Advertisements
Home

List Of 17 Generals/Admirals & High-Ranking Military Officials Purged By Dictator, Obama

1 Comment

Hat tip Mad Jewess.

What does Stalin and Obama have in common?

Answer a military purge.

What happens next with Obama?

 

 

List Of 17 Generals & High-Ranking Military Officials Purged By Dictator, Obama

We have heard little to no news about this Communist, statist type purge of our military generals and high ranking officials.  If a Republican president was carrying out a purge like this, would we not hear about it on the main stream media??

This is the list I received in my email this morning.  I believe this is completely accurate–if you find an inaccuracy, please post it.  Thanks.

1-General David Petraeus
2-Gen. John Allen US commander
3-US Army General Carter Ham
4-Gen. William “Kip” Ward..
5- Brigadier Gen. Jeffery A Sinclair
6-Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford
7- Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette
8-Navy Cmdr. Joseph Darlak
9- LTC Paula Broadwell
10-Marine General James Mattis
11-Gen. David McKiernan
12-Gen. Stanley McChrystal
13-Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright
14-Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina
15-Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus
16- Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant
17-Maj. Gen. Michael Carey

18- ‘Purge surge’: Obama fires another commander

See Stalin’s similar Purge of the Red Army all through the 30′s-early 40′s.

Hitler purged ‘enemies’ from his SA & from the German government (All those involved in having him arrested in 1924) in the Night of the Long Knives 

-David Ben Moshe

PS:   Just what did Obama accuse all of these big military men of doing?? If you are a Democrat, you need to realize that this is the destruction of your party.  Laugh all you wish about the GOP, but the Democrat party will forever be labeled ‘treasonous & totalitarian.’    Did these generals refuse to fire on Americans???

 

Advertisements

10 MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS OF 2012

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Government.

The Pharaoh of the corrupt Politicians is Barack Obama.

Or as Rush calls him Barack Kardashian Celebrity  of the World.

 

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2012 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

Dishonorable Mentions for 2012 include:

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL):

In July 2012, the House Ethics Committee, after a haphazard investigation, reported that Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) had omitted information on his financial disclosure formsover four years. However, the ethics committee took no action because once caught, Rep. Buchanan evidently corrected the “errors.” What, exactly, were the errors? In his disclosure statements for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, Buchanan failed to report all of his positions or ownership interests in six entities and income received from the entities.

In a separate matter, the committee continues to investigate findings of the Office of Congressional Ethics, Congress’s independent ethics review board, that there is“substantial reason to believe that Representative Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a proceeding before the FEC [Federal Election Commission].”

The alleged violation occurred during an FEC probe of Buchanan’s former business partner, Sam Kazran. According to Kazran, during the FEC probe, Buchanan offered him a $2.9 million settlement in a separate lawsuit if Kazran would lie about his role in a campaign cash laundering scheme involving Buchanan’s Florida car dealerships.  CNN reports that the FBI is now conducting its own investigation into possible federal witness tampering.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu:

The final decisions on Solyndra were mine,” said Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Committee on November 17, 2011. And this should be his political epitaph. Chu’s decision to pour $528 million tax dollars into a failing green energy boondoggle that went belly-up in 2011 is indefensible and corrupt, especially in light of the fact that Solyndra’s key investor (Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser) also happens to be a major Obama campaign donor.

On March 12, 2012, Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) Energy and Oversight Committee exposed the full extent of Chu’s incompetence and corruption in a report citing “numerous examples of dysfunction, negligence and mismanagement by DOE [Department of Energy] officials, raising troubling questions about the leadership at DOE and how it has administered its loan guarantee programs.”  The report accused Chu’s DOE of having “turned a blind eye to the risks that have been glaringly apparent since the inception of the program.”

Whether Chu indeed made the “final” decision on Solyndra, or is simply protecting the president and his donor, this is a scandal of a major magnitude. And yet, it is only the tip of the iceberg. As Peter Schweizer, author of the book Throw Them All Out wrote, “According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … In the 1705 government-backed-loan [green energy] program, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted … went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied about the events surrounding the Benghazi massacre. Hillary Clinton, the only First Lady to have been the subject of a grand jury investigation, is a regular visitor to our Most Corrupt list, while this is a first-time appearance for Ms. Rice.

One day after the attack, on September 12, 2012, Sec. Clinton said the following: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.” She then joined President Obama in taping a television ad apologizing to the Muslim world for the obscure video, spending a reported $70,000 in taxpayer funds on the ad buys.

And then Rice repeated the Benghazi lie, over and over again on every major television news network. Hillary Clinton’s and Rice’s lies about one of the most significant terrorist attacks since 9/11 are, perhaps, the scandal of the year out of this administration. Little wonder that in his October 2012 testimony Eric Nordstrom, a former a top security official in Libya who was criticized for seeking more security in Benghazi, felt compelled to tell the House Oversight Committee that conversations he had with people in Washington led him to believe that it was “abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”

He said he was so exasperated at one point he told a colleague that “for me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Attorney General Eric Holder:

A regular on our annual Top Ten Corrupt list, Holder shamelessly operates the most blatantly politicized Department of Justice (DOJ) in a generation. And, with the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, it is no exaggeration that his agency has blood on its hands.

Fast and Furious was a reckless DOJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gun-running” scheme in which guns were sold to Mexican drug cartels and others, apparently in the hope that the guns would end up at crime scenes. Well, they did – and it appears that the guns were involved in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens, as well as the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed in a shootout with Mexican criminals in December 2010. On December 5, 2012, CBS Newsreported that 17 DOJ and ATF officials had been faulted in an Inspector General investigation of the Fast and Furious scandal. But, the man at the top remains unscathed, even after becoming the first attorney general in history to be cited for criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to divulge documents about DOJ lies to Congress about Fast and Furious.

Every day that Eric Holder remains at the helm, the Department of Justice sinks further into the abyss of cronyism, corruption, and deceit. And it is well past time for him to go.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL):

On November 21, 2012, Rep. Jesse Jackson resigned from Congress in disgrace, acknowledging in his statement that he had made his “share of mistakes.” This may well be the understatement of year. Jackson has been under federal investigation for alleged campaign finance improprieties, including reportedly using donor dollars to remodel his home and purchase personal gifts, a potential criminal violation. Add to that the fact that Jackson was one of the major figures implicated in the massive scandal involving jailed former Illinois Governor Rod “Blago” Blagojevich, who was brought to justice in 2011 for a number of crimes, including his efforts to “sell” President Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder. The evidence strongly suggests Jackson was one of those bidders.

Because Jackson refused to resign before the November elections, Illinois taxpayers will now be faced with costs of a special election: estimated to cost $5.1 million.

The late great Chicago newspaperman Mike Royko famously said that the official motto of Chicago should be “Ubi Est Mea — Where’s mine?” Clearly, Jackson and his cohorts have taken this motto to heart.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ):

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) joins the Judicial Watch’s list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2012” in what might be considered a sort of “Lifetime Achievement Award.”

As far back as 2007, Sen. Menendez was investigated by a federal grand jury for illegally steering lobbying business to his former chief of staff Kay LiCausi, with whom he was also romantically linked. In just a few years, her firm reported $1.3 million in business with nearly $300,000 coming from a New Jersey medical center that was later awarded government funding thanks to a push from her former boss and lover.

In 2010, Menendez and his colleague in corruption, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), allocated $8 million for a public walkway and park space adjacent to upscale, waterfront condos built by a developer whose executives have donated generously to their political campaigns. The veteran legislators have received about $100,000 in contributions from the developer, according to federal election records. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the developer’s Washington D.C. lobbyist was a longtime senior aide to Menendez.

And to top it all off, in October 2012, The Daily Caller broke the story that two women from the Dominican Republic claimed that the senator had procured their services while on Spring Break at the luxurious Casa de Campo. Then in mid-December, the Associated Press revealed that Menendez employed an illegal immigrant as an unpaid intern in his Senate office who was a registered sex offender.

President Barack Obama:

Were there a “Hall of Fame” for broken promises, here is one that would get in on the first ballot: “Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency” (President Barack Obama, January 21, 2009). Instead of transparency and the rule of law over the past four years, we have witnessed the greatest expansion of government in modern political history and, consequently, an explosion of government secrecy, scandals, and abuses of power. Among the low-lights:

•     Illegal recess appointments: Perhaps former Attorney General Ed Meese and Todd Graziano summed it up best in their January 5, 2012, Washington Post guest commentary: “President Obama’s attempt to unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination) is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advice-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.”

  • Illegal immigration: In mid-June, Obama announced that by executive decree – and in apparent violation of his oath of office – his administration would stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. According to The AP, “the policy change … bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan …” Lest anyone doubt that Obama knew he was overriding the law of the land, in March, 2011, he said, “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
  • Unprecedented secrecy: Judicial Watch has had to file almost 1,000 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and nearly 100 lawsuits against the Obama administration on issues ranging from Obamacare to the continued funding of the criminal ACORN network; from tracking Wall Street bailout money to the unconstitutional use of czars; to White House visitor logs; to the attacks on the integrity of our nation’s elections.  This president touts transparency but condones law-breaking of open records laws by his administration.
  • Unconstitutional czars: As far back as 2009, Reuters reported, “Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a ‘czar responsible for tackling it.” By the time the Judicial Watch Special Report President Obama’s Czars was published in October 2011, the number of Obama czars had skyrocketed to 45. Largely unconfirmed by and unaccountable to the Senate, many of Obama’s czars are often outside the reach of FOIA.  Some of these czars exercise unprecedented and unconstitutional control over major aspects of government policy and programs. And a number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.

The list could go on ad infinitum – with Benghazigate, bailouts, abusing the perks of office for luxury vacations for his family, and, of course, his personal involvement in the Solyndra scandal. But the bottom line is this: The federal government under Barack Obama is off the rails and out of control. And now, with Obama having been given the “flexibility” of a second term, it can only be expected to get worse.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

A July 30, 2012, headline in the Las Vegas Review-Journal alerted Nevadans to Sen. Harry Reid’s latest influence-peddling scandal – this one involving ENN Energy Group, a Chinese “green energy” client of the Nevada law firm of which Reid’s son, Rory, is a principal.

As Reuter’s reported on August 31, 2012, “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

“Well below appraised value” is a considerable understatement. The deal Rory Reid put together for the firm his dad brought to town saw ENN purchase the site for just $4.5 million – a mere fraction of separate appraisals that valued the property at $29.6 million and $38.6 million. Even with all of that, however, the project has failed to move forward as rapidly as Harry and Rory Reid would like – for the simple reason that there is currently no market in Nevada for the green energy ENN claims it could produce.

But, of course, funneling money to the Reid family is nothing new for the Senate Majority Leader. As the Washington Post reported in a February 7, 2012, story titled “Public projects, private interests:”

In 2004 and 2005, the Senate majority leader secured $21.5 million to build a bridge over the Colorado River, linking the gambling resort town of Laughlin, Nev., with Bullhead City, Ariz. Reid owns 160 acres of undeveloped land in Bullhead City.

And according to Peter Schweizer, writing for Fox News on December 12, 2012, “Sen. Reid has sponsored at least $47 million in earmarks that directly benefitted organizations that one of his sons, Key Reid, [RW1] either lobbies for or is affiliated with.

Needless to say, the well-entrenched Sen. Reid has been a repeat Top Ten offender.

Rep. David Rivera (R-FL):

On October 24, 2012, the Florida ethics commission found “probable cause” that Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) had committed 11 violations of state ethics laws during his time in the Florida legislature. This comes amidst reports that Rivera remains under federal investigation over his personal and campaign finances. And, in a separate matter, the congressman is under investigation by the FBI for secretly funding the campaign of Justin Lamar Sternad, a candidate running against Joe Garcia in the Democratic primary earlier this year. Garcia defeated Rivera in the November election.

The “probable cause” findings stem from an investigation by the FBI and the IRS regarding Rep. Rivera’s dealings with the Flagler Dog Track, now known as the Magic City Casino. The basis for the investigation relates to payments reportedly totaling as much as $1 million made by the casino to Millennium Marketing in the guise of a consulting contract. Most of the money is said to have been paid in 2008. Millennium Marketing is owned by Rivera’s mother and godmother, and Rivera supposedly benefited from the arrangement, and is thus the subject of a tax evasion inquiry.

For a long time, Rep. Rivera denied ever receiving any income from the dog track, but just before heading to Congress, Rivera admitted receiving $132,000 in “undisclosed loans” from Millennium. He claims he paid the money back. Investigators are also taking a close look at Rivera’s campaign spending, including $75,000 he paid in 2010 “to a now-defunct consulting company owned by the daughter of a top aide.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius

On September 12, 2012, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius became the first member of the President’s cabinet in U.S. history to have been found guilty of violating the Hatch Act when she campaigned for the reelection of Barack Obama in her official capacity of Secretary of HHS. According to Politico, “During a speech to the Human Rights Campaign Gala in North Carolina in February, Sebelius . . . outlined the Obama administration’s accomplishments so far and said, ‘One of the imperatives is to make sure that we not only come together here in Charlotte to present the nomination to the president, but we make sure that in November he continues to be president for another four years.’”

After the speech, Sebelius tried to cover her tracks by reclassifying the event from “official” to “political,” and claiming her appearance was in her personal capacity. The scheme didn’t work.

According to the official statement put out by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: “The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) sent findings to the President today from its investigation of complaints of prohibited political activity by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. OSC concluded that Secretary Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made extemporaneous partisan remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity on February 25, 2012.  The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election.”

Thoroughly unapologetic, Ms. Sebelius justified her transgression by informing the OSC that she simply “got a little caught up in the notion that the gains which had been made would clearly not continue without the president’s reelection.” In other words, her Obamacare agenda took precedence over the law. Normally, when a government official is found violating the Hatch Act, the punishment is termination.  How did President Obama respond? There was no punishment whatsoever.

Dishonorable Mentions:

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

On May 31, 2012, a jury in the corruption trial of former U.S. Senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate John Edwards said that it could not agree on a verdict for five of six counts, and U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles was forced to declare a mistrial. But, while Edwards may have been partially exonerated (he was acquitted on one count), he was certainly not vindicated.

John Edwards conducted an illicit affair with campaign employee Rielle Hunter that resulted in the birth of their daughter. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Edwards reportedly persuaded his former political aide Andrew Young to claim that he was the father of the child, and not Edwards. The ruse failed and Edwards was forced to admit to the whole sordid mess. The focus then shifted to whether Edwards unlawfully diverted campaign funds to hide the affair.

Edwards denies the claim, but according to witness testimony Hunter and Young received nearly a million dollars in “hush” payments from philanthropist Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and Texas billionaire Fred Baron, two campaign donors who did not want to see the scandal derail Edwards’ pursuit of the White House. According to an excellent analysis by Hans Von Spakovsky at the Heritage Foundation, the money paid to Edwards’ mistress was “dishonest, dishonorable, and illegal:”

“Federal law…prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to any personal use (2 U.S.C. §439a). Most important, FEC regulations state that the payment of a personal expense by any person other than the candidate is considered a contribution to the candidate, unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy (11 CFR 113.1). As the FEC said in a prior advisory opinion (AO 2008-17), the key question is, ‘Would the third party pay the expense if the candidate was not running for Federal office?’”

In short, John Edwards may have eluded the reach of the law. But, in the courtroom of public opinion he remains one of the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2012.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY):

Though Staten Island’s Rep. Michael Grimm managed to eke out a reelection victory on November 6, it wasn’t because he had failed to supply his opponent with serious issues of campaign corruption. During the race, Grimm was the subject of an FBI investigation into allegations that his 2010 congressional campaign had accepted contributions over the legal limit and from noncitizen donors via Ofer Biton, a former aide to a prominent Israeli rabbi, in exchange for helping Biton obtain a green card.

According to ABC News, “In early 2012, the New York Times reported that Grimm, a devout Catholic and former agent for the FBI, allegedly accepted illegal donations from members of an Upper East Side rabbi’s congregation. Ofer Biton, an Israeli citizen and a top aide to the prominent Orthodox rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, came under investigation by the FBI over allegations that Biton embezzled millions of dollars from the congregation. It is said that while campaigning with Biton, the Grimm campaign collected over $500,000 in campaign contributions.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano:

According a Gallup Poll, a full 62 per cent of the American people believe that stopping illegal immigration should be a top priority of the U.S. government. Unfortunately for the American people, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is not numbered among that 62%. And she is the person who is supposed to be enforcing the law. Last year, Napolitano opened the floodgates of illegal immigration by having the Department of Homeland Security review all cases then before the immigration courts with an eye towards halting the deportation of many illegal immigrants allegedly with no criminal backgrounds. (JW uncovered records demonstrating this to be an utter lie. Many of the illegals let off the hook were convicted of violent crimes.)

Not satisfied with skirting the law in 2011, Napolitano decided to abandon it altogether in 2012. Accordingly, on June 15, 2012, she announced: “By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.”

In short, this amounted to blanket “temporary” amnesty for illegals under the age of 30. With her single statement, she simply declared upwards of one million illegal aliens entirely legal. Just like that. No legislation. No debate. No votes. No court rulings. The Constitution of the United States notwithstanding. And, in so doing, she violated the Oath of Office she had taken when sworn in as secretary of Homeland Security on January 21, 2009: “I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Gen. David Petraeus:

General Petraeus was forced to resign after news leaked of his long-term extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a writer and military analyst who penned a Petraeus biography. Compounding the scandal are questions involving whether Petraeus’ mistress had improper access to classified information from the nation’s top spy. At the University of Denver on July 28, Broadwell said, “I had access to everything, it was my experience not to leak it, not to violate my mentor, if you will.”

There is also a major question about whether Petraeus misled Congress about the Benghazi attack in his initial congressional testimony. On September 14, just days after the attack on the consulate, Petraeus briefed congressional intelligence leaders, reportedly telling them he believed the attack was spontaneous and not carefully pre-planned. Yet on Friday, November 16, in private hearings before Senate and House intelligence committees, Petraeus changed his story. According to Fox News: “Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to [New York Rep. Peter] King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA):

Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that Elizabeth Warren gave false statements under oath regarding Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) activities when she served as the agency’s interim director. According to the records, Warren and the CFPB were intimately involved in brokering a 50-state settlement underway with the nation’s largest mortgage lenders related to alleged improper foreclosure procedures. This evidence seems to contradict Warren’s statements before Congress suggesting her officeresponded to requests for advice, but did not seek to push its views.

During a March 16, 2011, hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Ms. Warren downplayed her agency’s involvement in the state settlement negotiations: “We have been asked for advice by the Department of Justice, by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by other federal agencies. And when asked for advice, we have given our advice.”

But this does not come close to telling the full story.

Emails obtained by Judicial Watch from several states suggest her agency’s participation was far more intense and aggressive. Warren called emergency meetings by phone and in person with attorneys general nationwide to contribute unsolicited input on the matter. The documents also indicate that Warren’s office insisted on keeping its contact with the state attorneys general secret. For example, in a February 25, 2011, email to the Executive Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Madigan wrote: “Elizabeth Warren would like to present the CFPB’s view on loan modifications.” Two weeks earlier, a similar email was distributed to NAAG’s Loss Mitigation Subgroup on Warren’s behalf. In an email on February 15 regarding that meeting, Madigan points out that “The CFPB wanted me to stress the confidential nature of this briefing.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA):

In early December, Democrats chose the scandal-plagued Rep. Maxine Waters to be the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee despite her many transgressions over the years. The influential congresswoman has helped family members make more than $1 million through business ventures with companies and causes that she has helped, according to her hometown newspaper.

In August 2010, Waters’ influence peddling earned the attention of a subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee which charged Rep. Waters with three counts of violating House rules and ethics regulations in connection with her use of power and influence on behalf of OneUnited Bank. After a highly controversial investigation, plagued by accusations of impropriety and corruption, on September 12, the committee failed to hold Waters to account for steering a $12 million to OneUnited, in which she and her board member husband held shares.

The Financial Services Committee, among other responsibilities, has jurisdiction over all issues pertaining to; you guessed it, the banking system.

Woman in Petraeus scandal visited White House

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Does anyone beside me smell a Chicago Rat?

I have always had questions.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The two women at the center of David Petraeus’ downfall as CIA director visited the White House separately on various occasions in what appear to be unrelated calls that did not result in meetings with President Barack Obama.

A White House official said Paula Broadwell, who was writing a book about Petraeus and eventually became his paramour, attended meetings in June 2009 and June 2011 on Afghanistan-Pakistan policy in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is located on the White House complex not far from the West Wing.

Florida socialite Jill Kelley, who initiated the investigation that ultimately unveiled Petraeus’ extramarital affair, and her twin sister had two “courtesy” meals at the White House mess as guests of a midlevel White House aide in September and October, the official said. Kelley and her family also received a White House tour on the weekend before the election.

Their White House visits, while not at the top levels of the government, illustrate the wide-ranging access both women enjoyed.

Petraeus acknowledged his affair with Broadwell last Friday and resigned. The affair was discovered in an FBI investigation initiated after Kelley turned over anonymous emails that had been sent to her and Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Kelley was a friend of both Petraeus and Allen and had become a social liaison between the Tampa civilian community and the military at MacDill Air Force Base.

One anonymous email, ultimately traced to Broadwell, warned Allen to stay away from Kelley. FBI agents ultimately found emails between Petraeus and Broadwell that lead them to believe the two were having an affair.

Kelley did not meet with Obama or any senior White House officials during any of her visits, said the official, who insisted on anonymity because the visitor records have not yet been made public.

The official said the White House aide who hosted Kelley met the Kelley family at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa. The official would not identify the aide.

Kelley boasted about her White House visits in emails to acquaintances.

In an email to a Tampa Bay Times reporter on Sept. 28, published by the newspaper, Kelley wrote: “Btw I was made the (honorary) Ambassador to US Central Command’s Coalition!” she told a Times reporter in a Sept. 28 email. “In addition to that, I was just recently appointed to be the Honorary Consulate General to South Korea! I’m in DC today — just left from breakfast at the White House. . . . I really hope to see you soon!”

And days before the Petraeus scandal broke, Kelley emailed Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn: “I was at the WH with my friends in the Administration this weekend — the stress was surreal!” she wrote. “But glad POTUS has been reelected!”

As for Broadwell, she at no time set foot in the Executive Mansion and had no opportunity to see Obama, the official said.

Her June 2009 visit was to meet a national security staffer working on Afghanistan-Pakistan policy matters. In the June 2011 visit, Broadwell was one of 20 participants in a broad briefing on Afghanistan-Pakistan policy. That meeting occurred shortly before Obama delivered a national address announcing the start of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

The official said that meeting was not listed in public White House visitor logs because it met a national security exemption to White House disclosure policy.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/woman-in-petraeus-scandal-visited-white-house/#ixzz2CQZl5iSo

 

Republicans voice frustrations on Libya, as intel officials make rounds on Hill

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

Obama and company have been lying their a$$es off.

They knew from the beginning it was a terrorist attack.

Yet for weeks they said it was do to some YouTube movie.

The DemocRats and the lap dog media is circling the wagons for Obama.

 

Republican lawmakers, after struggling for weeks to get answers on the Libya terror attack, ripped into the Obama administration Thursday — with one congressman claiming officials “lied to the American people.”

Tempers boiled over as the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing with several analysts, though none would be considered key figures in the administration’s Benghazi attack response. A few officials with inside knowledge were briefing select lawmakers behind closed doors Thursday; and in a win for lawmakers, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify next month.

But the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing swiftly became a venue for lawmakers to voice their frustrations and lob accusations at the administration. Lawmakers sparred early and often, with Democrats accusing Republicans of turning a tragedy into a “political football” and Republicans accusing the administration of hiding the truth.

“This administration has lied to the American people about this tragedy,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said. “The arrogance and dishonesty in all of this is breathtaking. Let’s not stonewall this issue and cover up mistakes, which seems to be what is going on today.”

Lawmakers continue to express concerns on several fronts — on whether warnings in the months preceding Sept. 11 were ignored, and on why the administration first insisted the attack was a “spontaneous” act.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., also suggested the U.S. was ill-prepared for the threat posed in eastern Libya on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. “Somebody forgot to circle the calendar on 9/11,” he said.

While lawmakers sparred on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House and Senate intelligence committees were both holding closed oversight hearings Thursday where a roster of top-ranking intelligence and other officials were set to testify. These include Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, who was tapped to replace David Petraeus after he resigned last Friday.

Petraeus, though, has agreed to speak to the intelligence committees about Libya, with back-to-back appearances before the House and Senate panels scheduled for Friday morning. Those, too, will be closed to the public.

While the round of closed hearings is a start, other lawmakers are calling for a more robust inquiry into what happened before, during and after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which left four Americans dead.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and two other Republican colleagues on Wednesday called for the creation of a “select committee” to investigate Benghazi.

“Let me be clear: There is no credibility among most of us concerning the administration and the numerous controversies and contradictions that have been involved in their handling of this issue,” McCain said, at a lengthy news conference on Capitol Hill.

McCain was joined by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., in calling for a temporary Senate committee established specifically to investigate Libya. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid later said he would not support their proposal.

Though the administration has urged lawmakers to wait until an internal review is completed, lawmakers have raised a litany of questions about the attack.

The latest dispute centers on U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who repeatedly said the attack was spontaneous on five Sunday shows after the attack despite other officials preparing to call it terrorism. Obama, in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism “outrageous” and told those lawmakers to “go after me.”
Graham responded: “Mr President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack.”

Though Petraeus is embroiled in a scandal over an extramarital affair — which led to his resignation — he is not expected to address that when he speaks to lawmakers Friday. Rather, he will stick to Libya.

Lawmakers want to know, among other things, about a trip Petraeus took to Libya the week of Oct. 31. They are curious about a report that was put together summarizing his meetings and which may include details of his personal interviews with the CIA station chief in Benghazi about the attack. A State Department consulate, as well as a CIA annex, came under heavy fire that night.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/15/lawmakers-dig-for-answers-on-libya-in-round-public-private-hearings/#ixzz2CLPhaqrp

 

Send the U.S. Marshals to Force Hillary and Petraeus to Testify

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Sadly I do not see this happening.

The media and DemocRats are circling the wagons to protect Obama.

Hillary and Petraeus should have to testify but the will not.

If they do there will be nothing shocking revealed.

They will continue the covering Obama’s a$$ story.

 

Why is it that only Republicans seem to be dragged before Congress to testify when there is the specter of a crime being committed? Or when Democrats do appear, they feign ignorance, pass the buck, and just refuse to cooperate like Eric Holder and “Fast and Furious.”

I can think of the Watergate Hearings that went on for weeks. The hearings were televised. Millions of people watched them. Dozens went to jail. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign.

Then there was Oliver North. He was dragged through the muck of hearings in order to embarrass Ronald Reagan. Fortunately for the conservative world, Lt. North made minced meat of his interrogators.

Now we come to the latest Obama scandal that’s finally getting press attention because sex is involved. Charles Krauthammer said the following On Fox News Special Report:

“In an odd way and sort of discouraging way, now that the story is attached to a sex scandal, it will become a story that will be pursued by the media as were not pursued before.”

The David Petraeus resignation is not just about sex. It’s a National Security issue with a sexual component. The media will use the sex angle to divert attention from the real issues of the possible breach of National Security, the laxed attitude that is now present at the highest levels of government that started with Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair and opening the military to homosexuals.

Liberals don’t consider extra-marital affairs a big deal. Liberal commentator Bill Press is a perfect example:

“Let me just tell you flat out I don’t think he (Petreaus) should have resigned. I don’t think he should have been forced to resign. He wasn’t forced, it was his decision. I don’t think he should have resigned. I think it’s sad that we lose the services of so great a man over an extramarital affair.”

The military has strict rules regarding sexual relationships. A breach of trust is a big deal in any relationship, especially when people with power over our lives are involved and when military and classified documents are involved.

Something is unsettling about the timing of the resignation and Petraeus’s involvement in the Benghazi investigation. ABC News reports:

In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.

Is there a relationship between what C.I.A. Director Petraeus found out in his investigation and his abrupt resignation? Did the Obama Administration in the use of Chicago-style politics have something else on the Director beyond his admission of infidelity? Was he told, “Either resign or we’ll make all the investigative files from the FBI known to the public.” Would his military pension be affected? We don’t know.

That’s why Petraeus and Hillary Clinton must be forced to testify. Congress should send out U.S. Marshals and bring back Hillary from her wine and cheese tasting vacation in Australia with friends so she can testify on what she knows about Benghazi as well as Petraeous and what he learned from interviews he conducted in Tripoli.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8083/send-the-us-marshals-to-force-hillary-and-petraeus-to-testify/#ixzz2CF24EDWo

Petraeus, Benghazi, and the Naked Cover-Up

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

What did Petraeus know about Benghazi and when did he know it?

Why not force Petraeus to testify?

What did Obama know about the affair and when?

David Petraeus was scheduled to testify today about the Benghazi massacre and Administration cover-up. But now he is not going to. Allegedly he got naked with someone other than his wife. He confessed to this affair in a letter of resignation he submitted to President Obama on Thursday (the same day Fox News reported Congress would call on him to testify), asking to resign “for personal reasons.” Yesterday, President Obama accepted his resignation. He is suddenly no longer director of the CIA.

But if he was the director at the time of the Benghazi incident, and if he has been briefed up until now, why shouldn’t he be the one to testify? Does Congress’ summons not apply to him if his job title changes?

An added factor is that, at this stage in the reporting, we are told that Petraeus volunteered the information about his affair, but we are also told that it was uncovered by others:

“CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday after admitting to an extramarital affair — an affair with his biographer that was revealed over the course of an FBI investigation, Fox News has learned. The FBI had been investigating an unrelated and much broader case before stumbling on the affair. Fox News has learned that during the course of this investigation, the name of biographer Paula Broadwell came up. The FBI followed that lead and in doing so, uncovered his affair with her. The FBI for some time was concerned that perhaps Petraeus was some sort of victim, but there has been no evidence discovered to back up such concerns.”

On its face, this is a naked cover-up. Why would the FBI expose Petraeus? I realize that there are good security reasons (as well as moral ones) to forbid people involved in national security to have affairs. But does anyone think those rules are actually applied to people with real power? I have a hard time believing that.

And would Obama think this was a reason Petraeus would have to resign? Supposedly, Petraeus has a deep sense of honor that makes him do this. But if that sense of honor didn’t keep him from the affair, why would it make him resign afterward?

The timing of this is just too perfect. Nothing is discovered until after the election but before testimony is given to Congress. One theory is that the Obama Administration is behind the revelation that Petraeus was having an extra-marital affair because they were angered that he said things about Benghazi that cast doubt on their story. But if that is the case, why wouldn’t Congress still want to hear Petraeus’ testimony? What is to keep them from calling him to testify even if he is no longer the Director of Central Intelligence?

I have to wonder if the Obama Administration is telling Petraeus that he had better keep his story in line with theirs or else his lover is going to be charged with espionage.  Thus:

“Meanwhile, law enforcement sources told NBC News that the FBI is currently investigating Petraeus’ biographer, who had extensive access to the general, for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information. The sources emphasized that Petraeus was not under investigation and added that they did not believe the investigation into author Paula Broadwell would result in criminal charges.”

Of course, the other possibility is that Petraeus doesn’t really want to testify. Maybe he has some involvement he doesn’t want to come to light.

There is no way of knowing yet what is true, but all this strongly indicates that what happened in Benghazi is extremely important and that the White House is vulnerable. It is very hard to believe this resignation is a naked coincidence.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8015/petraeus-benghazi-and-the-naked-cover-up/#ixzz2Bxs744CE

CIA DIRECTOR PETRAEUS RESIGNS OVER ‘AFFAIR’

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Peace.

Something is not Kosher here.

Why just two days before his testimony Petraeus resigns.

Why didn’t the news of this alleged affair break before now.

Why two days after Obama’s reelection did this happen.

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, General David Petraeus, the CIA Director, has resigned from the administration over an extramarital affair. Petraeus was slated to testifybefore Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, “With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be ‘stunned’ by the announcement.”

He sent a letter to his colleagues stating:

Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours …

This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.

President Obama issued this statement:

David Petraeus has provided extraordinary service to the United States for decades. By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end. As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he has continued to serve with characteristic intellectual rigor, dedication, and patriotism. By any measure, through his lifetime of service David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger.

Today, I accepted his resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I am completely confident that the CIA will continue to thrive and carry out its essential mission, and I have the utmost confidence in Acting Director Michael Morell and the men and women of the CIA who work every day to keep our nation safe. Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work. I wish them the very best at this difficult time.

This is only the latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.

The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.

The fact that an American drone was fired upon in international airspace by Iranian airplanes was hidden from the American public for a week in order to prevent the American public from recognizing the failure of the Obama Iranian foreign policy.

The facts in Benghazi were lied about by virtually every member of the Obama administration for weeks upon weeks.

The fact that the administration had been slow-walking reams of vital regulation to beyond the election in order to avoid scaring off voters was hidden from the public.

Now that the Obama administration has succeeded in winning a second term, they are cleaning house. The two figures most linked to the disaster in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Petraeus, are gone. The figure most linked with Fast and Furious, Eric Holder, will be gone. The figure most linked to the administration’s economic failures, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, will be gone.

Only Obama remains. He ran out the clock on his scandals, and now throws anyone associated with them overboard.

The Petraeus resignation is only the most recent evidence that the Obama administration will lie to the American people to achieve its ends. But with all of his experts gone, Obama’s cabinet will now be staffed by the political C team in a time of crisis, both domestically and internationally.

 

CIA Director Throws Obama Under The Bus

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

There is no doubt in my mind Obama is the one who said No.

The only other possibility is Valerie Jarrett said No to the request for help.

 Jarrett tried to talk Obama into waiting before ordering Bin Laden killed.

2008-04-general-david-petraeus

 

 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that anyone at the CIA refused to assist and give support to former Navy SEALs who requested it three times, as referenced in emails that have come out, as the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was being attacked on the night of September 11.

Jake Tapper, tweeted on Friday:

CIA spox: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

 

William Kristol at The Weekly Standard writes,

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision.

Even CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied that the CIA turned down support stating,

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

A local reporter in Denver, Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV, asked Barack Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for support. Although Obama implied that he had known about the attacks are they were happening, he completely dodged the question, giving a ‘non-answer.’

On Friday The State Department cut off questions from reporters about Libya during a press briefing in Washington. The only one talking now, at least it seems until after the election, is Petraus who has been directly implicated by charges that the CIA would not offer support and so that has left him with one option and that is to point to the one man where the buck stops, whether he likes it or not, Barack Obama.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/cia-director-throws-obama-under-the-bus/#ixzz2AZHFmhjO

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/cia-director-throws-obama-under-the-bus/#ixzz2AZH4SJYI

 

Awlaki family files suit against US government over drone strikes

Leave a comment

 

This is from Fox New Politics.

I have mixed feelings on these drone strikes against Americans.

But by the same token they sided with our enemies.

They had vowed to kill Americans and attack American citizens.

So they deserved to die.

Relatives of three U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes in Yemen last year, including radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, are suing the U.S. government for targeting the terrorism suspects “without due process.”

The wrongful death lawsuit, filed Wednesday, claims that the killings of U.S. citizens al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and operative Samir Khan were unconstitutional. Khan was the publisher of the terror magazine Inspire.

The complaint, prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights, was filed against four senior national security officials: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus and senior commanders of the military’s Special Operations forces, Adm. William McRaven of the Navy and Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel of the Army.

The lawsuit says: “The U.S. practice of ‘targeted killing’ has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Philippines.”

“These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts. … The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law,” the lawsuit says.

Anwar al-Awlaki, though, was considered a dangerous enemy of the United States linked to several attempted attacks and plots.

President Obama said after his death that Awlaki “took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans.”

Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, and Khan, a naturalized U.S. citizen whose family lived in Charlotte, N.C., were killed Sept. 30, 2011, during a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman, who was born in Colorado, was killed in a separate strike on Oct. 14.

Click here to read the lawsuit

 

%d bloggers like this: