Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Special Forces Denied Cross Border Authority in Benghazi

Special Forces Denied Cross Border Authority in Benghazi

by 02) Chip Jones on June 9, 2013
The Benghazi investigation is mired in misinformation and inaccurate questioning. While the Congress pursues the question of a mysterious “stand down order”, the pursuit of administration responsibility remains dead in the water, and lazy pundits continue to write about a cover-up that pales in comparison to this administration’s abandoning two warriors to die on a lonely rooftop in Benghazi.
Are our Congressional investigators naïve, or are they part of a vast conspiracy to hide a simple truth from the American people about the decisions made & not made that fateful night?
You see ladies & gentlemen, in order for a “stand down” to be given, an order has to be given to ready those soldiers to “stand down” from. Here lies the crux of administration’s failures the night of Sept. 11, 2012.
No “stand down” order was ever issued, because the request for an order to engage in a foreign land was refused to begin with!
To initiate offensive military operations in a foreign country, law requires a Presidential order commonly referred to a Cross Border Authority or CBA. In the absence of cross border authority being granted directly by the President, no military operation could be initiated, including the commitment of troops to secure or rescue personnel from Special Mission Benghazi.
It is well known that a distress signal went out from the CIA Annex before it was attacked. That distress signal, Tango Mike Mike, is used universally by our special operation forces and is used in remembrance of Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez, who received the Congressional Medal Of Honor for gallantry single-handedly rescuing an embattled and overwhelmed Green Beret detachment during the Vietnam War. He was known, fondly, as “That Mean Mexican”, and his call sign was “Tango Mike Mike”.
It is a matter of honor for our Special Forces to respond to “Tango Mike Mike”, and this author has no doubt that Special Forces troops were prepared to go on the offensive in Benghazi.
It has been sparsely reported that a Special Forces Alpha Team bordered a C-130 Spectre and awaited “authority” to commit to Benghazi. It is likely they were staged at the order of SOC-AFRICA (Special Operations Command for Africa) with the approval of AFRICOM (The geographic Combat Command for Africa).
I am personally challenging the Congressional investigators to ask the following  three questions:
  1. Was Cross Border Authority requested by our operation commanders assigned to North Africa?
  2. Which particular Officer requested it?
  3. Was Cross Border Authority granted?
The answers to these three questions lead responsibility directly to the Commanders in Africa, and ultimately to the President, who is the only one tasked with issuing cross border authority.
And to those same Congressional investigators, I am issuing this warning: If you fail to ask these three simple questions, you are each as guilty as this President of leaving Ty Woods and Glen Doherty dead on that lonely rooftop so far from home…..Equally as guilty of cowardice…Equally as guilty of dereliction of duty.
Listen  to Conservative Report Radio Dec. 7, 2012 starting at 18 minutes and 40 seconds

Tango-Mike-Mike: History of Special Force Operations & Inaction in Benghazi


Listen to internet radio with Conservative Report on BlogTalkRadio

Bill O’Reilly Wants To Destroy Your Faith In Jesus And The Bible

 

AND FOX NEWS LET HIM INTERVEIW SATAN Bill O’Reilly Wants To Destroy Your Faith In Jesus And The Bible

“But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time…” Jude 1
Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly does not believe that the bible is true or trustworthy, and in his new book “Killing Jesus”, he explains why. O’Reilly also says that, after casting doubt on the entire New Testament and mocking the words of Jesus, that the “Holy Spirit inspired him to write it”.
Imagine that.
bill-oreilly-killing-jesus-bible-mocker-catholic-fox-news-antichrist-liar
“This is best available evidence according to Bill,” O’Reilly responded.
From NewsMax: Bill O’Reilly didn’t become the most popular personality in cable television news by being noncontroversial. And he told CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday that he wasn’t afraid to spark controversy in his new historical thriller, “Killing Jesus.”
Though he used the New Testament’s four Gospels as source material, he left out parts he doesn’t believe happened as written. For instance, Jesus didn’t say, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” from the cross, the Catholic O’Reilly maintains. It wouldn’t have been physically possible, he said.
“You die on a cross from being suffocated,” he said. “You can hardly breathe. We believe Jesus said that, but we don’t believe he said it on the cross because nobody could have heard it.”
People have a right to take the Bible literally, he said, but in the case of “Killing Jesus,” he was trying to be historically accurate. He never says in the book that Jesus was the Son of God because his book is not intended to be religious.
“So is this the Gospel according to Bill?” asked “60 Minutes” correspondent Norah O’Donnell.
“This is best available evidence according to Bill,” O’Reilly responded. 
The most important thing he learned while writing the book was that Jesus of Nazareth became the most famous human being who ever lived, yet he had no infrastructure. He had no government, no public relations expert, no money and no structure, O’Reilly said.
“It’s never been done.”
“Killing Jesus,” follows two other best-sellers by the former high school history teacher, “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy,” about two U.S. presidents assassinated a century apart. He writes the books with a co-author who does extensive historical research. O’Reilly uses the material to rewrite a fast-moving, compelling story.
He admits the titles are sensational, but explains that’s the only way to be heard in the marketplace. ”I just want to write about important things in a very entertaining way,” he said. “That’s the formula.”
While the book isn’t religious, O’Reilly is. He says he was inspired to write “Killing Jesus” by the Holy Spirit. He says he just woke up in the middle of the night and thought, “Killing Jesus.”
Asked by O’Donnell why the Holy Spirit would mark him as “the chosen one,” O’Reilly denied any such title. Instead, he said, he is “just one of many who have been given the gift. I can write and I can bloviate on TV.”
O’Reilly now makes more than $20 million a year through Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” a syndicated column and a live tour he does with comedian Dennis Miller. Two of O’Reilly’s third-grade classmates told O’Donnell he used to get the whole class in trouble by arguing with the nun who taught the class.
“Ain’t America great?” O’Reilly responded. “I was a little thug, and now I’m getting paid millions of dollars for being a big thug.” source – NewsMax

8 Most Hilarious and Unsettling Obama-as-Deity Metaphors OBAMA IS NOT GOD HE IS SATAN IN THE FLESH



Georgetown sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson said yesterday that Eric Holder was the Moses of this Administration. Hey, that's one of the most religious things to come out of a Georgetown professor's mouth in a long time so we should probably take what we can get.
But it did get me wondering, in that metaphor wouldn't Obama be God? Certainly by now, that shouldn't surprise anyone. The Obama-as-God metaphors have been rampant the past half decade. After all my years of religious study I'm sure of only two things. There is a God. And Obama ain't Him. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying some of the most egregious and just flat out hilarious attempted deifications of ts of  the president:
1) Of course you have the everyday deification from the media which constantly portrayed Obama with a halo.


2) The Gospel of Barack.
We've all heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but hey, they were written like totally a long time ago. They needed a little "evolving" on some issues, I guess. So author Barbara Thompson wrote a book called, "The Gospel According to Apostle Barack: In Search of a More Perfect Political Union as "Heaven Here on Earth." Here's an excerpt:
Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side. He had the answers to unlock the kingdom of “heaven here on earth” for his followers. The answers were repeated – over and over – in speeches Barack had made from his presidential announcement to his inaugural address. Those speeches or his teachings contained the answers to the middle class and working poor people living in a “heaven here on earth.” For when the answers were unlocked and enacted, Apostle Barack’s vision of America would be realized.
Another book called "The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama According to Mark" is, according to Amazon "designed to initiate the reader into a meditation on what it means to be human, what it means to be a manifestation of God, and how Barack Obama is a unique and important manifestation of God’s desire for human flourishing."
3) Magazine covers: Years ago Time Magazine asked if God was dead. But Newsweek believes they found Him alive and well...and in the White House.


4) He's sort of God.
Hey, when you have a car full of clowns, one of them has to be brave or stupid enough to be the first to step out. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas on MSNBC was that guy. At least he was one of the first to really embrace the whole Obama=God buffoonery on a national stage. And yes, MSNBC is a national stage even if very few people are looking at said stage. Evan Thomas said it plainly:
"In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of GOD. He's going to bring all different sides together."
The great thing about Evan Thomas is that he didn't even say Obama was like God, he said he sorta' was God. You've got to give Thomas credit for that creepy image.

5) Obama's election is kinda' like the birth of Christ. Or something.
Lawrence Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel at Morehouse College in Atlanta, was quoted in the Chicago Tribune on November 29, 2008 saying: "It is powerful and significant on a spiritual level that there is the emergence of Barack Obama 40 years after the passing of Dr. King," said Carter. "No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a manger."
6) The Obama campaign itself. A campaign office had this sign in the window.
 
I'm just wondering. Whose will is being done is whose kingdom?

7) Spike Lee Director Spike Lee said of Obama's election that it would split the historical timeline kinda' like B.C. and A.D. That may or may not be true but perhaps not for the reasons he means.
"When that happens, it will change everything. ... You'll have to measure time by `Before Obama' and `After Obama,'" Lee said.
 
8) Obama as "Lightworker." This one still makes me laugh. Mark Morford, San Francisco Gate columnist, wrote one of the great deification pieces about Obama. Attempting to prepare you for it would be like explaining why William Shatner is awesome. You just can't explain it. You have to see it, hear it. Enjoy:
Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway. This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don't understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama's aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe. To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is?
The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics? No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways.
It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.
Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist !@#$%, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.
Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.
So how's that "new way of being on the planet" working out for you?
Filed under
Obama: "We Have Not Massively Expanded The Welfare State"
RCP Video ^ | 2-3-2014 Obama: "We Have Not Massively Expanded The Welfare State"
RCP Video ^ | 2-3-2014

Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 5:31:42 AM by Sir Napsalot
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ......because I think what used to be considered sensible we now somehow label as liberal. Think about it: Social Security, Medicare.
O'REILLY: But you are pay into that. It's the freebies that are are the problem.
OBAMA: What freebies are we talking about? Welfare actually is worth less now than it was 20, 30 years ago. It's worth less than it was under Ronald Reagan.
O'REILLY: Take a look at the disability explosion. I mean, it's insane. The work place isn't any more dangerous now than it was 20 years ago. It's through the roof.
OBAMA: Bill, the point is we have not massively expanded the welfare state, that's just not true.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...

Posted on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 5:31:42 AM by Sir Napsalot
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ......because I think what used to be considered sensible we now somehow label as liberal. Think about it: Social Security, Medicare.
O'REILLY: But you are pay into that. It's the freebies that are are the problem.
OBAMA: What freebies are we talking about? Welfare actually is worth less now than it was 20, 30 years ago. It's worth less than it was under Ronald Reagan.
O'REILLY: Take a look at the disability explosion. I mean, it's insane. The work place isn't any more dangerous now than it was 20 years ago. It's through the roof.
OBAMA: Bill, the point is we have not massively expanded the welfare state, that's just not true.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...

Push to impeach Obama makes major gain Members of Congres

Push to impeach Obama makes major gain

Members of Congress more and more eyeing Washington solution

author-image Bob Unruh About | Email | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
  • Printer Friendly
  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
857
The possibility of impeaching Barack Obama based a wide range of alleged constitutional violations already has been discussed by a long list of members of Congress, from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
Now Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican who is seeking to replace the retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss, is joining the list.
He’s accompanied by a couple of his opponents in the open race.
A video from a forum over the weekend featuring candidates for Chambliss’ seat shows Broun and two others, Derrick Grayson, an engineer, and Eugene Yu, a businessman, raising their hands when asked whether they would support impeachment.
A forum moderator asked the candidates: “Obama has perjured himself on multiple occasions. Would you support impeachment if presented for a vote?”
Broun, Grayson and Yu raised their hands.
Several other candidates did not, and there were others vying for the office who were not in attendance.
WND has been reporting on members of Congress who have discussed impeachment. The list now includes:
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
Several, including King and Farenthold, made comments in interviews with Sean Hannity.
King pointed to the president’s actions on immigration, such as his orders for authorities not to enforce current immigration law, as grounds for impeachment.
He said there are multiple violations related to Obamacare and asserted the president’s “recess” appointments of judges when the Senate was not actually in recess also is worthy.
The “uber-presidency,” King said, has little or no respect for the Constitution.
Farenthold said Obama “is grabbing as much power as he can,” but Congress also is doing little to draw in the reins.
The two said that politically, Obama is exercising great power and believes Congress cannot or will not stop him.
“The president knows it; he’s exploiting it,” King said.
Stockman even handed out in Congress copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations and possibly prosecutions are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.
He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.
“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”
WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.
Earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
Stockman recently distributed copies of the book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office,” to the other 434 members of the House of Representatives to bolster his case for a special investigation of the president.
The bestselling “Impeachable Offenses” presents an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines.
The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
Constituents also are reaching some surprising conclusions.
Voters in Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine’s Oklahoma district may look meek and mild, maybe even sweet, but their opinions of President Obama reveal nothing but a battleground “take-no-prisoners” attitude.
One lady, for example, said there needs to be changes in the Senate so “we can impeach the S-O-B.”
Said another: “He’s not president as far as I’m concerned. … Should be executed. He’s an enemy combatant.”
She complained that Congress is doing nothing, and that “allows this moron to make decisions.”
“He has no authority. None.”
The video was uploaded just this week, but it’s unclear when the meeting was held, and the congressman’s office was unable to provide details immediately.
At one point the congressman references “back in April 2013,” and it appears to be winter, so likely it was recorded in the past few months.
The congressman had been documenting Obama’s “lawlessness.”
  • Printer Friendly
  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
857
Very LowLowAverageHighVery High (263 ratings)

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/impeachment-caucus-makes-gain/#8yYAACpXtdqvhHJO.99

Trans-Pacific Partnership 'free-trade madness'

Trans-Pacific Partnership 'free-trade madness'

Roger Simmermaker: Nation needs to protect its own businesses

author-image Roger Simmermaker About | Email | Archive
Roger Simmermaker is the author of "How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism." He also writes "Buy American Mention of the Week" articles for his website, and is a member of the Machinists Union and National Writers Union. Roger has been a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC and has been quoted in the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and US News & World Report, among many other publications.
  • Printer Friendly
  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
87

There never seems to be a shortage of potential free-trade deals that need to be disposed of but this is what we must do if we as Americans want to protect our jobs, sovereignty, and independence.
In the 1990s it was NAFTA, which turned our 1993 trade surplus with Mexico ($2.5 billion) into a massive trade deficit ($181 billion by 2012) and made our trade deficit with Canada even worse.
Today, it’s the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would lock us into an undesirable agreement with other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Singapore.
Right off the bat, it’s important to know that the TPP would make any “Buy American” or “Buy Local” laws or preferences illegal. The benefit, we are told, in waiving Buy American procurement policies is that we would avoid potential “Buy Malaysia” laws from Malaysia, “Buy Singapore” laws from Singapore, etc.
Theorizing over potential trade retaliation threats from other countries is not a valid reason to avoid or sacrifice Buy American laws on the altar of the global economy. Consider the recent $1.1 trillion budget passed by Congress. When Congress was expected to vote on and pass a pro-Buy American amendment to exclude Canadian companies from our multi-billion-dollar clean water infrastructure market, Ottawa officials downplayed simultaneous Buy Canadian policy threats.
Even if we were able to muscle our way in and win procurement contracts in other countries, the U.S. market is over seven times larger than the markets for Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam combined. And I would argue winning U.S. bids in other countries won’t be likely since we have higher standards of living and therefore pay higher wages than most other countries – potentially making our contract bids more expensive.
Especially in today’s economy, we need to be using American tax dollars to strengthen American manufacturers so they can hire more American workers and reduce the jobless rate in this country. Using U.S. tax revenue to strengthen foreign manufacturing firms makes little sense to most Americans, and rightly so.
Read the details on how to make America’s economy strong, in “How Americans Can Buy American,” and “My Company ‘Tis of Thee.”
With TPP, we would also be disposing of other regulations that have worked to provide us with a safer consumer environment and raise U.S. living standards. For example, when our government buys something as simple as printing paper, we wouldn’t even be able to specify that we prefer to use recycled materials or non-toxic dye. We would do well to pay attention to common-sense environmental standards in trade agreements. Anyone who disputes that need only look at the smog from China that has worked its way across the Pacific to plague Los Angeles.
The TPP also would seek to aggressively reduce tariffs that protect our domestic factories from cut-throat global competition from predatory foreign trading “partners” of which there is never a shortage. In one of the early stages of the TPP negotiations, potential member countries called for elimination of all trade tariffs by 2015. Such a stipulation would fly in the face of our U.S. Constitution, which gives our Congress the power to “regulate” commerce (trade) with foreign nations.
We’ve passed enough free-trade agreements already (three in the past year alone) and the results have not been favorable to the United States if you go by the basic definition of a “good” or “beneficial” trade agreement. A beneficial trade agreement should simply be defined as one that results in the trade surpluses for the United States, not trade deficits.
According to Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury in the Reagan administration, a trade deficit “means that foreigners have even more surplus dollars with which to buy up more U.S. assets” and “is a way to redirect a country’s revenues and profits into overseas hands.” According to Reuters, foreign companies owned 1.3 percent of all U.S. corporate assets. By 2008 that figure had risen to 14.2 percent. It’s clearly past time to reverse direction, and one of the best ways to do that is to reverse the trend towards ever-more free-trade agreements.
Supporters of the TPP and free trade in general will try to tell you that America was founded upon free trade, but this is simply not the case. The Tariff of 1789 was the first major act ever to pass Congress, and allowed the collection of tariff duties on various imports to fund the cost of government. Tariffs were advocated by Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley, just to name a few.
Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, a self-described protectionist, often points out: “From 1870 to 1913, the U.S. economy grew more than 4 percent a year. Industrial production grew at 5 percent. The Protectionist Era was among the most productive in history. When it began, America was dependent on imports for 8 percent of its GNP. When it ended, America’s dependency had fallen to 4 percent. The nation began the era with an economy half the size of Britain’s and ended it with an economy more than twice as large as Britain’s.”
In 1896, the GOP platform stated, “We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of American development and prosperity.” Even the 1972 GOP platform rallied against outsourcing (a key component of free trade), saying, “We deplore the practice of locating plants in foreign countries solely to take advantage of low wage rates in order to produce goods primarily for sale in the United States.”
Right now, President Obama is trying to get fast track authority so he can negotiate the TPP free trade deal and have Congress vote on it with limited debate, no amendments, and a mere up or down vote. He should be denied fast track authority, as all presidents should. Why? The first words of our Constitution say that, “All legislative power shall be vested in a Congress.” If Congress can’t amend legislation and only vote yes or no, they clearly do not have all legislative power, since allowing amendments would be an increase in the legislative power of Congress.
As a nation, we need to return to our roots and secure the American market for the American producer. Free trade works against doing that, and that is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership needs to be stopped. I hope that you’ll contact your legislative representatives and tell them we don’t need fast track and we don’t need more free trade!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-madness/#soOM3Sai7yyGr2jz.99

Monday, February 3, 2014

Clinton delivers big hit with tweet, but who was target? Obama or Fox News?

Clinton delivers big hit with tweet, but who was target? Obama or Fox News?

Super Bowl chips and dip apparently weren’t enough to satisfy former secretary of state — and possible Democratic presidential contender — Hillary Clinton, who took to social media during the big game to take a curious Twitter shot, though at who seems unclear.

“It’s so much more fun to watch Fox when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked! #SuperBowl,” Clinton tweeted after Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly’s pre-game one-on-one with President Obama.

Whether “blitzed & sacked” referred to O’Reilly’s questioning of the president or Clinton’s view of how Obama handled himself during the interview is open to interpretation.

The website BuzzFeed called the tweet “a dig at Fox,” while the conservative-leaning Business Insider called it a “huge snipe” at the network.
On the other hand, the obviously right-leaning website Conservative Monster appeared to see it the other way, asking, “Was Hillary Clinton’s mysterious Super Bowl Tweet ‘joy’ that Obama was on the Fox ‘Hot Seat’?”

Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill told reporters the tweet, which by Monday morning had been re-tweeted more than 54,000 times, was “good-natured, light-hearted and self-deprecating.”

Still, while Fox News has been at the forefront of reporting on the deadly Sept., 11, 2012, terror attack on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, other news organizations have put Clinton under the magnifying glass.

The New York Times, for instance, was the first to assign a reporter to the Hillary Clinton beat amid early speculation about a 2016 candidacy. And in August 2013, the liberal-leaning newspaper delivered a story critical of the Clinton Foundation.

And while Clinton served as secretary of state for all of Obama’s first term, their battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination often turned nasty, with Clinton openly and often questioning Obama’s lack of experience in debates and campaign ads.