The Obama’s Vacation Photo’s


Luxurious: The Obamas booked 60 rooms at the five-star Villa Padierna


Honestly, you just haven’t lived ’til you’ve stayed in a private  3-story villa at a 5-Star luxury hotel, the
Villa Padierna. 

It only cost $95,000, and I was able to hold the total bill under $500,000 for the week. What a bargain!


pic5 Thank you also for the use of Air Force Two and the 70 Secret Service personnel who tagged along to be sure we were safe and cared for at all times.  Air Force Two (which costs $11,351 per hour to operate according to Government Accounting Office reports) only used 47,500 gallons of jet fuel for this trip and carbon emissions were a mere 1,031 tons of CO2.  That’s quite a carbon footprint as my good friend Al Gore would say, so we must ask the American citizens to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and drive less too, so we  can lessen our combined carbon footprint.

But hey, Barack’s Air Force One costs about $200,000 per hour to operate and with his many trips, he spent almost half a billion dollars on flights alone last year. $500,000,000.Billion

By the way, if you happen to be visiting the Costa del Sol, I highly recommend the Buenaventura Plaza restaurant in Marbella, great lobster with
rice and oysters!

 I’m ashamed to admit the lobsters we ate in Martha’s Vineyard were not quite as tasty, but what can you do if you’re not in Europe, you have to just grin and bear it.

Michelle Obama’s lavish holiday in Marbella has led her to be compared to Marie Antoinette.

The First Lady is in the Spanish city for four days with her daughter Sasha – and a total of 68 Secret Service agents from the US.

She is staying at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna, where her entourage has reserved 60 of the 129 rooms.

 know times are hard and millions of you are struggling to put food on the table and trying to make ends meet.  So I do appreciate your sacrifices and do hope you find work soon.
pic 27I was really exhausted after Barack took our family on a luxury vacation in Maine a few weeks ago.  I just had to get away for a few days.  The White House is so confining and small!
Michelle  Obama
india 2 P.S.  Thank you as well for the $2 BILLION dollar trip to India !
india 3
obamas martha vinyard house
1 of Obama’s Vacation rental homes Martha’s Vineyard
P.SS.  Thank you, too, for that vacation trip to Martha’s Vineyard – It was fabulous!  And thanks for that second smaller jet that took our dog Bo to Martha’s Vineyard so we and the children could have him with us while we were away from the White House for eleven days. 

pic 11  Oh, I almost forgot to say thanks al so for our
two-week trip to Hawaii at Christmas. That 7,000 square foot house was great!


pic 17PSSSs  We all had a fabulous time in Africa visiting Barack’s birthplace.  What a wonderful place!

pic 20 Don’t  forget my ski trip to Vail this winter.

pic 21 All this while Barack plays golf !

 Thanks America !  But you owe it to me!

pic 22

Love ya!

Remember, we all have to share the pain

of these hard economic times equally! 

We love to redistribute and share the wealth.

Austerity is only for the “little” people, not for the big, important, significant, trend-setting, cutting-edge, social and poltiical demigods like the Obamas.

roll over

Tantaros wrote: ‘To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.’

And she accused the Obamas of hypocrisy for preaching the values of sacrifice and austerity to Americans while seemingly refusing to heed their own advice.

She said: ‘Instead, Michelle Obama seems more like a modern-day Marie Antoinette… than an average mother of two.’

She added: ‘I don’t begrudge anyone rest and relaxation when they work hard. We all need downtime – the First Family included.

‘It’s the extravagance of Michelle Obama’s trip and glitzy destination contrasted with President Obama’s demonisation of the rich that smacks of hypocrisy and perpetuates a disconnect between the country and its leaders.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





How the Insurance Market Is Responding to Obamacare


large group we wont take it any more

health care keller  Gregg Keller/

I split my time pretty evenly between Washington, D.C., and my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. In D.C., if you want to get your fix of crony capitalism or government mandates, they’re only a step away at any time. But if you want to capture a perfect specimen of crony capitalism and government overreach in the wild, it’s a little more difficult out here in “Flyover Country.”

So you can imagine my fascination when an organization called the “Institute for Clinical and Economic Review” announced it was coming to town to give us just such a perfect example. Even the name is perfectly “Kafkaesque.”

In the wake of ridiculous Obamacare mandates, the insurance industry is under tremendous cost pressure to deny its customers access to expensive lifesaving drugs. But those insurance companies don’t want to take the public relations hit for denial of these drugs that cost billions in research and development to get to market, hence the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

The institute helpfully steps into the breach and, with funding directly from the insurance industry and its allies, produces “research” that even liberals acknowledge vastly limits patients’ access to lifesaving drugs.

Essentially, the insurance industry is passing on largely bogus research through a front group, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, that gives insurance companies leverage to deny coverage to expensive cures. It’s a perfect example of Washington, D.C.-style self-dealing and crony capitalism.

What this denial of service leads to is exactly the kind of drug rationing that free market conservatives have been warning about for years, usually to vocal derision from the left.

That’s not the only terrifying thing about the institute’s process, however. At the St. Louis event—which was held to determine if new drugs for a deadly blood cancer are worth their cost (despite their ability to extend life)—one of its paid staff helpfully told us that 70 percent of the organization’s funding came from nonprofits.

As if that kind of opacity is supposed to make us feel any better. Shoot, the Center for American Progress is a nonprofit too, but I wouldn’t let those guys change my tire, let alone decide what lifesaving drugs my child can access. That’s one thing you’ll find about the institute: A consistent lack of transparency. Despite its claims that it’s pristinely funded by nonprofits, if you dig deeper, you’ll find that the institute is actually mostly funded by the insurance industry.

But have no fear, we were told by the organization’s representatives in St. Louis! What could possibly go wrong with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s procedures? Well, for starters, how about the fact that its processes have been likened to the British socialized health care system.

Sure to upset my fellow pro-lifers are the implications of quality-adjusted life years—the key to the institute’s methodology to determine the “value” of drugs.

senior citizens Quality-adjusted life years, which are used in Britain to ration drugs, expressly say that the sick and elderly’s lives are worth less than younger, healthier people’s lives.

Opponents will say that the institute’s reach only impacts the private market. And yet, there are troubling signs that its rationing will soon start to infect the public market as well.

And it’s likely that the institute is coming to a town near you. The group’s regional bodies will hold public meetings, like the one in St. Louis, across the country in the coming months, including Los Angeles this month and Portland, Maine, in July. That’s bad news for patients and good news for the insurance companies that benefit from the institute’s manipulation of the media. The institute has effectively sold the press that it’s a “trusted” and “independent” nonprofit.

Not so. Rather, it means price controls. Drug rationing. The tip of the death panel spear. Crony capitalism. Self-dealing. Lack of transparency. Links to European-style socialized medicine. Ties to the Obama administration. And a direct threat to our pro-life beliefs. There is truly something in the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review for every conservative to hate.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2  obamacare now you know whats in it small






china Talks

China has expressed some concern over the United States’ ability to pay its debts, given the recession and the absymal state of the dollar. Bloomberg reports that China has requested guarantees for its share of the national debt, and quotes an economist at a Chinese national bank saying that the country would require “a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe” as a prerequisite for any further purchases of U.S. debt. (A currency strategist at a bank in Singapore, the article goes on to report, says that “these comments are some sort of threat.

China has released a new white paper which threatens military action unless the U.S. stops its current actions in the South China Sea.  a threat

BEIJING, China — Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have CONFIRMED that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People’s Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China’s continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves.

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during a trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take — inside the USA — land, buildings, factories, ect. – to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

The US Gov’t goes belly-up and China comes in and says, “they owed us $2 Trillion in Treasury Notes and another $2 Trillion in actual cash money which is now worthless. We are taking the entire state of Hawaii and the entire state of California in lieu of this bad debt”.

With the stroke of a Chinese chop stick, Hawaii and California — all the land and buildings in those states — are now owned by China.

The “taking” would be a “valid public use” because it was “taken” in payment of the public debt!!!

China could then turn around and declare the value of all that land to be worth. . . . . I don’t know ten cents on a dollar?

For your $200,000 house, you get a Chinese check for $20,000!

Needless to say, the property owners would go ballistic and demand “just compensation” for what was taken. Who gets to decide what is “just?” China! Don’t think you got a fair price for what they took? No problem, sue China!

China could then turn around and declare the value of all that land to be worth. . . . . I dunno, ten cents on a dollar?

For your $200,000 house, you get a Chinese check for $20,000!

Needless to say, the property owners would go ballistic and demand “just compensation” for what was taken. Who gets to decide what is “just?” China! Don’t think you got a fair price for what they took? No problem, sue China! You’ll lose!

People who live in those states and own their land outright, might be able to negotiate with China to “rent” back their own property, as long as the property owner continued to pay all his taxes; but the land and buildings would belong to China.

This is what our own Government has just done to us and it is the single most vile act of betrayal in the history of human existence!


In early February, nine U.S. States began the process of re- asserting their Sovereignty pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution; declaring null and void any actions by Congress that violated the Constitution.

The states took action to make certain the feds couldn’t give away cities or the states themselves.

This situation is going to get VERY ugly, VERY fast as one sovereign power (the feds) try to literally give away the land of other sovereign powers, (the states). This is the type of thing that starts Civil War.

Our present federal government makes the treachery and betrayal of Benedict Arnold childs play.

Folks, there is NO REAL PLAN to pay back this debt! Property will be ‘bought’ up for pennies on the dollar! Who hand delivered the final blow to our Republic? None other than… Hillary Clinton! After reading this article by A. True Ott, PhD, ND you’ll see EVERYTHING differently!

Beyond High Treason… US Gives China Eminent Domain Over US Property!

This situation is going to get VERY ugly, VERY fast as one sovereign power (the feds) try to literally give away the land of other sovereign powers, (the states). This is the type of thing that starts Civil War.

Our present federal government makes the treachery and betrayal of Benedict Arnold look like child’s play!





Read this… China Speaks (pdf)

A. True Ott, PhD, ND – February 28, 2009 – source Rense



I urge you to read this article and pdf again… there is so much shocking information here. (sighing…) Get this information out!

Post it on your website or link back to KnowTheLies, get it out in emails or forward it from this site… print it and hand it to folks without computers… whatever works for you… just get it out.

NO ONE will hear about this on the massively corrupt mainstream media or newspapers… they’re all in bed together and serve the same master.

Now you see why the puppet elections turned out the way they did… this massive highjacking has been planned for many years.


I’ll be posting more on this later…
~ SadInAmerica

first time in American history when an administration is deliberately forcing food prices higher in order to increase dependency and extend government control over the economy.

food expense

While food prices have always been volatile, today’s high prices are not just the result of weather and other natural forces. They are the consequence of a sinister conspiracy on the part of the left to raise prices and force an ever larger number of Americans into dependency.

As of early March, milk prices were setting new record highs, along with near record highs for corn, wheat, soybean, and other staples. Where is the President on this? He is out there promoting ethanol mandates that burn 40% of the U.S. corn crop, raising the price of everything from milk and meat to pop-tarts.

Obama claims to care deeply about the lives of ordinary working Americans, but he is the one responsible for rising food and energy prices. When Americans went to the store in February and found that their food costs had risen at an unbelievable $$$. had Obama to thank for it.

It is not just the President’s policy of expanding ethanol subsidies. It is also a weak-dollar policy that forces Americans into competition on unequal terms with foreign buyers. On March 25 the USDA revealed transactions that strongly suggest the return of China to U.S. corn markets. As a result, corn future prices climbed. That increase will affect what American consumers can expect to pay in the months ahead for basic food stuff.

what 2

If the dollar weakens further against the Chinese yuan, as many expect (and against other currencies), American consumers may find themselves paying even more  for global commodities like food.

The President’s solution to rising food prices is, of course, more government. With 25 million Americans unemployed, over 15 million Americans on Social Security disability (SSDI or SSI), and over 43 million Americans on food stamps, Obama’s “solution” is to increase dependency even further. The President’s  budget proposal includes increases in funding for the government’s food stamp and WIC programs, while it continues funding at record levels for a myriad of other food programs.

If Obama were truly concerned about food security, he would address the fundamental issues, not try to paper them over by paying out ever larger sums of borrowed money to an ever larger number of recipients. But the Democrats are never going to address the fundamental issues — partly because of pressure from environmentalists, unions, and corn-state lobbyists and partly because they want more Americans to be dependent on government assistance.

Democrats actually seem pleased to find that 43 million Americans are dependent on food assistance and that the number has risen by almost 30 million since Obama took office. That level of dependency translates into a large block of reliable votes.

Once they become dependent on government food aid, welfare recipients constitute a lifetime constituency focused exclusively on maintenance and expansion of benefits. No wonder Democrats aren’t interested in reducing the cost of food and other essentials. Or, for that matter, increasing the number of jobs within the private sector. Their interest lies in nudging more and more Americans onto the dole.

This is not the first time that a left-wing president has consolidated his power by expanding dependency. During the Great Depression, FDR’s alphabet-soup of relief agencies enrolled millions in unproductive make-work projects, even as crops went unharvested and industrial plants lay idle. As Amity Shlaes has shown in The Forgotten Man, Roosevelt’s socialist boondoggles prolonged the Depression by years.

What is happening today, however, is unique: this is the first time in American history when an administration is deliberately forcing food prices higher in order to increase dependency and extend government control over the economy.

food prices rising There is hardship ahead even for those not dependent on government aid. Despite our nation’s vast agricultural resources, Americans are not immune to the kinds of food shortages that have existed throughout human history and that continue to exist in developing countries today. It takes only a short time for a nation to slip from abundance into impoverishment.

Most Americans do not think of Romania as a resource-rich nation, but a century ago Romania, with its productive agricultural sector, was among the richest countries in Europe. At that time no one could have imagined the suffering that lay ahead as the country descended into 80 years of war and communist rule. The abundant harvests that had once fed Romania’s people were commandeered by the government and shipped abroad to bankroll the extravagant lifestyle of the rulers and to fund the state security apparatus necessary to defend it. This and fundamental mismanagement resulted in decades of hunger for the Romanian people.

For America the combination of corn ethanol mandates and a weak-dollar policy is, in effect, a “Romania-style” seizure of the nation’s food supply. The left is intent on gaining control of America’s natural resources — its agricultural and energy sectors, in particular — and for exactly the same reason they were seized in communist states such as Romania. The control of food and energy is the means by which the left hopes to gain permanent power over the American people.

America is approaching a future in which food will be expensive and in short supply. The combination of an ever expanding corn ethanol program and the demands of a tighter global market will make food less affordable and less available.

What may not be so obvious is that the American left, led by Obama and Democrats, actually want food prices to rise, just as they want energy prices to rise, so as to create further dependency. If they did not, they would take simple measures to lower prices: eliminate ethanol mandates, eliminate protective tariffs, strengthen the dollar, and allow the free market to govern prices. But none of this will happen with the left in charge because high prices and shortages serve the interest of a party intent on centralized control of the economy.

This disaster can only be averted by the defeat of Obama and  Democrat-control, and by the removal of leftists from government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture. Above all, the nation must return to a free-market economy in which prices for food and all else are determined by supply and demand, not by the ambitions of leftists in Washington.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on American culture.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2

Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess

U.S. officials are pushing a dubious new scheme to “unify” a shattered Libya

Hillary is the war on women says kathleen wiley

In 2011 Libya, the most prosperous democracy in Africa, was targeted for destruction. Terrorist death squads were unleashed upon the nation. A NATO bombing campaign destroyed the country and plunged it into chaos. NATO’s death squads seized control of most of the oil-rich territory, although 5 years later, the Libyan people continue to resist. After the 2011 NATO assault, accurate information about what has been going on in the country is very rare

Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State – the “regime change” in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

112 Hillary more radicle than Obama Hillary more radicle than Obama.

The problem that Clinton did much to create what has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte  and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe.

There is also desperation among some Obama administration officials because the worsening Libyan fiasco threatens to undermine not only President Barack Obama’s legacy but Clinton’s drive for the Democratic presidential nomination and then the White House. So, the officials felt they had no choice but to throw caution to the wind or — to mix metaphors — some Hail Mary passes.

The latest daring move was a sea landing in Tripoli by the U.S./U.N-formulated “unity government,    what      which was cobbled together by Western officials in hotel rooms in Morocco and Tunisia. But instead of “unity,” the arrival by sea threatened to bring more disunity and war by seeking to muscle aside two rival governments.

2016-03-31T174410Z_1_LYNXNPEC2U1G8_RTROPTP_2_LIBYA-SECURITY-POLITICS Prime Minister Fayez Sirraj of Libya’s new Government of National Accord, as selected by U.N. and U.S. officials, is welcomed by naval officers after landing in Tripoli

The sea landing at a naval base in Tripoli became necessary because one of those rival governments refused to let the “unity” officials fly into Libya’s capital. So, instead, the “unity” leaders entered Libya by boat from Tunisia and are currently operating from the naval base where they landed.

With this unusual move, the Obama administration is reminding longtime national security analysts of other fiascos in which Washington sought to decide the futures of other countries by shaping a government externally, as with the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and the Iraqi National Congress in 2003, and then imposing those chosen leaders on the locals.

(When I heard about the sea landing, I flashed back on images of Gen. Douglas MacArthur splashing ashore as he returned to the Philippines in World War II.)

Making the Scheme Work

But the new mystery is how this Libyan “unity government” expects to convince its rivals to accept its legitimacy without the military muscle to actually take over governance across Libya.

The Obama administration risks simply introducing a third rival government into the mix. Though the “unity government” drew participants from the other two governments, U.S. resistance to incorporating several key figures, including Gen. Khalifa Haftar, a military strongman in eastern Libya, has threatened to simply extend and possibly expand the civil war.

The U.S. scheme for establishing the authority of the “unity government” centers on using the $85 billion or so in foreign reserves in Libya’s Central Bank to bring other Libyan leaders onboard. But that strategy may test the question of whether the pen – poised over the Central Bank’s check book – is mightier than the sword, since the militias associated with the rival regimes have plenty of weapons.

Besides the carrot of handing out cash to compliant Libyan politicians and fighters, the Obama administration also is waving a stick, threatening to hit recalcitrant Libyans with financial sanctions  or labeling them “terrorists” with all the legal and other dangers that such a designation carries.

Immediately after being selected as Prime Minister of the U.N./U.S.-arranged “unity government” Fayez Sirraj reached out to Gen. Khalifa Haftar on Jan. 30, 2016, a move that upset U.S. officials who favored isolating Haftar. smiley-laughing001

But can these tactics – bribery and threats – actually unify a deeply divided Libya, especially when some of the powerful factions are Islamist and see their role as more than strictly political, though the Islamist faction in Tripoli is also opposed to the Islamic State?

I’m told that another unity plan that drew wider support from the competing factions and included Haftar as Libya’s new commander-in-chief was rejected by U.S. officials because of fears that Haftar might become another uncontrollable strongman like Gaddafi.

Nevertheless, Haftar and his troops are considered an important element in taking on the Islamic State and, according to intelligence sources, are already collaborating with U.S. and European special forces in that fight.

After the sea landing on Wednesday, the “unity government” began holding official meetings on Thursday, but inside the heavily guard naval base. How the “unity” Prime Minister Fayez Sirraj and six other members of the Presidency Council can extend their authority across Tripoli and then across Libya clearly remained a work in progress, however.

The image of these  U.N — U.S “unity” officials, representing what’s called the Government of National Accord, holed up with their backs to the sea at a naval base, unable to dispatch their subordinates to take control of government buildings and ministries, recalls how the previous internationally recognized government, the House of Representatives or HOR, met on a cruise ship in Tobruk in the east.

Meanwhile, HOR’s chief rival, the General National Congress, renamed the National Salvation government, insisted on its legitimacy in Tripoli, but its control, too, was limited to several Libyan cities.

National Salvation leader Khalifa Ghwell called the “unity” officials at the naval base “infiltrators” and demanded their surrender. Representatives of the “unity government” then threatened to deliver its rivals’ names to Interpol and the U.N. for “supporting terrorism.”

On Friday, the European Union imposed asset freezes on Ghwell and the leaders of the rival parliaments in Tripoli and in Tobruk. According to some accounts, the mix of carrots and sticks has achieved some progress for the “unity government” as 10 towns and cities in western Libya indicated their support for the new leadership.


Shortly after being selected by U.S. and U.N. officials to head the “unity government,” Sirraj reached out to Haftar in a meeting on Jan. 30, 2016, but the move upset U.S. officials who favored isolating Haftar from the new government.

Political Stakes

The success or failure of this latest Obama administration effort to impose some order on Libya – and get the participants in the civil war to concentrate their fire on the Islamic State – could have consequences politically in the United States as well.

The continuing crisis threatens to remind Democratic primary voters about Hillary Clinton’s role in sparking the chaos in 2011 when she pressured President Obama to counter a military offensive by Gaddafi against what he called Islamic terrorists operating in the east.

Though Clinton and other “liberal interventionists” around Obama insisted that the goal was simply to protect Libyans from a possible slaughter, the U.S.-backed airstrikes inside Libya quickly expanded into a “regime change” operation, slaughtering much of the Libyan army.

Clinton’s State Department email exchanges revealed that her aides saw the Libyan war as a chance to pronounce a “Clinton doctrine,”

bragging about how Clinton’s clever use of “smart power” could get rid of demonized foreign leaders like Gaddafi. But the Clinton team was thwarted when President Obama seized the spotlight when Gaddafi’s government fell.

But Clinton didn’t miss a second chance to take credit on Oct. 20, 2011, after militants captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Appearing on a TV interview,

Gaddalfi 1 Clinton celebrated Gaddafi’s demise with the quip, “we came; we saw; he died.”

However, with Gaddafi and his largely secular regime out of the way, Islamic militants expanded their power over the country. Some were terrorists, just as Gaddafi had warned.

One Islamic terror group attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel, an incident that Clinton called the worst moment of her four-year tenure as Secretary of State.


As the violence spread, the United States and other Western countries abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. Once prosperous with many social services, Libya descended into the category of failed state with the Islamic State taking advantage of the power vacuum to seize control of Sirte and other territory.

murder caused by clinton.jpg2 In one grisly incident, Islamic State militants marched Coptic Christians onto a beach and beheaded them.

Yet, on the campaign trail, Clinton continues to defend her judgment in instigating the Libyan war. She claims that Gaddafi had “American blood on his hands,” although she doesn’t spell out exactly what she’s referring to. There remain serious questions about the two primary incidents blamed on Libya in which Americans died – the 1986 La Belle bombing in Berlin and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

But whatever Gaddafi’s guilt in that earlier era, he renounced terrorism during George W. Bush’s presidency

So, Gaddafi’s grisly fate has become a cautionary tale for what can happen to a leader who makes major security concessions to the United States.

The aftermath of the Clinton-instigated “regime change” in Libya also shows how little Clinton and other U.S. officials learned from the Iraq War disaster. Clinton has rejected any comparisons between her vote for the Iraq War in 2002 and her orchestration of the Libyan war in 2011, saying that “conflating” them is wrong. She also has sought to shift blame onto European allies who also pushed for the war.

Clinton’s ultimate vulnerability on Libya is that she was a principal author of another disastrous “regime change” that has spread chaos not only across the Middle East and North Africa but into Europe, where the entire European Union project, a major post-World War II accomplishment, is now in danger.

Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

The original source of this article is Consortium News

In 2011 Libya, the most prosperous democracy in Africa, was targeted for destruction. Terrorist death squads were unleashed upon the nation. A NATO bombing campaign destroyed the country and plunged it into chaos. NATO’s death squads seized control of most of the oil-rich territory, although 5 years later, the Libyan people continue to resist. After the 2011 NATO assault, accurate information about what has been going on in the country is very rare

The Libyan people valiantly withstood NATO’s barbaric, criminal “Operation Unified Protector” for close to 9 months.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2

Vote Trump   Make America Great Again



The original source of this article is Consortium News

Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

Harry Truman (Democrat) dawn of the muslim brotherhood

Black Republican

If you listen to the Democrats talk, you would think that they were Saints. Well I’m going to name some Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

1. Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.
A. Democrat President John Kennedy sent money and advisors to South Vietnam.
B. Democrat president Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam.
C. 2 Million people died in the Vietnam war.
4. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and another 350,000 were injured.

democrat wars  Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.

Democrats got America involved in the Korean war.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that sent Americans to fight in the Korean war.
B. 33,000 Americans were killed in that war.

3. Democrats used nuclear weapons on Japan.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan killing innocent women and children, killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.


Harry Truman (Democrat)  harry truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent women and children in japan

Harry Truman (Democrat)

worldwar1 Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1.

  1. Democrats got America involved in World War 1. A. It was Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1. B. 37 million people died in that war.C. 117,000 Americans were killed in that war.

united-states-national-cemetery Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2.

Democrats got America involved in World War 2. A. It was Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2. B. 70 million people died in that war. C. 406,000 Americans died in that war.

bay of pigs time magazine6. Democrats started the Bay of Pigs. A. It was Democrat president John F Kennedy that started the Bay of Pigs, which was a war against Cuba

A Libyan rebel prays next to his gun on the outskirts of Ajdabiya Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya 7. Democrats bombed Libya.
A. It was Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya killing 1000’s of innocent women and children.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2It appears that Hillary Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

The most well-documented example of Tawergha an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark -skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

 Hillary’s Dirty War in Libya: New Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold



















Here Is a List Of Every US Town Obama Is Sending Syrian Refugees…

islim will dominate front white house 2

Here Is a List Of Every US Town Obama Is Sending Syrian Refugees…

The Syrian refugee crisis has been wreaking havoc all over the world,
so when the opportunity arose to take in more “refugees,” Obama just
couldn’t pass up the chance to put our national security at risk once
Most of these refugees are male as we have all seen in pictures. They
claim to be fleeing ISIS, but a new survey found that 1 in 4 refugees
either sympathize with ISIS or have a mixed or lukewarm view of the
terror group.
A Syrian operative has already claimed more than 4,000 covert ISIS
gunmen have been smuggled into western nations
– hidden among innocent
refugees. The lethal ISIS gunmen use local smugglers to blend in and
travel among a huge tide of illegal migrants flooding Europe.

The FBI openly admitted they have no way to vet the refugees coming to
America. Mr. Michael Steinback, Assistant Director for the FBI, told
the House committee, ” We don’t have it under control. If
I were to
say that we had it under control, then I would say I know of every
single individual traveling. I don’t. And I don’t know every person
there and I don’t know everyone coming back. So it’s not even close to
being under control.”
If terrorist weren’t enough of a reason not to take in more refugees,
we also have to worry about the criminals. Sweden opened it’s doors to
refugees, just like Obama wants to do, and now they are experiencing a rape
Nearly 80% of the rape cases are perpetrated by”foreigners” There were only 421 rapes in 1975, since they have allowed so many Muslim migrants in, that number has skyrocketed to 6,620 just last year alone.

Obama is increasing the number of migrants being brought to the U.S by
10,000, so it’s important to know where they will be going, and if it
is a town near you.
The Department of state released a list of all the
processing centers these refugees will be sent. Find out if your town
is on the list, and please share with your friends and loved ones.

Anchorage, AK
Mobile, AL
Springdale, AR
Glendale, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Anaheim, CA
Garden Grove, CA
Glendale, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Los Gatos, CA
Modesto, CA
Oakland, CA
Sacramento, CA
San Bernardino, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
Turlock, CA
Walnut Creek, CA
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver, CO
Greeley, CO
Bridgeport, CT
Hartford, CT
New Haven, CT
Washington, DC
Wilmington, DE
Clearwater, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Doral, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Lauderdale Lakes, FL
Miami, FL
Naples, FL
North Port, FL
Orlando, FL
Palm Springs, FL
Pensacola, FL
Riviera Beach, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Savannah, GA
Stone Mountain, GA
Honolulu, HI
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Des Moines, IA
Boise, ID
Twin Falls, ID
Aurora, IL
Chicago, IL
Moline, IL
Rockford, IL
Wheaton, IL
Fort Wayne, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Garden City, KS
Kansas City, KS
Wichita, KS
Bowling Green, KY
Lexington, KY
Louisville, KY
Owensboro, KY
Baton Rouge, LA
Lafayette, LA
Metairie, LA
Boston, MA
Framingham, MA
Jamaica Plain, MA
Lowell, MA
South Boston, MA
Springfield, MA
West Springfield, MA
Worcester, MA
Baltimore, MD
Glen Burnie, MD
Rockville, MD
Silver Spring, MD
Portland, ME
Related:  [Watch] Obama Admits No Strategy for ISIS, Won’t “Put The
Cart Before The Horse”
Ann Arbor, MI
Battle Creek, MI
Clinton Township, MI
Dearborn, MI
Grand Rapids, MI
Lansing, MI
Troy, MI
Minneapolis, MN
Richfield, MN
Rochester, MN
Saint Paul, MN
St. Cloud, MN
Columbia, MO
Kansas City, MO
Saint Louis, MO
Springfield, MO
Biloxi, MS
Jackson, MS
Charlotte, NC
Durham, NC
Greensboro, NC
High Point, NC
New Bern, NC
Raleigh, NC
Wilmington, NC
Bismarck, ND
Fargo, ND
Grand Forks, ND
Lincoln, NE
Omaha, NE
Concord, NH
Manchester, NH
Camden, NJ
East Orange, NJ
Elizabeth, NJ
Jersey City, NJ
Albuquerque, NM
Las Vegas, NV
Albany, NY
Amityville, NY
Binghamton, NY
Brooklyn, NY
Buffalo, NY
New York, NY
Rochester, NY
Syracuse, NY
Utica, NY
Akron, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton, OH
Toledo, OH
Oklahoma City, OK
Portland, OR
Related:  [Watch] BBC: Newest ISIS Weapon Is The Chlorine Gas Bomb
Allentown, PA
Erie, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Lancaster, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Scranton, PA
San Juan, PR
Providence, RI
Columbia, SC
Spartanburg, SC
Huron, SD
Sioux Falls, SD
Chattanooga, TN
Knoxville, TN
Memphis, TN
Nashville, TN
Abilene, TX
Amarillo, TX
Austin, TX
Corpus Christi, TX
Dallas, TX
El Paso, TX
Fort Worth, TX
Houston, TX
San Antonio, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Arlington, VA
Charlottesville, VA
Falls Church, VA
Fredericksburg, VA
Harrisonburg, VA
Newport News, VA
Richmond, VA
Roanoke, VA
Colchester, VT
Kent, WA
Richland, WA
Seattle, WA
Spokane, WA
Tacoma, WA
Vancouver, WA
Green Bay, WI
Madison, WI
Milwaukee, WI
Oshkosh, WI
Sheboygan, WI
Charleston, WV
Source: Refugee Public Affiliate Directory
 Hillary more of the samedawn of the muslim brotherhoodNo place on American soil

 <blockquoteclass=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>Obama explains the FEMA Camps and MARTIAL LAW 2016 MSNBC<a href=””></a></p>&mdash; jude@rueroyal2 (@jcjet5) <a href=”″>April 22, 2016</a></blockquote>

Donald Trump Foreign relations and America’s role in the world

Trump is, articulating a coherent vision of international relations and America’s role in the world.

donald_trump_flag.jpg 2.jpg

David Sanger and Maggie Haberman capture it well here is a portion of their lengthy New York Times interview with Trump:

“In Mr. Trump’s worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought.” The United States, Trump believes, has been “disrespected, mocked, and ripped off for many, many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led. And we were … the big stupid bully, and we were systematically ripped off by everybody.”

Trump hasn’t the slightest objection to being perceived as a bully, but he doesn’t want to be ripped off. Thus, he says, he’d be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they don’t get serious about fighting the Islamic State; limit China’s access to U.S. markets if Beijing continues its expansionist policies in the South China Sea; and discard America’s traditional alliance — from NATO to the Pacific — partners if they won’t pull their own weight.

To those who criticize his apparent contradictions, his vagueness about his ultimate strategic objectives, or his willingness to make public threats, he offers a simple

and Machiavellian response: “We need unpredictability.” To Trump, an effective negotiator plays his cards close to his chest: He doesn’t let anyone know his true bottom line, and he always preserves his ability to make a credible bluff. (Here it is, from the transcript of his conversation with the New York Times: “You know, if I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’ve said I would or I wouldn’t [use force to resolve a particular dispute].… I wouldn’t want to say. I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is.”)

Trump has little time for either neoconservatives or liberal interventionists; he thinks they allow their belief in American virtue to blind them to both America’s core interests and the limits of American power.

He has even less time for multilateralist diplomats: They’re too willing to compromise, trading away American interests in exchange for platitudes about friendship and cooperation.

And he has no time at all for those who consider long-standing U.S. alliances

sacrosanct. To Trump, U.S. alliances, like potential business partners in a real-estate transaction, should always be asked: “What have you done for me lately?”

In his inimitable way, Trump is offering a powerful challenge to many of the core assumptions of Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy elite. And if mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to counter Trump’s appeal, they need to get serious about explaining why his vision of the world isn’t appropriate — and they need to do so without merely falling back on tired clichés.

The Tired clichés roll easily off the tongue:

U.S. alliances and partnerships are vital. NATO is a critical component of U.S. security.

Forward-deployed troops in Japan and South Korea are vital to assurance and deterrence.

We need to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia. And so on. How do we know these things? Because in Washington, everyone who’s anyone knows these things.

But this is pure intellectual and ideological laziness.

Without more specificity, these truisms of the Washington foreign-policy elite are just pablum.

Why, exactly, does the United States need to keep troops in Japan, or Germany, or Kuwait? Would the sky really fall if the United States had fewer forward-deployed troops? What contingencies are we preparing for? Who and what are we deterring, and how do we know if it’s working?

Who are we trying to reassure? What are the financial and opportunity costs? Do the defense treaties and overseas bases that emerged after World War II still serve U.S. interests? Which interests? How?

Does a U.S. alliance with the Saudis truly offer more benefits than costs?

What bad things would happen if we shifted course, taking a less compromising stance toward “allies” who don’t offer much in return?

Questions like these are legitimate and important, and it’s reasonable for ordinary Americans to be dissatisfied by politicians and pundits who make no real effort to offer answers.

Trump’s vision of the world — and his conception of statecraft — it reflects a fairly coherent theory of international relations. It’s realist, transactional, and Machiavellian — and it demands a serious, thoughtful, and nondefensive response.

If those in the foreign-policy community can’t be bothered to offer one, a “TRUMP” sign on the White House may be better than we deserve.

Share +

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2Tired clichés






The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, than under any American president.

This is an edited version of an address by John Pilger at the University of Sydney, entitled A World War Has Begun:

How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.

In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was all fake. He was lying.

imagesL1Q0N0O8 The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories.  Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

A new mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable.”                 shocked

In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two —NATO- led by the United States — is taking place along Russia’s western frontier.  Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union –  has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.

McCain with Svaboda Nazi's

This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.

In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.


What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.

Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat”.  According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea”.

What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation”.

What does this really mean?  It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China.  Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.

I made a film called The War You Don’t See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.

All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and  hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.

The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or  China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” — a Dan Rather equivalent, say –asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.

The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear -armed bombers.

This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and  across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.

In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist.  He is also a media hate figure.  That alone should arouse our scepticism.

 It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is “unleashing the dark forces of violence” in the United States. Unleashing them??

 This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”.  The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

hillary restructure the family As presidential  election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.

Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician”, Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia.  He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.

obama muslim flag

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons.  As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: “we came, we saw, he died.”

One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright  who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.

Among Clinton’s biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East.  She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.

A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported — such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton;  such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.

Self absorption, a kind of “me-ism”, became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signaled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality,  racism and sexism.

In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right”. He says Obama has done “a great job”.

In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war.  There was no debate. Silence.

What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?

Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Obamacare – Humanity’s Darkside – The Reality of Obamacare has not been Sufficiently Reported.

Florida Seniors Government Watch

large group we wont take it any moreImagine lying in some government-run hospital, hospice or nursing home many years from now. Imagine languishing unattended for days in soiled sheets, suffering from hunger and thirst, covered with bed sores, your flesh aboil with untreated infections. Imagine living in fear of resentful, underpaid health aides who take out their anger on you and abuse you. And imagine spending your final moments on earth in the company of a government health care worker with a syringe, who injects you with a lethal cocktail.

“Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced.”

Adds Whistleblower editor David Kupelian, “If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported.

For this is not a fantasy – it is what is already occurring in other ‘civilized’ nations…

View original post 3,428 more words