Is General Ham losing his job over Benghazi? Retirement announced!

UPDATE: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring

Maybe once General Ham retires we will learn the truth regarding the order to ‘Stand Down’ and the events that followed!

Via The Washington Times

Major General Carter F. Ham, US Army, Commandi...

Updated 10/29) Is an American General losing his job  for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest  potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012  terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a  coherent explanation.

 

 

On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an  otherwise unrelated briefing on “Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the  Force.” News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news  value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta  said, “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate  General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S.  Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only  been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well  regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the  ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later,  word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March  2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant  commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that  he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.

However on October 26, “Ambassador” posted  the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft):

I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust  entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in  the quote below.

quote:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way  without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about  what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not  having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that  area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put  forces at risk in that situation.”

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom  received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as  the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit  ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit  ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down.  His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to  a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended  General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his  command.

 

The story continues that now General Rodiguez  would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

 

Read the rest here.

Bombshell: Claim Says Obama WATCHED Benghazi Attack Happen

Via The Blaze

Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

 

 

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.

Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.

Read the rest at The Blaze

Israel said to be readying October attacks on Iranian nuclear sites

By  via The Washington Free Beacon

U.S. intelligence analysts watching for indicators of Israeli military action recently reported that there are signs the Jewish state plans an attack against Iran in October.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is preparing to provide logistical support for a military strike but is pressing Israel to delay any action until the administration’s policy of sanctions have had more time to work, and that any attack would be put off until after the November presidential election.

 

U.S. opposition to any pre-election strike was discussed during the recent visit to Israel by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon and a later visit by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, according to U.S. officials.

Panetta signaled possible U.S. military options for an Iran contingency during his press conference in Tel Aviv with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Aug. 1. Panetta said the United States and Israel are united in seeking to prevent Iran from ever having nuclear arms.

“We have been steadily applying more and more pressure against Tehran, focusing on diplomatic and economic sanctions, and I believe these steps are having an effect,” Panetta said.

He then added: “It’s my responsibility as secretary of defense to provide the president with a full range of options, including military options, should diplomacy fail. President Obama has made clear that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is a top national security priority by the United States and that all options — all options — are on the table.”

Any Israeli military attack is expected to be carried out with little or no warning, which has meant stepped up monitoring of Israel by U.S. intelligence agencies for all indicators of an impending attack.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, made a significant statement on Israel’s plans on July 25. Barak said during a graduation ceremony that if sanctions fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, an attack would be needed.

“I am well aware of the difficulties involved in thwarting Iran’s attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Barak was quoted as saying by Israel’s Ynet news agency.

“However, it is clear to me that without a doubt, dealing with the threat itself will be far more complicated, far more dangerous and far more costly in resources and human life,” he said, referring to a future nuclear-armed Iran.

Barak also said that sanctions and other diplomatic steps “are not enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program.”

U.S. officials said both Donilon and Panetta urged the Israelis to give sanctions a chance to work. New sanctions were imposed on Iranian financial institutions last week.

But the sanctions contain loopholes that critics say will limit their effect in influencing Iran’s Islamist regime from coming into compliance with international controls on its nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, contradicting standard U.S. intelligence analysis, stated recently that there are signs Iran engaged in nuclear arms development past 2003, when U.S. agencies said such work halted.

Some Israeli military leaders are said to be raising new concerns that Iran is positioning its forces for asymmetric counterattacks, specifically a new aggressive naval strategy of shutting down western oil supplies. Evidence of the new strategy was the recent dispatch of Iranian warships to the Mediterranean for the first time since 1979. The warships could be used to threaten shipping through the Red Sea and followed threats by Iranian officials to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a major portion of the world’s oil passes.

Other Israeli military and national security officials favor continuing the current campaign of covert action against Iran, including the assassination of key Iranian nuclear technicians and the use of aggressive cyber warfare attacks, like Stuxnet, Flame, and other viruses that have infected Iranian industrial control networks, including those engaged in nuclear development.

Intelligence analysts, in recent assessments, said an Israeli attack on Iran likely will trigger a global oil crisis involving Iranian counter-actions designed to disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to Asia, Europe and elsewhere. They include closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz and disrupting shipping lanes.

One element of leverage for the administration in dissuading Israel to attack was outlined in the recent meetings with Israeli officials who were told that a U.S.-supported strike against Iran possibly could involve advanced weaponry from the U.S. arsenal, including a new Air Force conventional bomb designed to blast deeply buried and hardened targets.

The Israeli strike plan against Iranian nuclear facilities is expected to include an air bombing campaign against two main nuclear plants at Natanz and Qom that are key elements in producing enriched uranium, which could be used to fuel nuclear bombs.

Military analysts also have said the Israelis are expected to launch “decapitation” bombing raids targeting key Iranian leaders — including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who publicly has called for destroying Israel — and other key Iranian military and political leaders.

One veteran Israeli journalist, Channel 2’s Ehud Yaari was quoted July 28 as saying he was told the most likely date for an Israeli military strike is October.

“I will give you an impression, and this is just an impression, but it is a strong impression, after conversations with the people one needs to talk with about this matter,” Yaari said.

“My impression is that the Americans are convinced that there is very high chance that Israel will decide to attack in Iran before the elections in the U.S.”

“The date that they are talking about — they say that the prime minister will have to make a decision around October,” he said. “They are getting ready for a possibility like that in the sense that they have to decide what they will do if there is one response or another by Iran, in the follow-up stage.”

Read more at The Washington Free Beacon

Three Reasons You Shouldn’t Vote For Obama

By via Western Journalism

1.   This administration’s sense of entitlement:

Obama has played over 100 rounds of golf since becoming president.  He has taken or sent his family on more vacations than we can count.  He has no concern about the fact that he does this on the taxpayer’s tab.

The General Services Administration threw a $823,000 party in Las Vegas. It is as if the ‘gods of the marketplace’ believe they deserve these extravagant parties, as if they are perks that go along with the job.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta charges the American tax payer $32,000 weekly as he jets to California for the weekend.

This administration approved a ½ billion dollar gift to Solyndra before it went bankrupt.  When Solyndra went bankrupt the cost was passed on to the American taxpayer.

2.  This administration’s belief that they are above the law:

The U.S. Justice Department approved the sale of guns to the Mexican drug cartels knowing these guns would be used against innocent people.  Obama has no conscience regarding the sanctity of life.  He once said he would rather murder the unborn child of his daughter than punish her with a baby.

The president, who promised to unify us and bring us together,  is suing the state of Arizona opposing the laws the residents of that great state approved that were designed to protect its innocent citizens from illegal immigrants who might have criminal intent.

Illegal immigration is a federal crime.  This president sends a message that some crime is acceptable and he gets to decide which ones!

Obama is attempting to strong-arm the Supreme Court to support a most unconstitutional measure in Obamacare that would force Americans to purchase something against their will.

3.  This administration’s aura of dishonesty

If the president has nothing to hide, why spend $2 million to cover up his past.  Where are the papers he wrote in college?  Where are his grades from Harvard?  Where are all the classmates or girlfriends who should be lining up for their 15 minutes of fame because they took a class with Obama?

Obama said he was the one to unify us but when have we been more polarized.  He is quick to stir up racial tension when given an opportunity.  He promotes class welfare.  I know, the press wants us to think he has an I.Q. of over 200.  Does it not seem he was lacking in judgment and wisdom when he made a judgment about his professor friend at Harvard before the facts were in and had to hold a beer summit to fix his blunder.  I don’t really see the resemblance of the president with Trayvon Martin.  Obama again became involved in an issue before the facts were in.

Why so much controversy about his birth certificate?  If there wasn’t something to hide, would this president not have cleared that up long ago?  I don’t want proof that Barack Obama, Sr. is his father. I want proof that Frank Marshall Davis was NOT his real father.

I’m tired of being told what to believe when the opposite is usually true.  Michelle Obama recently attempted to reinforce the messianic traits of her husband.  She boldly declared that he has “brought us out of the darkness and into the light.”  Uh, no, Michelle, that would be Jesus, not Barack!

Memo to Michelle:  He ain’t the Messiah and this ain’t the light!

For more click here.

 

DHS and ICE Order 450 Million Rounds of .40 Caliber Ammo – Coincidence or Contrived?

 

By Kasey Jachim

 

Yesterday I wrote a post regarding the President’s latest Executive Order basically granting most goverment agencies full oversight of all our resources, including, but not limited to, water, food, transportation, and military in both emergency and non-emergency conditions.  He also signed into law a bill that restricts peaceful assembly in the presence of any government official that has Secret Service protection.  H.R. 347 expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.  What about a Tea Party Rally in DC?  A friend was at the Nationals game where Obama was in attendance – did she violate the law?   Defense Secretary Leon Panetta blatantly tells Congress they will violate the Constitution and War Powers Act.  And now the news of DHS and ICE contracting for 450,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber bullets…..coincidence or contrived?

If you have been keeping up with the real news and conservative bloggers, you can’t help but notice this President and his administration have consistently ignored the US Constitution.  Recent reports of Google violating our privacy, Obama’s truth squad, and now the need for 450,000,000 rounds of ammo for 300,000,000 citizens makes me very uneasy. We should be very concerned friends.  We can no longer afford to ignore the covert actions of our own government – we need to act.

A recent article in the Washinton Times noted that some states like Virginia have passed their own laws pertaining to NDAA and unlawful detainment of citizens in their own homes. HB 1160, was introduced by Delegate Bob Marshall and is intended to “prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”  The tenth amendment guarantees states’ rights and a state has a right to protect it’s citizens against all enemies, including their own government.

This President is a narcissistic, spoiled product of the radical socialist movement.  The “Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers”, a student of racist professor Derek Bell and fan of Saul Alinsky, should be considered armed and dangerous.  Unfortunately, Eric Holder, our top cop is right there with him and we, my friends, are in for a very bumpy ride.

I fear the enemy is among us and they are planning an “American Autumn” – we must be prepared. We may not have 450,000,000 rounds of ammo but we have hundreds of thousands Patriots with the means to protect and defend our beloved country and Constitution!  Spread the word and act now – liberty and freedom aren’t free – let freedom ring!  God Bless America!

Oust Obama – President’s globalist doctrine undermines American sovereignty

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner – The Washington Times

The Obama administration believes it is above the law. It now openly claims that President Obama can go to war without congressional authorization. This is a flagrant – and dangerous – violation of the Constitution. It is a naked abuse of power. It begs the question: Is this an impeachable offense? A congressional resolution has been introduced to warn that such high crimes and misdemeanors will trigger impeachment proceedings. It’s about time.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta recently gave congressional testimony saying that the United States no longer needs the approval or consent of Congress before launching a major military offensive. In particular, Mr. Panetta – to the amazement of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican – argued that the administration needs only “international permission” to engage in war. In other words, Mr. Panetta stressed that international approval from the United Nations or NATO trumps the sovereign authority of Congress. The administration is now contemplating whether to topple the brutal regime in Syria or wage devastating airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Mr. Obama seems to view Congress and our system of checks and balances as a nuisance. He is engaged in a massive power grab, behaving more like a Roman emperor unfettered by the will of the people and its duly elected representatives. His worldview is clear – and ominous: America is no longer a self-governing republic, but a supranational state.

This brazen assault upon congressional constitutional prerogatives has inspired remarkably little resistance. Like ancient Rome, republican institutions are slowly being drained of authority, power flowing to an arrogant, ever-growing leviathan. One congressman, however, finally has drawn a line in the sand. Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, has issued a resolution stating that should Mr. Obama – or any other president – use offensive military force without prior and clear authorization by Congress, this would constitute an impeachable offense.

“The issue of presidents taking this country to war without congressional approval is one that I have long been concerned about,” Mr. Jones said. “Just last week, President Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the United States Senate that he only needed to seek ‘international’ approval prior to initiating yet another war, this time in Syria. Congress would merely need to be ‘informed.’ This action would clearly be a violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.”

He added: “Enough is enough. It is time this country upholds the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.”

Mr. Jones is a patriot. He is a rare breed in Congress: a conservative constitutionalist who believes in putting America first. He rightly seeks to reimpose constitutional and legal limits upon the president’s ability to make war. Mr. Jones has implemented a trigger mechanism to potentially rein in the lawless, scandal-ridden administration. His resolution enshrines one absolute principle: The Constitution applies to Mr. Obama – as it should to every president.

Mr. Obama has already pushed the constitutional limits. Take his war in Libya. The decision to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was done without congressional authorization – something President Bush received for his military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence, the Libya adventure was arguably unconstitutional. It was a war undertaken without even the legal fig leaf of congressional consent. It violated the War Powers Act, which insists that any military action past 60 days must receive congressional approval. Mr. Obama simply circumvented Congress. His behavior was that of a creeping dictator.

Moreover, he insisted that the Libya operation was legitimate because it had U.N. approval. Unaccountable international bureaucrats are to have more authority over U.S. armed forces than Congress. Mr. Obama also encoded the pernicious principle of “leading from behind.” In other words, the world’s superpower must engage in national self-abnegation for fear of upsetting Washington’s coalition partners. Instead of leading NATO, Mr. Obama wants America to be subsumed by it. The results of the Libya war were disastrous. Gadhafi’s murderous regime has been replaced by an Islamist Libya. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have infiltrated the country’s military, its large stockpiles of weapons plundered. Shariah law is being imposed. Libya is becoming a hotbed of jihadist radicalism. In other words, Mr. Obama waged an illegal war that ended up empowering America’s mortal enemies. If that is not a “high crime and misdemeanor,” then what is?

The administration is hoping to entrench the Libya model. This was the purpose of Mr. Panetta’s comments. From now on, Mr. Obama will launch military interventions based on a new doctrine: globalism. He hopes to erect a new world order where international bodies supersede American national sovereignty. U.S. military power is to become a tool of transnational socialists. George Soros is in, George Washington is out.

It is not just foreign policy. Mr. Obama has repeatedly behaved in an authoritarian, lawless fashion. He abused congressional procedures to ram through Obamacare. He has named numerous policy “czars” with Cabinet-like powers without the Senate’s advice and consent. He has made recess appointments while Congress was not in recess – a blatant transgression of constitutional authority. He has sued states, such as Arizona and Alabama, simply for trying to enforce federal immigration laws, which the president is legally obligated to uphold.

This is why voters must conduct the ultimate impeachment: Remove him from office in the November election. Until then, should Mr. Obama attempt an October surprise by bombing Syria or Iran in order to cynically win re-election, Mr. Jones has given Republicans the firewall to stop him. We don’t serve the president. He must serve us.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

For more click here.

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress – Kudos to NC Congressman

By Drew Zahn via WND

Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

 Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama!

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll.

To see more of the bill on YouTube click here.