Read this story and explain to me why we’re spending billions on a faux war on terror.
Obama is ordering the destruction of terror data bases and at the same time chiding the intelligence community for “not connecting the dots.”
Obama is giving speeches at mosques instead of ordering a nation-wide raid on every mosque on US soil. Why? Is it because the Saudis keep dumping bucket loads of cash into the Obama and Clinton Foundations? Yes, that’s true, but the corruption goes much deeper.
Please pull-up this site for a great expose’ by Frank Gaffney:
It should be a real interesting year:
1. The stock market is teetering with the US dollar in the balance and our national debt is soaring near $20 trillion.
2. Years of conflict have laid the groundwork for a regional / global war in the Middle East.
3. Obama is importing 250,000 “Syrian Dreamers” by end-of-the-year 2017 into the USA. What could possibly go wrong there?
4. A major candidate for President is under investigation by the FBI for any number of federal violations: Treason, abuse of the tax status of the Clinton Foundation, fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
I have serious doubts that we survive this period as a Constitutional Republic. I feel that it very possible that the United States of America simply walks away from the debt, repudiates the debt, is the formal term. Who knows what happens then?
I am supporting Trump primarily for his familiarity with high finance. Who understands the enormity of our debt and its consequences better than a guy who executes billion dollar deals for a living? Rand Paul is a great surgeon and constitutionalist and Ted Cruz may be one of the smartest people to ever hold public office, but can they handle the complex financial situation facing America in addition to the constitutional crises?
Some folks may counter that “experts” in finance can be hired to help a good president and Congress solve our financial problems. I might be way off-the-mark here, but who in the hell has put us in the shape we’re in? Last time I checked, a Marxist / Socialist / Fabian / Commie President, an out-of-control Congress and entrenched financial “experts,” mainly from Goldman Sachs, that’s who!
Trump is a proven leader and manager, has no allegiance to entrenched DC lobbyists and interests and has the requisite financial skills to preserve the Republic. I believe that a vote for any other candidate is like buying a lottery ticket.
I like my odds with Trump.
John P. Kuchta, Jr.
Would our Marxist / Socialist / Fabian / Commie Bastard-in-Chief start a war out in the wilderness when there is no life at risk and no property has been damaged? Of course Obama would!
Realize that this whole occupation began when a jury of their peers sent the pair of father and son Hammond family members to jail for three months. A federal prosecutor demanded that a federal judge impose a FIVE YEAR sentence on the father and son.
The Hammonds were doing a “Controlled Burn” on THEIR land when the wind shifted and 127 acres of adjacent federal land was scorched. The controlled burns clear-out dry undergrowth, it does not burn big timber. In essence, not a great deal of harm was done.
So, now we have armed citizens ready to confront a federal government that has gone completely off the reservation. If the head of the FBI, James Comey, doesn’t fly out there to negotiate personally with the armed citizens holding the wilderness outpost, then you can figure that Stewart Rhodes’ information is correct and that Obama plans to slaughter everyone who does not surrender.
No Presidential tears will be shed for any babies killed in the coming assault. Come to think of it, the numbers for 2014 just came out and Obama’s pet project, Planned Parenthood, executed 323,000 babies.
Who shed a tear for those lives lost? Certainly not Barack Hussein Obama.
John P. Kuchta, Jr.
Virginia Beach, VA
Oath Keepers Site
Oath Keepers Store
Join Oath Keepers!
National And State
Contact Oath Keepers
David Codrea’s Blog
Stewart Rhodes, Founder and President of
URGENT Warning on OR Standoff: Military Special OP Assets Have Been Assigned for Standoff. Get All Children Out of There Immediately
Oath Keepers has received very credible information from an active duty source within the special operations community that at least one SOD-X (Reserve/National Guard Special Operations Detachment, see this, this, and this) unit under the command of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has been tasked for this standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Reserve and moved to the area. Given this, we should expect that other special operations assets, such as Delta Force, will also be involved if the Obama Administration decides to give the green light on a military raid/strike. And we should expect the presence of the infamous FBI HRT (which were present at both Ruby Ridge and Waco).
Due to this, anyone who has children there, at the wildlife refuge, needs to get them out immediately, and DO NOT take any more children there for any reason (and we do know that some children, including a baby, have been seen there). We do not need to have the risk of dead children in this incident. It is unconscionable and immoral for anyone to place children at risk of being in the middle of a firefight or military raid/strike on the armed men holding that federal wildlife refuge. Now, of course, just because military special operations units have been sent to the area and are tasked with a possible action does not mean it will be done. It may not.
But we DO NOT trust the Obama Administration to do this right, which would be to handle it like the Montana Freeman standoff rather than the Waco standoff, and anyone who thinks that Obama wouldn’t dare drop the hammer on Ammon and his men is a fool. We hope “the adults in the room” in the Administration and in the federal LEO and military community will keep that from happening, but hope is not an operational plan. We don’t trust them, and you shouldn’t either, so:
Get, and keep, children off the friggin X.
This is not a “free speech” barbecue at Bundy Ranch with live music by Jordan Page. This is a whole different animal. Children have no business being there. In fact, there should be no non-combatants (no women and children) there at all.
This is not a family event. The only people there should be the armed men who are willing to die there with Ammon Bundy and his brothers and a couple of embedded reporters. If they want to put themselves at risk, that is their choice, but don’t have children there. If a dozen men die in a shootout, that is one thing, but if children die, there will be a civil war.
Short Oath Keepers Statement on this Standoff
I will post a longer statement later, but for now, here is a brief statement on this situation, in general:
Oath Keepers adamantly opposes the armed takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. This is not in keeping with the moral imperative of only using force in defense when people’s lives are at stake, as at Bundy Ranch in 2014. In this case, neither the Hammonds nor their neighbors were in imminent threat of being murdered, and neither the Hammonds nor their neighbors asked for any form of armed standoff.
In fact, they oppose it. This is being done by outsiders who mislead and deceived locals, deceived the Hammonds, and deceived the patriot movement by luring them in with a peaceful rally and then attempting to rope them into a premeditated, manufactured armed standoff.
Both Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne (who we suspect is an agent provocateur) told the locals in the Committee of Safety, at a public town hall meeting on December 15, that they, the locals on the committee, would be making the decisions on what was to be done, how, and when. That was a lie, as they were already staging their men and supplies in the area to takeover the wildlife refuge, and had already planned out this takeover of the federal facility at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.
By doing this, they have given Obama the best New Years present he could hope for – an example of militia movement/patriot aggression, which gives up the high ground while also having the least credibility and support from the locals possible, after lying to them, and also the least support from the patriot community, who were also blind-sided by Ammon and Ryan Payne.
However, as much as we oppose what Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne have done, we must warn the Obama Administration that it does not have free reign to “Waco” the people in this standoff by using deadly military force, such as an SOD-X, Delta Force, or the FBI HRT to kill them all. The Federal government must respect their right to due process and do all it can to end this standoff peacefully, without loss of life.
It must treat it like the Freeman standoff, not the Waco standoff. There will be no more free Wacos, as Mike Vanderbgh, Founder of the Three Percenter movement puts it. Treat this with kid gloves or risk a civil war.
Founder and President of Oath Keepers
Here’s another one of the stories that should be taking the headlines away from the silly political wars.
How into hell does the State Department revoke 9,500 visas, inform the DHS and DHS have no idea where the foreigners holding those revoked visas currently are?
The Obama administration cannot be sure of the whereabouts of thousands of foreigners in the U.S. who had their visas revoked over terror concerns and other reasons, a State Department official acknowledged Thursday.
The admission, made at a House oversight hearing examining immigrant vetting in the wake of major terror attacks, drew a sharp rebuke from the committee chairman.
“You don’t have a clue do you?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs.
Bond initially said the U.S. has revoked more than 122,000 visas since 2001, including 9,500 because of the threat of terrorism.
But Chaffetz quickly pried at that stat, pressing the witness about the present location of those individuals.
“I don’t know,” she said.
The startling admission came as members of the committee pressed administration officials on what safeguards are in place to reduce the risk from would-be extremists.
At issue is how closely the U.S. government examines the background of people seeking entry to the country, including reviews of their social media postings.
Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told committee members that such checks aren’t being done in an abundant manner, and he was not specific about when or how it would occur.
Lawmakers are trying to ascertain which safeguards are in place to ensure that extremists are not exploiting a variety of legal paths to travel to the United States.
One of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters came to the U.S. on a K-1 fiancee visa last year despite the fact that the FBI believed she was already radicalized.
Tashfeen Malik came to the U.S. on a K-1 fiance visa in July 2014 and passed multiple background checks and at least two in-person interviews, one in Pakistan and another after she married Syed Farook. FBI Director James Comey has said Malik and Farook communicated privately online about jihad and martyrdom before they married.
Lawmakers at times angrily pressed officials on why even public social media wouldn’t routinely be looked at for vetting those trying to enter the country.
“If half the employers are doing it in the United States of America, if colleges are doing it for students, why wouldn’t Homeland Security do it?” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass. “We don’t even look at their public stuff, that’s what kills me.”
DHS did launch three pilot programs specifically aimed at reviewing social media postings as part of the immigration vetting process.
“There is less there that is actually of screening value than you would expect, at least in small early samples, some things seem more ambiguous than clear,” Rodriguez told lawmakers Thursday. He said foreign alphabets frequently used in social media posts were a challenge to translate.
“We all continue to believe there’s a potential for there to be information of screening value … particularly in high risk environments,” he added.
Both DHS and the State Department are reviewing the process for vetting visa applications, including the K-1 program, and have been directed by the White House to create specific recommendations for improvements.
DHS is specifically reviewing policies on when authorities at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services can look at social media posts as part of the process for evaluating applications for certain visas.
“There are some legal limits to what we can do,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Wednesday. He added that he thinks reviews of social media should be done more often, but did not provide specifics.
During his opening remarks Chaffetz, said: “It is unclear how someone who so openly discussed her hatred of our country and way of life could easily pass three background checks. We need to understand how the breakdown happened with Malik and what we are doing to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Lawmakers have also pressed for changes to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows many citizens from 38 countries to travel to the United States without being subjected to the in-person interview required to receive a visa. Many fear that foreign fighters who carry western passports will be able to exploit that system to travel freely to the United States.
Earlier this month the House voted overwhelmingly to tighten controls on that program and require visas for anyone who has been to Iraq or Syria in the last five years. Security changes to the program were also included in the Senate version of a massive spending bill expected to be approved later this week
Every once in awhile, a story is revealed that screams for attention. The following account is one of those stories.
Three different federal agencies cleared the female SB shooter into America after reviewing her K-1 visa application.
She had posted pro-Muslim jihad rants on her social media accounts.
Unfortunately, perhaps treasonously, the feds can’t inspect a visa applicant’s social media posts.
I want you to think of this email when the next Americans are slaughtered!
Think about the 250,00 Syrian refuges who Obama wants to bring into our country by 2018.
John P. Kuchta, Jr.
Virginia Beach, VA
Tashfeen Malik reportedly passed background checks despite questionable social media posts
Published December 13, 2015
Tashfeen Malik, who along with her husband killed 14 people in Southern California, reportedly passed three background checks by American officials before she moved from Pakistan to the United States and none of them found her social media posts about jihad.
The New York Times reports U.S. law enforcement officials discovered old and previously unreported postings as they investigated Malik and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook. Immigration officials don’t usually check social media posts as part of their background checks, according to the newspaper.
Malik’s path to the U.S. immediately highlighted the U.S. government’s immigration vetting practices after she was identified as one of the attackers in San Bernardino, Calif. The Obama administration is reviewing the program, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Monday. He didn’t specify what changes were going to be made.
Johnson said it was too soon to tell if the government missed signs that Malik may have been radicalized before she was approved for her visa.
“That assumes, and this investigation is still under way, that there were flags that were raised or should have been raised in the process of her admission to the United States, and I am not prepared to say that and I’m not prepared to make that declaration,” Johnson said.
The K-1 visa program is among the smallest visa categories managed by the government. Of more than 9.9 million visas issued in fiscal 2014, just 35,925 — roughly 0.3 percent — were fiance visas, according to State Department figures.
Much of the focus is on rooting out marriage fraud. A couple must prove they have physically seen each other within the past two years, unless meeting in person would violate “strict and long-established customs” or cause an “extreme hardship.”
The applicants are subject to a vetting process that includes at least one in-person interview, fingerprints, checks against U.S. terrorist watch lists and reviews family members, travel history and places where a person has lived and worked. Social media include is rarely included.
Foreigners applying from countries recognized as home to Islamic extremists, such as Pakistan, undergo additional scrutiny before the State Department and Homeland Security Department approve permission for a visa. Malik had been living in Pakistan and visiting family in Saudi Arabia before she passed the background check and entered the U.S. in July 2014 with Farook, a U.S. citizen whose family was originally from Pakistan.
In the social media era, it seems impossible that something like a supportive tweet or post would go unnoticed during the vetting process. However, The New York Times reports the screenings are trade-offs as the try to lessen the threat of terrorism while keeping the border open for business and travel.
“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration, told The Times. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”
Malik was vetted by three separate American agencies before entering the country. First, Homeland Security checked her name against law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her application went through to the State Department, which reviewed her fingerprints against other databases and finally, she applied for a green card and was thoroughly reviewed once more.
When asked whether the refugee vetting process for Middle Eastern refugees included terror ties, lawmakers received three different Wednesday.
Lawmakers at three separate hearings, including at which FBI Director James Comey testified, demanded to know how she gained admittance, especially given discrepancies in her application.
“Was she actually given an interview in the K-1 process, do we know that?” Sen. David Purdue, R-Ga., asked the FBI boss during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing.
Comey replied that “the process requires” an interview, but that he didn’t know if one occurred.
An interview and a cursory check of Malik’s application might have revealed that she used a phony address and had attended an Islamist school in Pakistan which critics say forges an anti-Western view in students.
On the same day, Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told lawmakers in the Lower House no interview was required.
“We only interview people in the K1 visa program in cases where there is some issue that needs to be explored as part of the case,” Rodriguez said in response to a question from Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the House subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. “That could be derogatory information about the individual. It could be factual questions not necessarily derogatory about the application. That is the existing practice as we speak.”
Finally, a State Department official told yet another panel the screening process that allowed Malik into the U.S., where she paired with Farook to commit a massacre went smoothly and by the book.
“All applicable security checks were done for that individual, Ms. Malik,” said Edward Ramotowski, the department’s deputy assistant for visa services told another Senate panel. “That includes an immigrant visa interview, it includes facial recognition screening, it includes interagency counterterrorism screening, it included a review by the visa security unit of immigration and customs enforcement, which as a detachment in Islamabad in our embassy there and it included the full biometric fingerprint checks and in all cases, the results of those checks were clear. There were no indications of any ill intent by that individual at the time the visa was issued. “
Still, a debate continues at United States Citizenship and Immigration services agency over whether officials conducting interviews should be allowed to use social media information for interviews where they determine whether foreigners pose a security risk, according to The Times.
Search teams in San Bernardino are still trying to trace the digital footprints of Malik and Farook.
Divers scouring a lake in a San Bernardino park were searching for a hard drive that may have been thrown into the lake by the couple on the same day as the attack. Authorities wrapped up their search Saturday, recovering several objects but not revealing what they were.