aid has been going on for decades. Re US troops allegedly sent to Egypt to put down riots—CRAP.

          • joshuasweet

            and see it is still not good enough for you as nothing will be, your savior will relent not

          • smrstrauss

            Rational readers will notice that joshuasweet’s comment above does not discuss the facts.

          • joshuasweet

            I did notice how adamantly you avoided the names listed that prove that the Muslim Brotherhood through Obama’s aid and assistance have been placed inside of our government.

          • smrstrauss

            Those are US Citizens with Arabic names, probably of the Muslim religion. In our country people are innocent until proven guilty, and those US Citizens with Arabic names have not been proven guilty of anything, So there is no reason to treat them differently than Smiths or Ryans or Goldbergs.

          • joshuasweet

            and Adolf Hitler was just a Vegan!

            Arif Alikhan :”Alikhan is strongly anti-Israel; he has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement.” Hezbollah is on the US official terrorist list while being an affiliate of the Muslim Public
            Affairs Council. Alikhan also opposed President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror.
            In 2007 Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in LA. The Muslim ‘Mapping’ Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now “dead on arrival” according to Chief William Bratton.
            “It is over and not just put on the side,” said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California at that time. The meeting was moderated by Arif Alikhan. Chief Bratton acknowledged
            the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the ‘mapping’ plan.”
            Mohamed Elibiary:”An adviser to the Department of Homeland Security — who was recently
            promoted — is defending his use of the controversial “R4BIA” four-finger salute symbol associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

          • smrstrauss

            Repeat. Those are some of the millions of Americans who have Arabic names, like Mohammed Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

          • joshuasweet

            but their actions and affiliations place the finger of guilt on them

          • smrstrauss

            Only if the reports that you cite are correct. Well, those reports have not been picked up by any reliable media at all.

          • joshuasweet

            Oh so now reliable media like NBC, CBS ABC and CNN have to say they are the enemies

          • smrstrauss

            Oh, so now conservative media, that had stories like “30,000 Russian trools are in America” and that lied about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said (she never said that he was born in Kenya; she said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, but birther sites simply did not quote and continued claiming that she had said that he was born in Kenya) get to decide who are loyal and who are not loyal US citizens.

          • smrstrauss
          • joshuasweet

            your the one that claimed there was such a ting as a reliable media not I

          • smrstrauss

            YOU are claiming that specific AMERICAN CITIZENS with Arabic names are disloyal based solely on blog reports on sites similar to the ones that ran the “15,000 Russian troops coming to America” stories similar to those linked to below.

          • joshuasweet

            I am saying simply enough that people with Arabic names that are members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been placed in positions of trust inside our government by Obama.
            their disloyalty, if you can call it that since they are not really Americans and their loyalty is to their religious affiliation ,comes form the group that belong to and the agenda they are pushing

          • smrstrauss

            YOU are saying that certain specific people whom you named were disloyal based on reports on Web sites such as those linked to below. And now you are saying that American citizens with Arabic names are “not really Americans” and not really loyal. People used to say that about Catholics and Jews.

          • joshuasweet

            what ever you say! obviously nothing I say to you is going to get you to act against your president or his actions!
            I am saying that these named people are disloyal based upon their records my God man one of the even showed the four finger sign of support

          • smrstrauss

            There are NO records showing that those named people were disloyal, only the claims of right-wing blogs. Even the four-finger report was from a blog and has not been confirmed.

          • joshuasweet

            Good god the four finger salute was on the mans twitter account for several weeks.
            And sure there is nothing to show they are disloyal other than their membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, by their own verification

          • smrstrauss

            That is what you say. Please show any confirmation.

            In a message dated 11/4/2013 5:05:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:

            (http://disqus.com/) _Settings _ (http://disqus.com/dashboard/#notifications) (http://disqus.com/dashboard/)

            A new comment was posted on _FrontPage Magazine_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?impression=1de05454-459d-11e3-924a-003048dfbae6&forum=2380705&thread=1 909017627&behavior=click&url=http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obam as-military-purge/#comment-1108830976:xgtQ1RErnlVN2BOQe_t5M3vs07M&post=11088 30976&type=notification.post.registered&event=email)

          • Christopher Tutt

            Gaddafi WAS LOVED by his citizens. He did not need an entourage of secret service people everywhere he went.

            Now don’t get all WTF while you are reading this.

            http://www.thisisafrica.me/opinion/detail/2802/How-bad-was-Gaddafi

            Get your head out of MSM’s arse and start doing your own research.

          • Christopher Tutt

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R2hGkS5VaSw

            http://www.emannabih.com/mohamed-morsis-trial-will-reveal-documents-could-put-barack-obama-in-prison/#

            Do you need someone to hold your hand and walk you through this.. I know it is SCARY to find out your hero is a CONSTITUTION KILLING TARD.

          • smrstrauss

            Those are really fine news sources. Neither cites any evidence whatever.

          • Softly Bob

            Moral relativism. What Bush did or didn’t do is irrelevant to Obama’s crimes.

            It’s like a serial rapist standing in front of a magistrate and claiming that he’s not the only person whoever raped anybody. That does not make him innocent, nor does it acquit him.
            Another point – whatever amount of money Bush sent to Arabs was under different circumstances. Obama knows damn well that these nations are evil. He has a greater benefit of historical knowledge than Bush does. Bush may have been a fool, but Obama is a seditious fiend.
            Don’t come here and spread your lying propaganda my friend. You won’t fool me.

          • smrstrauss

            It’s not a crime. It was a mistake. Failing to put sufficient guards at a consulate is a mistake. That’s all. Bush didn’t do it, Clinton didn’t. Reagan didn’t. Oh, and Bush loves the Arabs.
            https://www.google.com/search?q=bush+with+saudi+princes&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0YNyUopu2L7gA9n_gagK&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=582

  • Gamal

    Maybe Obama is afraid that the American military will depose him the way the Egyptian military deposed Morsi.

  • http://islesofmyst.co.uk/ Raibeart MacIlleathain

    Imamobama is merely taking a page out of his hero’s playbook. Commandante Chavez may be in hell trying to negotiate his way out much as the rich man did when confronted by Abraham and the beggar Lazarus, but his infernal actions provide aid and comfort to the amoral communist who worships Chavez’s portrait and prays to him every night after putting his own children to bed.

  • steve b

    STALIN DID THE SAME THING TO HIS MILITARY IN THE 1930s. THEY ALMOST LOST RUSSIA TO HITLER’S ARMY BECAUSE OF IT. THERE WILL BE NO UNITED STATES TO BAIL US OUT WHEN CHINA OR RUSSIA INVADES, AS WE DID FOR RUSSIA BACK THEN.

  • Mickey Oberman

    This information is terrifying.
    What better way to overrun a country than to destroy its military.
    As much as I dislike the idea perhaps it is time for the military to oust Obama and take over a corrupt and destructive government.

  • Bert

    Early on I feared that Obama was, in reality, a radical jihadist intent on taking down America by all means. I wondered if I was being too paranoid. But now ALL of Obama’s actions confirm my worst fears. I also suspect that Obama has quietly utilized a mass mind control on those Americans with weak minds. The 2008 campaign was full of great promises that were designed to entice the gullible. His endless campaign mode is designed to keep reinforcing the spell. Some have awakened but too many remain under his spell. I fear that by now he may be reaching the level of dictatorial power. What will it take to stop him at this point?

    • MarilynA

      Most of the dissident groups that provide instant rent a mobs for mass demonstrations, pressure groups and Soros backed pressure groups and letter writing campaigns are headed by radical militant activists from the 60s Communist inspired Peace and civil rights movements. Most of them have advanced degrees in Psychology and are well versed in mob control psychology. The American people have been subjected to abuse, based on that used by spouse abusers to control their victims. First you destroy the self confidence. (You are bad. Everything you do is based on selfish and bad intentions. You can’t do anything right. there is always someone who could do things better than you. If you hadn’t done “that” this awful thing would not have happened. If you would try harder, give more, understand the other side, etc etc. etc. these victims of your abuse wouldn’t have to resort to violence and terrorism to get your attention) For over 50 years the American people have been subjected to this type abuse so that most Americans now believe that any awful thing that is done to us is just and we had it coming because of our evil past and ulterior motives. Because of institutionalized white guilt we have allowed malcontents, misfits, America bashers, and the less than most qualified to gain control of our educational system and to be pushed to the front of the line so that they now control our government and businesses. It’s little wonder we are now at the bottom of the heap in every survey taken. If Americans don’t wake up soon, and retake their government we are all going to be bowed down, in the position, facing Mecca 5 times a day.

      • Omar

        This is a complex and informative, but somewhat misleading post. Based on your misleading argument about the Communist and other elements of the radical left “controlling” the civil rights movement, every
        anti-Communist in this country was a racial segregationist, which was
        not true. There was a big difference between the civil rights movement
        and what Communists and fascists (yes fascists are left-wing, check this
        link for the truth: http://www.discoverthenetworks
        ) were really trying to promote. The problem was (and is) that the
        Communists were very successful in trying to blend in to American
        society in the 1960s (remember the New Left?) . After the civil rights
        movement achieved its main goals of ending segregation and legal
        discrimination in society with the passage of key civil rights
        legislation, the Left decided to hijack the movement and to reconstruct
        the movement as one of “its own”. Even before key civil rights
        legislation was passed in Congress, the Left had planned this move. Read
        this link for more on the truth: http://www.discoverthenetworks

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    My son is a military historian at the Pentagon. However, he’s also a combat vet, having commanded a battalion in Afghanistan. He’s already been given the famous “litmus test”, i.e., “will you order your men to open fire on American citizens on American soil.” His response was a colorful variation on, “No, I won’t.” Note that he states that junior officers are being given this test, en masse.

    Suddenly, he calls me the other night and tells me that he may be sent back to Afghanistan, soon. I thought we were leaving that country in 2014. I fear an “accident” might befall him, there.

    No dictator can maintain power in a nation whose military does not support him. This may be what is happening, right before our eyes …

    • Freddy

      “No dictator can maintain power in a nation whose military does not support
      him. This may be what is happening, right before our eyes …”
      Bingo!

      Now if your son was a muslim, he would have been taught to lie and his answer would have been, “Yes, I will”. Those who wish to survive will have to learn from this.

      • Jakareh

        If he were a Muslim, “Yes, I will” wouldn’t be a lie, would it?

      • http://palestinename.com Beth

        I get what you’re saying Freddy:
        Do as the muslims do – LIE!

    • Lookatme

      I am in the military, can you tell me who is asking those kind of questions, because the sole sugestion is to be considered treason.

    • DJH

      If I were him I’d rufuse to go!

      • defcon 4

        That would take some courage.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        It’s not in his psychological makeup.

  • herb benty

    A premptive strike on the US Military in case they side with American citizens by an increasingly paranoid Communist Junta.

  • CowboyUp

    He wants to make sure the US Military doesn’t embarrass the disloyal democrat party anymore. The US military has done what the democrat party said couldn’t be done too many times, in spite of their defunding and draw downs. They say the USA is the biggest threat to world peace, and they aim to fix that.

  • noway2no

    Its what all the trendy dictators are doing after all…

  • Porkys2istan

    I call shenanigans!

    The article doesn’t prove anything. It’s idle speculation dressed up as ‘fact’. I wanted to read about a scandalous purge based on some political agenda, but instead it’s just a list of everyone fired from the senior military over the last few years. The only firings that sound remotely political are the Bengazi ones.

    Did you ever consider that with budget cutbacks the bar for dismissal might have been lowered? That the Generals who had fun playing grab ass with their secretaries during the spend everything Bush years are now mad that they got fired? Did you ever consider that during budget cuts just being mediocre might not be good enough anymore?

    In the armed services you either move up or move out. This list of firings sounds like the typical list of losers who are dismissed from the military every year.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    There are not enough of these Military officers standing up to this Fraud in Chief. Praise God for officers like LTC (MD) Terry Lakin who did stand up to this gangster from Chicago. There are some like Lakin who have stepped up and they are very brave men who are coming against the full weight of the United States government. Major General Paul Vallely investigated Obama’s forged birth certificate and made a determination that the April 27, 2011 birth record released by Obama and the White House was indeed a forgery. Look at details below. We have had a usurper and fraud as Commander in Chief and that should make everyone’s hair curl.

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/311433/

    • Erudite Mavin

      an officer who speaks out, is demoted and can lose his pension.
      Obama knows this and knows he has free reign.

      • ltcdmward

        Officers are NEVER demoted in rank. If they do something that merits a reduction, believe me, they are OUT. O-U-T. Discharged for cause after boarding for unsuitability or “asked” to resign or retire (if they are eligible). Now officers that are court-martialed, that’s another story: prison or separation dishonorably.

        • Erudite Mavin

          Generals have lost a star

    • smrstrauss

      Obama released both his short form and long form birth certificates from Hawaii,and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii confirmed that they sent them to Obama and that all the facts on the copy that the White House put online are exactly the same, repeat EXACTLY the same, as on what they sent to him.

      Only birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate forged, and they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

      One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

      Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

      And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

      Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

      Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

      John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

      Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

      Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

      Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

      And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

      Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        Jean Claude Tremblay – was the expert used by Fox which should tell you something about how pathetic Fox and Enemies have approached this fraudulent scandal of Barack Hussein Obama. Check out his feelings about Fox and how they manipulated his findings to fit their narrative. Bill O’Reilly committed a similar act when he lied to his audience about Obama’s “supposed Daddy” living in Conn. His lame investigation was flawed and thus worthless. He never bothered to correct his LIE. At this point you cannot trust any media source about any of the fraud committed by Barack Hussein Obama. They are absolutely pitiful when it comes to investigating anything. They barely skim the surface on any investigation and when they do they completely screw it up (witness Dan Rather and his lovely boss attempting to unseat President Bush with the Killian forged documents). They couldn’t even get that right.

        http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/314041/

        • smrstrauss

          And you would have people believe birther sites? Birther sites that LIED about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said? They CLAIMED that she said that Obama was born in Kenya. But the transcript of the tape recorded interview show that she said that Obama was born in HAWAII, and in fact she said it repeatedly, but they simply refused to quote her, and in fact they cut off the tape on their sites just before she was asked “Where was he born?” (To which she replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.”

          That was one of many lies. Another was the claim that Governor Abercrombie said that he could not find Obama’s birth certificate in the files. He never said any such thing, and in fact three officials in Hawaii (two Republican one Democrat) stated that they saw Obama’s birth certificate in the DOH files, where it is supposed to be. That was another LIE.

          And they lied when they said that Obama’s lawyer had admitted that Obama’s birth certificate was forged. Once again, she never said any such thing. And they lied by omission by not telling their readers that there was no evidence that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961. And they omitted to tell people that very very few 18-year-olds had passports in 1961 either. And they omitted to tell their readers that EXTREMELY FEW women traveled overseas in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the high risk of stillbirth. All of those lies and omissions have the same motive behind them. They hope that GULLIBLE readers will simply assume that Obama’s mother was one of the very very few 18-year-olds to have a passport, and to assume that she was one of the extremely few women who traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy—-and that along with those rare things happening, the officials of Hawaii of BOTH parties are lying about the birth certificate, and the birth certificate (and the public Index Data file, and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961) were all forged.

          Well, it is obvious that the birther sites are lying. They lied about what the grandmother said, and about what the governor of Hawaii said, and they are lying in their claims of the birth certificate being forged as well. The quote “experts” who claim things like “PDF would not show layers”—but PDF works by using layers.

          And, I showed you five or six experts, you objected to one of them.

          Here they are again:

          And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

          Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

          Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

          John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

          Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

          Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

          Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

          Moreover, birther sites have not even attempted to disprove the evidence of the Xerox workstation research:

          ttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org…

          http://rcradioblog.wordpress.c

          http://nativeborncitizen.wordp

          Moreover, for Obama’s birth certificate to have been forged, the forger would have had to have made his mistake DELIBERATELY, which is hardly likely:

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

          Bill O’Reilly, by the way, was inaccurate, as you said. The cause of Obama’s CT SS number was not that Obama’s father had lived in CT. It was simply a data entry error by a Social Security clerk, one of millions upon millions of them. Who told you that the SS Administration clerks never made mistakes? What gave you the crazy idea that if a SS clerk hit the wrong number in entering a zip code it would not generate a SS number from a different state than where the application was made?

          So, three things. Obama really was born in Hawaii.Without evidence that she had a passport, and considering how rare foreign travel was late in pregnancy in 1961 it is nutty to think that she made such a trip when the birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices all show that Obama was born in Hawaii. Second, since Obama was born in Hawaii, the chance that his birth certificate was forged is very slim—–because, duh, why should he?. And, along with the chance of it being very slim, the officials in Hawaii of both parties said that ALL the facts on Obama’s birth certificate were exactly the same, that they “matched” the facts on what they sent him, and since birther sites have lied so many times in the past, why believe their “experts?” And, finally, the SS Administration made millions of mistakes, which is by far the likely explanation of the CT SS number.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The quote “experts” who claim things like “PDF would n

            not show layers”—but PDF works by using layers.”

            I’m no “birther” but I did look at what was claimed to be the PDF of his BC. The issue I recognized was that the scan seemed to be from at least 2 orientations.

            The layers were not consistent. This is one way you can debunk images by looking at coherency. In the case of scanned documents, the font should show coherent orientation since the scan is not always perfectly flat.

            Not only that but IIRC some characters were represented by fonts while others were represented by bitmaps (scanned images of characters). So you’re technically right about layers in PDFs, but you’re wrong about presenting the stated concerns. There are problems with the layers. Not, “There’s a problem because…layers exist.”

            Think of a photo that shows a scene from a certain perspective but then the light source on one of the buildings is inconsistent with the rest of the scene. It calls in to question whether that building or object was inserted. But the fact that some characters were from fonts and others from scanned bitmaps indicates that at the very least they ran some kind of OCR software, which they should not have done. That’s not a legitimate way to present a copy of an official document that carries signatures or some mark of authentication unless you have a complete audit trail. Audit trail? What’s that?

            I haven’t seen any blatant smoking gun (but I do see the smoke), neither have a seen a candidate that kept any of his promises about transparency or anything else for that matter. He’s just a fraud because at the very least we can see how incompetent he is as everything other than campaigning and getting anger-revenge votes.

            But I guess that’s something.

          • smrstrauss

            ALL of that is explained by the way that the Xerox workstation scanner works in taking a document and putting into pdf:

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

            http://rcradioblog.wordpress.c

            http://nativeborncitizen.wordp

            Moreover, for Obama’s birth certificate to have been forged, the forger would have had to have made the following mistake DELIBERATELY, which is hardly likely:

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “ALL of that is explained by the way that the Xerox workstation scanner works in taking a document and putting into pdf:”

            That’s plausible but not acceptable for reproducing official documents. Basically you’ve conceded the point without admitting that they’re right. It doesn’t prove it was forged with fraudulent information, but it does show that they have completely ignored the need to show persuasively what the freaking document says in its original form.

            If they’re going to do that you should at least provide an audit trail if you want to be taken seriously. The public is full of suckers though and it wasn’t a formal process. So guys like you are just fine with it.

            There is simply no question that they operate in bad faith. Maybe they’re trying to milk the birtherism and bait them in to stupid arguments to distract from the fact that they can’t do anything right.

            His birth itself is the least of my concerns. But it shows how competent they are. It’s no wonder at all that the freaking ZERO’care web site is a disaster, along with the implications of the entire law.

            Enjoy your transformed country. Hope and change.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “If they’re going to do that you should at least provide an audit trail if you want to be taken seriously.”

            Answer: The copying at the White House is done by unpaid college interns. Sure they are stupid and often inefficient, what else is new?

            HOWEVER, the original issue was whether the birth certificate was forged, and there is no evidence of it and considerable evidence against it. And the officials in Hawaii of both parties have repeatedly stated that they sent the birth certificate to Obama and that all the facts on it are exactly the same as on what they sent to him. Repeat: EXACTLY the same, the two sets of facts match. That is what they stated in writing.

            BTW, Mitt Romney showed only a Web image of a black-and-white photocopy of his short-form birth certificate. John McCain and previous presidential candidates did not publish their birth certificates at all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Answer: The copying at the White House is done by unpaid college interns. Sure they are stupid and often inefficient, what else is new?”

            Again, plausible, but not confidence inspiring.

            “HOWEVER, the original issue was whether the birth certificate was forged, and there is no evidence of it and considerable evidence against it.”

            There’s no direct evidence because evidence has not been easy to come by.

            “And the officials in Hawaii of both parties have repeatedly stated that they sent the birth certificate to Obama and that all the facts on it are exactly the same as on what they sent to him. Repeat: EXACTLY the same, the two sets of facts match. That is what they stated in writing.”

            That’s all very interesting but why after all of the controversy can’t someone walk over to a freaking scanner and provide an accurate copy that would be acceptable to virtually any court in the land? Talking about lack of evidence in this case is not necessarily something to brag about.

            “BTW, Mitt Romney showed only a Web image of a black-and-white photocopy of his short-form birth certificate. John McCain and previous presidential candidates did not publish their birth certificates at all.”

            If someone challenged the scanned copies I would expect reasonable effort to be made satisfying those inquiries rather than letting it drag on like this.

            Like I said, I don’t care much about the BC except that I think it is not being handled well by POTUS. But that’s nothing compared to the real harm done by his policies domestic and international. The BC controversy actually helps him muster political support and takes attention away from the real problems.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Again, plausible, but not confidence inspiring.”

            To you perhaps. But, (1) Mitt Romney showed only a web image of a black and white photocopy of his birth certificate. Obama showed both his short form and long form BCs (and FactCheck photographed both the front and back of his short form, showing the raised seal clearly), and he showed both web images and photocopies of them and had the official copies passed around in the White House Press room; (2) the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties stated in writing that they sent it to him. (3) The idea that Obama’s mother traveled abroad late in pregnancy when we do not know that she even has a passport is so farfetched to be simply nutty; (4) No president or presidential candidate ever published his birth certificate before Obama.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “(4) No president or presidential candidate ever published his birth certificate before Obama.”

            Nobody before 0′Bama ever gave so many reasons to question his background while at the same time promising to be the most transparent POTUS.

            But like I said, I can live with the BC issue. It’s the underlying reasons for questioning his background that remain unresolved. He is a fraud in many ways, we just don’t have all of the hard evidence.

            But his objectives have popular appeal and we’re now a nation largely comprised of idiots. Your halfway reasonable defense is that some of the idiots oppose 0′Bama too. This rest of your defense of this administration is full of BS that depends on confusing the idiots. You’re above average, I’ll grant you that.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Nobody before 0′Bama ever gave so many reasons to question his background while at the same time promising to be the most transparent POTUS.”

            Answer: Presidents promise many things. This one promised to be “transparent IN GOVERNMENT.” He did not promise to be transparent in his personal life—and why should he?

            As for the “many reasons to question his background.” The answer is that because your enemies MAKE UP REASONS does not mean that there are really reasons. There aren’t any. In fact, it is dumb and loony to think that there is even a rational chance that Obama was born anywhere else than in HAWAII, and the fact that his enemies keep claiming stupid things does not change that one little bit.

            For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

            (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

            (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

            (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

            If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

            So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened? Oh, and the birther sites LIED when they said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. She never said any such thing. They simply refused to quote her when she said “born in HAWAII, where his father was studying at the time.” And they cut off the tape recording on their sites just before she was asked: “Where was he born?” (I wonder why they did that?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Answer: Presidents promise many things. This one promised to be “transparent IN GOVERNMENT.” He did not promise to be transparent in his personal life—and why should he?”

            He’s not being criticized for being merely imperfect. He’s being criticized for being a serial liar and destructive to US interests domestically and around the world.

            It’s rational to look for explanations. Some times individuals follow irrational ideas during rational lines of investigation. You seem to expect more from each citizen than you do from POTUS.

            You have our constitution inverted. He’s supposed to serve us. We’re not his subjects.

            And by the why your judgment is not above reproach when you suck up to every politically motivated claim his regime makes.

            Keep up the copy-paste work. I’m sure it’s very important and influential.

          • smrstrauss

            Talking about me is changing the subject. You dislike and I like. That is normal in our country. The facts are what counts. Yes, Obama works for THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. That does not mean that he has to release his own private information because YOU and other people who dislike him want to see it. If a majority of Americans wanted to see his private data, that would be a different thing. But a majority of voters do not want to see his private data. The voted for him without seeing his grades or his parents’ marriage license (which other birthers asked for).

            So, since other presidents and presidential candidates did not have to show their grades, and since only Obamq’s enemies want to see his grades. He does not have to show his grades. And he won’t. I think that is fine. You don’t. So go and cry.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Talking about me is changing the subject. You dislike and I like.”

            What I’m saying is that you don’t actually offer anything as a person. You just paste talking points. We don’t know you. It’s not even you. You’re not testifying, your serving an administration.

            It has little to do with you personally.

            “That does not mean that he has to release his own private information because YOU and other people who dislike him want to see it.”

            He doesn’t have to do anything. If he doesn’t have a clear mandate from the people, he should resign. Technically he can stay in office because he won the elections, but when seemingly everyone that didn’t vote for you considers you to be a fraud, when you become the most divisive character in modern history, it might be time to work on that, or he can resign.

            It’s just debate. People are expressing their opinions and anger. Most candidates that win don’t try to f over every other voter that rejected him. This guy projects anger and disrespect to every person who he doesn’t feel the need to curry favor from, and bribes his constituents in every way possible.

            But so far as we know. we don’t have any clear legal remedies. Apologists like you might think you’re helping. If you want to help, keep pasting info about his birth certificate. Your apologies for Benghazi are pathetic. They make you look like a robot. Which is not personal because robots don’t have personalities.

            And I might add that there are various degrees of severity of “mistakes.” Shrugging your shoulders and acting like anger and disappointment are somehow irrational is itself irrational.

            0′Bama administration: “So what. F ‘em.”

            We heard you the first 10,000 times. You don’t care. You got what you want. Noted. We’ll carry on as well.

          • smrstrauss

            Actually, that is how the system is supposed to work. The person who was elected president does what she or he wants, and the people who don’t like it simply have to suffer. So, suffer. We did when Bush was in office.

            Yes, it was a mistake, But it was not a high crime or a misdemeanor, which means that Obama will not be impeached and will remain in office, either to make other mistakes (which is a possibility with any president) or to do good things. Don’t like it? Suffer.

            As for me just pasting “talking points.” Let the readers decide for themselves.

            Oh, well, here is one, too good not to repeat: “He does not have to show his grades. And he won’t. I think that is fine.” You don’t. Tough.

            (I suggest that you ask the next Republican presidential candidate to be the first to publish her or his grades, and that that will set a good example. So far, neither party’s candidates have published their grades.)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Actually, that is how the system is supposed to work.”

            Whoever told you that is a liar trying to justify persistent class warfare masked as “campaigning” and “ordinary politics.”

            You obviously never learned anything true about American culture and ideology.

            “The person who was elected president does what she or he wants, and the people who don’t like it simply have to suffer.”

            I thought you agreed that POTUS works for the people? Are they not bound by laws? Are they not subject to scrutiny from any quarter of the population? Yes they are. I can sue 0′Bama if I choose to whether or not I voted for him. He certainly has many restrictions other than his own will.

            But you speak like a true communist dupe.

          • smrstrauss

            Re “communist dupe.” Calling names doessn’t convice people. Rational discussion does.

            Here is what happens when a president is elected. He has received the largest vote of the US electoral college and hence has the right to preside over the Executive Branch of government and to exercise the veto rights listed in the US Constitution.

            And he has these rights unless Congress passes a constitutional law saying that his rights are limited in doing that, and the Congress has not done any such thing.

            Of course the president works for the people. But that does not mean that he has to obey the desires of his enemies. He has the right to support the political leanings of those who voted for him.

            Yes, you can sue Obama—anyone can sue anyone else on any grounds at all. BUT, will you win?

            Obama is the president of the USA. The US Congress confirmed his election UNANIMOUSLY. Don’t like it? Tough.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Obama is the president of the USA. The US Congress confirmed his election UNANIMOUSLY. Don’t like it? Tough.”

            You don’t like the reactions? Tough.

          • smrstrauss

            You have the right to your opinion. And it is always true that there are people who do not like a president. But their opinions are merely their opinions. Obama, who really was born in Hawaii and really is a Natural Born Citizen (as is everyone born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats) was re-elected last November 6 and was confirmed by the US Congress unanimously (and that includes Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul), and he is the president.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s all fascinating. I don’t’ care where he was born. I care about loyalties and competence. That’s where he fails. The fact is that this POTUS is the worst in modern history for Americans, except for lazy and delusional ones that depend on him for either cash support of leadership towards their dreamed for Utopia.

            We obviously understand he’ll have his die-hard supporters like you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Just keep stomping your feet. We know where you get your attitude from.

          • smrstrauss

            Re “stamping feet”–that is what you are doing, and you have the right to stamp your feet. And we know where you got YOUR attitude from. And this is amusing—but so what? The facts are that Obama was born in Hawaii, and because of that fact he is a Natural Born Citizen. And in addition to those two facts, Obama really was elected president in 2008 and again on 2012 (receiving nearly five million more votes than Mitt Romney). It is your Constitutional right to say that you do not like Obama (or any president or any politician for that matter), but Obama is still the president. Your side will have another chance to elect someone more to your liking in the presidential election of 2016.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And we know where you got YOUR attitude from.”

            Where is that? What personality cult am I supposedly a member of?

            “The facts are that Obama was born in Hawaii, and because of that fact he is a Natural Born Citizen.”

            I don’t care. I told you I don’t care. You don’t listen. You paste talking points over and over.

            “Your side will have another chance to elect someone more to your liking in the presidential election of 2016.”

            And we’ll oppose all of his bad ideas from now till then.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “I don’t care. I told you I don’t care. You don’t listen. You paste talking points over and over.”

            Answer: YOU say that you do not care, but there are others on this site that DO care, and I post for their benefit.

            Re: “And we’ll oppose all of his bad ideas from now till then.”

            Which you have every right to do.

            Others have the right to disagree, of course.

            And we have the right to correct factual errors such as the claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a homosexual or born in Kenya or not a Natural Born Citizen due to his father’s citizenship.

            Re “attitude” You claimed that you knew where I got my attitude from. I claimed the same about YOUR attitude.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            ” I claimed the same about YOUR attitude.”

            It sounded a lot like “the same to you but more of it.”

            Where do I get my attitude from?

          • smrstrauss

            The same to you, and exactly the same amount of it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Look, you’re acting like a mindless robot. Nobody claimed you have no right to do that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So, suffer. We did when Bush was in office.”

            Ignoring the obvious false equivalence, I’ll just notice that you admit it’s about revenge rather than leadership. Bush may not have made every lunatic happy, but he certainly did try to lead all Americans and not merely those who supported him with funds and votes.

          • smrstrauss
          • objectivefactsmatter

            He didn’t tilt left far enough. He worked with all of congress, not just his party.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama has tried repeatedly to work with all of Congress. And Bush’s regulatory approach was strictly conservative, cutting down support for clean air and clean water and reducing regulation so that workplace accidents increased.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Obama has tried repeatedly to work with all of Congress.”

            As a dictator.

            “And Bush’s regulatory approach was strictly conservative, cutting down support for clean air and clean water and reducing regulation so that workplace accidents increased.”

            Bush got bipartisan support for many of his programs. He led from the center even though obviously he was more conservative than socialists like you would like.

          • smrstrauss

            Re “dictator.”

            That is your OPINION, but it is not a fact. If it were anywhere near factual, you would hear the word “dictator” from Rand Paul and Ann Coulter and the National Review.

            Re Bush not being a true conservative. He was conservative enough to cut back on regulation of workplace saftety and clean air and clean water and to appoint uncritical, pro-industry regulators to look at what Wall Street was doing and to say “everything is just fine.”

            Well, it wasn’t just fine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You had decent training on how to organize your talking points for pasting in to comments sections. But other than that you are extremely dumb.

            You have no clue how “Wall Street” works and what caused the problems.

          • smrstrauss

            Rational people will notice that objectivefactsmatter has not responded to the facts and is simply calling names. Wall Street, BTW, includes some honest people and a lot of people who were willing to lie about their opinions of stocks and to manipulate markets—such as in Enron, and the stock ratings of Lehman Brothers, and the credit ratings of many of the mortgage-backed securities, AND in the LIBOR scandle.

          • smrstrauss
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Wall Street, BTW, includes some honest people and a lot of people who were willing to lie about their opinions of stocks and to manipulate markets—such as in Enron, and the stock ratings of Lehman Brothers, and the credit ratings of many of the mortgage-backed securities, AND in the LIBOR scandle.”

            Good point. We needed 0′Bama to bring new regulations like outlawing fraud. And he’s so good at holding people accountable. Like reporters, political opponents and the like. What to do about his cronies? Ah, as long as they’re comrades it’s all OK.

          • smrstrauss

            The Bush administration did not regulate Wall Street. The Obama administration is regulating Wall Street and uncovering some of the frauds, and penalizing the companies involved.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            0′Bama is a crony capitalist. All socialists are. That’s what socialism is.

          • smrstrauss

            You have the right to your opinion. The next presidential election will be in November 2016.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, it was a mistake, But it was not a high crime or a misdemeanor, which means that Obama will not be impeached and will remain in office, either to make other mistakes (which is a possibility with any president) or to do good things.”

            We don’t have all of the evidence, not by any stretch. He should resign, but that’s a judgment call. He’s a horrible, divisive leader who uses socialist class warfare tactics to carry out a delusional agenda based on “Dreams of My Father” who by the way hated America and hated capitalism. But who cares? He won. He hands out goodies. Wee!

            “Don’t like it? Suffer.”

            Your attitude won’t be quickly forgotten.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “He’s a horrible, divisive leader who uses socialist class warfare tactics to carry out a delusional agenda …”
            That is what people who do not like him say. And they have the right to their opinion.

            But the fact is that their side lost the election. There were significantly more US voters who preferred Obama to Mitt Romney—nearly five million more. (Yes, they were really American voters, and there were not five million illegal votes cast.)

            As for further facts coming out. The answer is that IF facts come out that support what you claim, then (and only then), I’ll support impeachment. But, duh, the alleged facts that you claim have not been shown yet—and they are not likely to.

            Regarding the election: Glad that you intend to remember my attitude. It has not changed–and it won’t.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The answer is that IF facts come out that support what you claim, then (and only then), I’ll support impeachment. But, duh, the alleged facts that you claim have not been shown yet—and they are not likely to.”

            It’s obvious that your judgment is worth nothing. You’re just a partisan talking points paster.

            “Regarding the election: Glad that you intend to remember my attitude. It has not changed–and it won’t.”

            Winning an election is the start of the process where one takes office. Not the end. The opposition never has to retire and neither do the boosters. That’s where we are.

            If 0′Bama wanted broader support he could have behaved a lot differently. Bush pursued broad support as did most POTUS before him. If course they look after their base first. Most POTUS before 0′Bama did not hate their opposition so openly. Especially in the modern era.

            But he’s after transformation, nothing else. And you have to be a communist or dupe to want the same transformation he’s planning.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama is a conservative Democrat. He did not even allow people to have the option of a government-backed medical system (as in Canda, Britain, France and most countries). Instead, the system (which was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, BTW) requires that we have medical insurance provided by a private, capitalist, insurance company (which, BTW, expect to receive plenty of profits). Oh, and a communist would have kept the shares in GM that the US government bought becacause keeping them would keep government control—but Obama had the shares sold back to the company AT A PROFIT.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dummy,

            0′Bama is POTUS. He’s a socialist from a family of communists and all his peers are communists or jihadis. But this nation is not communist and the constitution that he hates prevents him from doing every last thing he’d like to.

            If he’s a moderate Democrat, I guess you’re including the Occupy movement. So yeah, he’s moderate for a communist. The Democratic Party is mostly socialist these days, which means those that are not outright communists are dupes of communism.

            Communists have no problem with capital and profit. They seek to control as much as possible and take away capital and profit from the private sector. It’s a bit premature for a revolution.

          • smrstrauss

            You have a right to your OPINION. And I would fight to the death for your right to say it.

            However, 65.9 million American voters voted for Obama, which means that they disagree with you. And it is the decision of the voters that counts. Obama is the president of the United States. You have the right to keep on claiming that he is a “communist.” And we have the right to laugh at you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “(I suggest that you ask the next Republican presidential candidate to be the first to publish her or his grades, and that that will set a good example. So far, neither party’s candidates have published their grades.)”

            As far as I’m concerned it’s not about a specific line item laundry list. The point is we know so little about him, he did nothing useful before arriving on the political scene and people want to establish bona fides.

            Well you can use those excuses one by one but eventually people in the end say, what do I know about him? What is he hiding?

            What he is hiding is his hatred for the establishment in America. He’s not hiding it that well. Neither are you. “You didn’t build that.”

            Sure, that’s where 0′Bama was before. Out running business and creating jobs by showing people how to do things. No, he was riding the affirmative action gravy train, which in itself is OK but not adequate preparation for job as POTUS. It doesn’t disqualify him either. It just means people want to know why he should be trusted as the most important man on earth.

            The answer seems to be that he promised enough goodies to enough people.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “The point is we know so little about him, he did nothing useful before arriving on the political scene ”
            Answer: Just because you don’t know something does not mean that everyone is as poorly informed as you are.
            We know an enormous amount about Obama:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

            Re promises. Don’t like the way that the US political system works? Why not try a country without elections.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I scan documents for my own needs all the time. My default setting is 300 dpi in JPG or TIFF depending on how important it is and what kind of paper it’s printed on. I also bump up the resolution for any number of reasons if the font is small or any other details might need clear reproduction.

            I’m not POTUS and there is no way I would present any official or legal document that had been processed with any image altering compression of any kind once it had been signed or certified. To anyone. Plus I keep the original filed in case the scan is challenged. Anyone with rights to the document logically has a right to challenge a scanned image. And if there is potential for abuse, I apply the same standards to people that submit scanned copies of documents to me. It would be interesting to talk about various court venues and standards for document submission and to see which venues would accept or reject that PDF.

            It’s bad faith on behalf of POTUS.

      • kibitzer3

        So, smrstrauss, you shouldn’t mind if all the evidence regarding BHO’s BCs and the case for his ineligibility in the first place for not being a NBC should be given a chance to be heard in a court of law – a true, unbiased court of law – now should you? To be perfectly fair, and all that?? Both sides present their case, before a jury??? And let’s get it all out in the open????

        Thanks ahead of time for being so understanding. And desirous of the Truth to be served, in this matter.

        • smrstrauss

          Would you like to have a jury trial over whether 1+1=2 also?

          My point is that Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been shown OVERWHELMINGLY. There is absolutely no evidence that he was born anywhere else than in Hawaii, and the “it’s forged” nonsense comes only from birther zealots.

          The reason that no state district attorney is calling such a trial, and the reason that no congressional committee is investigating is because the effort would be DUMB—totally and completely dumb.

          For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

          (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

          (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

          (3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

          If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

          So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

          And birther sites have not even showed evidence that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961—and very very few 18-year-olds did. And they have not explained that EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirth. And yet they want gullible people like YOU to believe that there is a realistic chance—so there should be a trial—–that his mother was one of the very few 18-year-olds to have a passport, and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy—-and that the birth certificate of Hawaii is forged and the the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying about it.

          Now, turning to the “two parents required” myth. That cannot be settled by a jury. That has to be decided by appeals courts, and the US Congress, and both TEN appeals courts and the US Congress (by confirming Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY) have ruled that Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen. No court has ruled that he isn’t, and no court (not even Minor v. Happersett, which, btw, does NOT say what birthers think) has ever ruled that two citizen parents, or even one citizen parent are required to be a Natural Born Citizen when the person has been born on US soil. Birth on US soil is sufficient (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

          • Tray-Jay martin

            Was he really born of Kenyan stock? or was it some black nationalist biker knocking up his dummy-mummy whitey mommy?
            Obama don’t know who be his baby daddy. Dat’s the cover-up. Dat Obama don’t know who he be.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama’s legal father is stated on his birth certificate, and it is his legal father that counts legally. Unless a DNA test is conducted, no one, none of us, knows for sure who our “real” father is. The cover-up is that the media have never shown that, obviously, the real father of Mitt Romney was Harpo Marx. Notice the resemblance? Well, duh, the chance of Mitt Romney’s father not being the same as the name on his birth certificate is exactly the same, repeat, exactly the same, as Obama’s real father not being the same as the name on his birth certificate.

            But, if it turns you on to think that someone other than the atheist and drunk Obama senior was President Obama’s real father, well, you have the right to dream. I will continue to dream that Harpo was Mitt Romney’s real father.

  • Mach1Duck

    Obama, The Community Organizer, has built a house of cards and it is starting to fall apart. Unfortunately for him, he can only find so many fall-guys before someone of them starts to cry foul.

  • lilbear68

    IMHO this is in part from these their hinting or outright saying they would refuse to order troops to fire on US citizens engaged in constitutional protests
    remember the Kent State massacre

    • defcon 4

      I don’t think the order to fire on Kent State students came from higher up than the local chain of command (i.e. those present).

  • defcon 4

    Yeah, it’s just routine…right.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Even the aforementioned effort to “win the hearts and minds” of Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to pursuing victory, marks a sea change from traditional military values.

    That sea change began under Bush and continued under Obama, as both Republicans and Dhimmicrats alike are incredibly incompetent when it comes to the scourge of Islam, because for all intents and purposes both parties are really two sides of the same leftwing coin. For instance, the existence of Islamists as opposed to mainstream orthodox Muslims only exist in the minds of this writer and other people blinded by political correctness and inculcated through the mass media. Nevertheless, if there were a true right wing party in America, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage would be banned and reversed ASAP because it is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest.

    Nevertheless, it’s obvious that Obama wants to gut the military, not only to make it align with his unhinged self-hating worldview, but also to make it less of a threat to the current ongoing Marxist takeover of our country that is taking place without any opposition. Indeed, when are the people going to rise up? After Obama orders his leftwing commanders to come for our guns.

  • Minnalousha

    This is the Marxist endgame. They’ve always had the most trouble subverting the military, so they saved their biggest obstacle for last.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Benghazi is also a phony scandal. Right?

    • smrstrauss

      It was a mistake, a stupid mistake. US governments have made similar mistakes in the past. Any idea how many US embassies and consulates were attacked and how many hundreds of people were killed during the last three decades?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Any idea how many US embassies and consulates were attacked and how many hundreds of people were killed during the last three decades?”

        The argument is not that “embassies were attacked therefore 0′Bama is a loser.” There’s more to it than that.

        My summary is that 0′Bama was more concerned with offending our enemies with a response than he was in reacting to defend our interests (unless our highest need is to appease) and diplomats, and using a strong response as deterrent is simply something he’s not interested in because he wants to project weakness and openness to compliance. 0′Bama is the best friend any of our enemies could ever hope to have.

        POTUS is supposed to make people regret attacking us. He never does. Oh wait, he killed bin Laden. OK then. Then again he could hardly have stopped it.

        • smrstrauss

          Re: “My summary is that 0′Bama was more concerned with offending our enemies….”

          Answer: Your summary is nutty. It was simply a mistake.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It was simply a mistake.”

            Singular?

            What mistake?

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “What mistake?”

            Answer:

            Not providing adequate armed guards at the consulate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you’re OK with the real-time and post response? Business as usual?

          • smrstrauss

            If you are nutty enough to suggest that it would have been a good idea to send troops from Tripoli to Benghazi at night over roads on which they could be ambushed, well it is good that you are not in command. And, BTW, if they had tried to do it, it would still have taken 10-12 hours because the distance is more than 400 miles, and the roads are lousy..

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you are nutty enough to suggest that it would have been a good idea to send troops from Tripoli to Benghazi at night over roads on which they could be ambushed, well it is good that you are not in command.”

            Only if they had enough hay for the horses. We still have horses, don’t we?

            What are you? You’re just the guy to decide who the nuts are. Sure.

            “And, BTW, if they had tried to do it, it would still have taken 10-12 hours because the distance is more than 400 miles, and the roads are lousy..”

            What if they tried really really hard?

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “What if they tried really really hard?”

            Answer: It would STILL have taken 10-12 hours because the distance is more than 400
            miles, and the roads are lousy

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What if they tried really hard with an F16 with mud tires?

          • smrstrauss

            They did not have an F16 and in fact they did not have any plane available. Who told you that they did?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “They did not have an F16 and in fact they did not have any plane available. Who told you that they did?”

            Who told you that “they” didn’t? Was “it” being serviced?

            Leaving the entire Mediterranean unguarded is worse than f-ing up an embassy annex. And what about F18s?

            Excuses excuses excuses. It’s true we don’t have every detail of what their actual readiness was, but if they’re not lying, they’re a lot more incompetent than anyone has imagined so far.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Leaving the entire Mediterranean unguarded is worse than f-ing up an embassy annex. And what about F18s?”

            They were not in range. Nor was a gunship.

          • defcon 4

            How do you know?

          • smrstrauss

            It was discussed in the televised Congressional hearings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He asked how you know. You don’t know squat. You repeat talking points.

          • smrstrauss

            The Congressional Hearings had a session in which the military were asked whether there were forces in place that could have aided the consulate in Benghazi and one of the questions was whether jets from carriers could have been used, and the answer was that they could not because they were out of range. Other planes, from bases in Italy, were not ready and would have taken 20 hours to get to the target (see below).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Talking points memo

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • smrstrauss

            Re Aviano: TWENTY HOURS to get there

            “In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren’t deployed to Benghazi that night.

            “This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert,” Dempsey said. “They’re there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job.”

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Re Aviano: TWENTY HOURS to get there”

            So we’re back to wheeled transport again?

            “”This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert,” Dempsey said.”

            I’m supposed to react like a kid being chastised for expecting ice cream after bed time.

            “”They’re there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe…”

            Right.

            “…And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so…”

            Liar. Key phrase of the waffler; “or so.”

            “…to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job.”"

            Absolute BS. Wrong tool for which job? For making an arrest? For initiating an investigation? For a cover up operation?

            What complete BS.

            BUT….if we’re to take him seriously as something less than a liar, the greatest scandal so far is that 0′Bama has left us completely unprotected in the region and perhaps elsewhere. The scary thing is that this is just as believable as the smaller scandal theory that somehow 0′Bama was covering up a local issue like gun running to Syria.

            These responses may allow 0′Bama the serial liar to kick the can down the road, but just as the ACA web site had to go live one day, there will be a day when the hard evidence is available and the specifics of the treachery and incompetence will be in full view.

            And by the way, the answer is at best, the best I could do as an advocate for the administration that did not want to use outright lies to protect it is to suppose that the attacks did indeed come in waves and Clinton used very poor judgment in thinking that by not responding she would not be “escalating.” Better to show up afterwards is what leftist ideologs think. You know, since we have superior weapons we can’t use those. It would defy principals of social justice.

            That was extremely poor judgment and if that is the case, she should have fallen on the sword the next morning at the latest and given full disclosure.

            At this point, there are no valid excuses. We just need to run down the specifics of the failures. And even worse is that they might be covering up some thing or things that we haven’t even discovered yet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Re Aviano: TWENTY HOURS to get there”

            By the way, it’s a 1 to 2 hour flight depending on configuration. So 18 hours to get the plane launched? Because it’s the middle of the night? How many hours in a day? When ARE they prepared to launch? We only launch planes between 6 pm and 12 pm before putting them ALL in to 18 hr deep freeze? And we just happened to get caught at the worst possible moment?

            Do any of you have any math or reasoning skills?

            But but, but,..”wrong tool.”

            I got your tool right here.

          • smrstrauss

            That’s right. 18 hours to get the plane launched. Disagree? Well, he is an expert on the subject and you are NOT.

          • smrstrauss

            As I said, it was a mistake. What else is new? By the way, there were mistakes involved in all of these attacks on US embassies and consulates too:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As I said, it was a mistake. What else is new?”

            Just a glitch. What difference could it make? Democrats are beyond questioning. Glitches happen. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

            You’re a pack of tyrants and sycophants.

          • smrstrauss

            That’s right. It was a mistake. Not high crimes and misdemeanors. There were not sufficient guards at the consulate. People died. There have been many other attacks on consulates and embassies. In some cases 100 or more people died in a single attack. ALL such attacks and deaths are terrible. But they were caused by mistakes, not by treason.

            Re “pack of tyrants and sycophants.” Answer: I never call names. It doesn’t convince rational people. If there are any rational people reading this objectivefactsmatter is not discussing the facts—just calling names.

          • Christopher Tutt

            When you actually realize that your government doesn’t care about you or anyone else….

            http://www.progress.org/2007/01/09/nuclear-testing-government-lied-to-citizens-2/

            Open your eyes and actually see reality. You are SAD.

          • Drakken

            Silly libtard, that is why God invented effing cargo and fighter aircraft to get you where you need to go in a hurry. What a maroon.

          • smrstrauss

            Sure. However, we simply do not have them in every country around the world.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “However, we simply do not have them in every country around the world.”

            We have them in every NATO affiliate. We have them in Italy.

          • smrstrauss
          • Christopher Tutt

            Uhh they have planes… Planes that FLY……. Oh and wow you are a government shill, PURELY a sheeple, or you are just that blind. You enjoy your Obummacare and the idiot that is finishing the push to destroy this country and the constitution.

          • smrstrauss

            I repeat, we do not have them in every country in the world. Yes, we did have them in Italy, but it would have taken 20 hours to get them to the target:

            In February, the Joint
            Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte,
            R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren’t deployed
            to Benghazi that night.

            “This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert,” Dempsey said. “They’re there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as
            we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job.”

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/

            Even reports that claim that units could have gotten there faster since they were “rapid deploy” say that they could have gotten there in two hours.TWO HOURS! (It would have been all over.)

          • Christopher Tutt

            WTF?? Two HRS? Uhhh You do know that they were tortured for 6hrs +… Obumma and the like were all sitting back listening and watching it all happen. There were also aircraft carriers off the coast I do believe that could have gotten there in 2HRS… which would have been enough to help if not save our men.

            Apparently you are not in connection with the actual situation… Here get some intelligence behind you before you speak next time.

            Here is just a blog with a video that may “help” your message. Listen to him lie over and over again. This blog actually sums it up rather well.

            https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/the-world-is-watching-the-september-11-2012-benghazi-attack-obfuscation-and-deflection-infer-to-obama-administration-coverup-liberal-biasedobama-protectionist-media-continue-to-hide-facts/

          • smrstrauss

            The attackers were within the consulate walls within 15 minutes. The story of torture is false.

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

          • Christopher Tutt

            You all and your Snopes… LOL YOU ARE AN IDIOT not doing your own research and letting someone else do it for you. They don’t have access to any information that you do. Politically that site is FULL OF SH*T…

          • Drakken

            Well you did vote for this abortion in the white house so of course your going to buy into whatever this administration says like a good little libtard commi, bloody pathetic.

          • smrstrauss

            And you voted against him. Big deal.

    • Porkys2istan

      Why do people NOT read comments fully?

      I SAID that the Benghazi firings are the ONLY ones that seem legitimately political. It SEEMS like they are firing the people who warned ahead of time and the people who criticized Obama after.

      The other firings, though, just sound like the typical top brass losers when the services start cutting dead wood.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Before: “The only firings that sound remotely political are the Bengazi ones.”

        Now: “I SAID that the Benghazi firings are the ONLY ones that seem legitimately political. It SEEMS like they are firing the people who warned ahead of time and the people who criticized Obama after.”

        “The other firings, though, just sound like the typical top brass losers when the services start cutting dead wood.”

        You might be right. Some of course might be legitimate. Clearly at least some of them are not. It’s a developing story.

        • Tray_Jay martin

          Everybody knows that Obama’s got problems with Birth Cert…most blacks DO. Where was they born…who be the baby daddy? Basic fundamentals and most blacks just don’t know. That’s why they is always trying to discover their Roots.
          Another clue, obama was named barry Otero. Surely this was before the awakening of black culture…Shakila, Felatio, Kaminka, Sharinky, and Double-Do replaced more “white” names such as Barry, Leroy, and George-Washington Carver.
          Obama’s real name is Barry…that tells it all. Obama is a phony. He aint no revolutionary leader, he’s a cheap trick reading off a teleprompter. Like a street minstral singing the blues, old Barry ain’t actually HAD them. He just sing a good tune iffin’ he got the word in front of him.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama has shown his birth certificate from Hawaii twice, short form and long form, and the officials of BOTH political parties in Hawaii have repeatedly stated that they sent it to him and that ALL the facts on the copy that the White House has put online are exactly the same, repeat EXACTLY the same, as on what they sent to him. Obama’s real name is shown on that birth certificate, and it is Barack, not Barry.

            Re “He aint no revolutionary leader…”

            So?

            Re: “He just sing a good tune iffin’ he got the word in front of him.”

            Answer: Which is your way of saying that you do not like him. Well, you have the right not to like him. But who cares? 51% of the voters voted for him. That is what counts.

  • Hass

    It’d be interesting to know if any of these highly qualified services personal would or have already seeked to continue their military careers in other Western countries.

  • Charles_Martel

    I have a completely different take on these reliefs, most of which seem justified because of sexual misconduct, alcohol or other actions contrary to good order and discipline. Why weren’t the commanders of these nitwits also relieved for selecting them for their sensitive positions? No one knew that these guys weren’t up to the tasks they were given? What does that say about the judgement of the higher ups? I think this article provides more evidence that there is rot in the military senior ranks than in the Obama administration — although there is plenty of that.

  • richardcancemi

    Obama is eager to collapse this Country with a military coup. He is doing all he can to make people play into his hands and rise up in rebellion. This will be his excuse to declare Martial Law and he wants the Military on his side with Officers who will “obey” him and not the Constitution.
    Obama is a Marxist Globalist who cares not a bit for the USA as it is constructed under the Constitution. He deeds put the lie to his words and he must be seen for what he is, a traitor.
    I am reminded of a book I read wherein the Germans attempted to dig under the Allied trenches in WW I to place dynamite there to destroy their enemy in one fell swoop.
    This is akin to what the Progressives have been doing in undermining all of our Institutions and Obama is itching to light the fuse.
    I hope to God that the Military will remember their Oath to defend the Constitution and if or when the time comes, they will incarcerate this Enemy of the Republic and all his minions.
    The Military is the key to any revolution.
    Down with Obama and his supporters!
    Up with America and the Constitution!

  • Carl Thompson

    Here are the 2 issues: (1) we have DOUBLED the number of Flag Officer (Generals) billets since Vietnam. Jim Webb (former Senator from VA, Vietnam Marine) took the Pentagon for this a few years ago. We have WAY too many (2) The “new and improved” military can’t win a war, is grossly mismanaged, wastes money and gets people killed unnecessarily. They’d could fire 50 and not replace them and the military would be better off.

  • smrstrauss

    Re: “Gaddafi WAS LOVED by his citizens. He did not need an entourage of secret service people everywhere he went.”

    I’m sure that he was a truly loveable guy. Sweet and nice and never blew up any US servicemen’s clubs or planes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id313.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0223/Pan-Am-Flight-103-Qaddafi-ordered-it-bombed-says-Libyan-minister

  • Jason Buckwheat

    NOW YOU CAN SEE WHAT THIS A–HOLE IS DOING TO THIS GREAT COUNTRY, ANYONE WHO APPOSES THIS JERK AND STAND UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION IS GONE. SO CONGRESS IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO DO YOUR DUTY AND IMPEACH THIS SMOCK IMMEDIATELY AND BRING IT UP ON TREASON CHARGES . FOR ALL CORRUPTION THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN OUR GOVERNMENT WITH THIS BUM.

  • Jilli Brown

    So….incompetence can’t be the impetus for the firings…it has to be some ridiculous far-fetched conspiracy? Do you people ever tire of being played as rubes?

  • delahaya

    OMG. Just saw the tagline above “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out”. My best friend and I have been using this for years, but substituting dictator. Love it!

  • Conspiracy Bob

    Obama should remember he, as Commander-in-Chief, may be subject to the pains and penalties of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). The Constitutional definition of Treason is to: “… levy war on the United States, adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort”. Now, Jane Fonda and Bill Clinton did precisely this, but in lesser capacity, many years ago. Still, if I were Mister Big, I’d be a little more cautious.