Sunday, March 26, 2017

Obama

by -

Pennsylvania Representative Mike Kelly was recorded, during a private meeting lamenting, “President Obama himself said he was gonna stay in Washington until his daughter graduated. I think we oughta pitch in to let him go somewhere else because he’s only there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to run a shadow government that is gonna totally upset the new agenda.”

Later a Kelly spokesman walked back the accusation. “Rep. Kelly does not believe that President Obama is personally operating a shadow government. He does believe it would be helpful to the new administration if the former president would personally call for an end to all leaks and obstruction by personnel from his administration who currently serve in the executive branch.”

Not “personally operating a shadow government,” but then asking the former President to “call for an end to all the leaks and obstruction.” Does the Congressman believe in the reality of a “shadow government” and that President Obama, if not “personally operating” it, has influence over it?

In all fairness to the former President, the reason he gave for staying in D. C. was so that his youngest daughter Sasha could finish high school. Which is indeed admirable. He was quoted as saying, “We’re going to have to stay a couple of years in D.C. probably so Sasha can finish, transferring someone in the middle of high school? Tough.” Sasha, currently a Sophomore, will graduate in 2019.

However, in view of the numerous leaks, the anti-Trump protests, the rowdy audiences at Republican town hall meetings, and President Trump’s tweet accusing the former President of wiretapping, one wonders if there is perhaps a puppet master working behind the scenes.

Last month, the New York Post ran an article titled, “How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency.” In it they called attention to the efforts of OFA (Organizing for Action), a 501(c)(4) organization touting some 250 offices nationwide and a membership of over 30,000. Organizing for Action has raised over $30,000,000 since 2013. Interestingly, prior to that time, it went by the name Obama for America (OFA), and was the Former President’s campaign organization.

To add fire to the “shadow government” conspiracy theory, it was recently reported that President Obama’s former advisor Valeria Jarrett labeled by some, the Obama Whisperer, had moved into his Kalorama residence in the nation’s capital.

It is alleged that this will be the nerve center of the opposition. Again, allegedly, the ultimate goal is to impeach or force the resignation of President Trump. The dream of every good Leftist.

Furthermore, former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has been quoted as saying of Obama, “It’s coming. He’s coming.” And he’s ready to roll.” And Obama “will be a more visible part of the effort.” According to Holder these efforts will focus on fundraising and redistricting. Is that all? Really?

Is there a shadow government, is there a puppet master behind the scenes, or are these simply paranoid delusions?

by -
Don't go away mad . . . just go away.

In July 2009, Harvard Professor Henry Gates, Jr., an African American, was arrested by Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, following a heated interaction between the two men. The incident should have gone largely unnoticed as a local, isolated incident in which both men shared equal blame for allowing a trivial matter to escalate into an arrest. Nevertheless, when President Barack Obama caught wind of the confrontation and weighed-in on the incident at an unrelated press conference a week later, the issue rocketed into national headlines. The president eventually invited both men to the White House for a photo-op, sit-down conversation in what became known as the “Beer Summit.” The national media fawned over such a “cool move” from Obama, just months into presidency; and the stage was set.

None, however, thought to question why the President of the United States was intervening in a purely local matter in the first place.

Of course, as the next eight years demonstrated, the “Beer Summit” was just the beginning of a pattern of executive interference in state and local issues, particularly when such opportunities afforded the Department of Justice a chance to exert greater federal control over local law enforcement. The theatrics of the Obama Administration were almost laughably predictable, not only in their timing – often before even local officials had a handle on the facts and circumstances – but the politically charged nature of the White House responses as well. Rarely, if ever, did Obama (or his attorney general) miss an opportunity, no matter how small, to stand on the Administration’s bully pulpit and lecture the masses about improving race relations, the need for greater gun control, or other Kum-ba-ya, feel-good solutions to the “moral outrage du jour.”

To be fair, while the Obama Administration raised the level of this pattern of presidents injecting themselves into myriad local “crises” to an unprecedented level, the troubling phenomenon also was practiced by his predecessor, George W. Bush. Perhaps, reeling from the flack taken during the 2005 Hurricane Katrina catastrophe in New Orleans, in which Bush was accused of not “responding” fast enough or with sufficient “compassion” to the disaster, the White House thereafter took to inserting itself into virtually every local weather event. This did not go unnoticed by governors, who today look for any excuse to rush out and declare a “state of emergency” in hopes of catching a little of the spotlight and triggering the federal money spigot for their states.

“Example,” President George Washington once commented, “whether it be good or bad, has a powerful influence.” So it seems with not just what the president says, but when, and why. Herein lies the problem.

Liberals constantly used the Oval Office for emotional validation of their marches and public outrage. And, craving the adoration from his base, not to mention relishing another chance to thump the GOP in the press, Obama was more than happy to oblige. But, the president of the United States, cannot, and should not, allow himself to be pulled into every “national conversation” or social fray that seemingly erupt now on an almost daily basis. The job of the President is to manage the affairs of the nation. It should go without saying that a good Commander-in-Chief does not have the time to concern himself with incidents that are highly localized, or ephemeral dialogues amounting to nothing more than shouting matches between partisan camps on social media. Not only are these distractions, but they lower the stature of the office to nothing more than just another political pundit.

It also sets a bad example, and bad precedent, for executive leadership at the state and local levels. For example, two professors at Clemson University in South Carolina recently staged a hunger strike to protest the university president’s “silence” on condemning President Donald Trump’s travel ban. What does running a public university have to do with a partisan debate over accepting refugees? Nothing, but there is now an expectation that any “leader” must weigh-in on any issue at any time, no matter how relevant to their specific duties or legal jurisdiction.

The president of a university has no more right to lecture the president of the United States on refugee programs than the U.S. [resident has to lecture a local police chief on community policing tactics.

Rather than rushing to have a soundbite for every issue, true leaders – especially the president – should try a different tactic; keeping their mouths shut (and logged-off from their Twitter account), and intervene only on issues of true national importance, and within their domain. Even in politics – or, perhaps especially in politics — silence can be golden.

by -

Democrats would like you to believe the anti-Trump protests around the country represent a grassroots movement, but who is really behind it all?

Paul Sperry, an author and columnist for the New York Post thinks that Obama and his nonprofit, Organizing for America, is working behind the scenes to undermine Trump at every turn. In fact, the organization was named Obama for America until he won his second election. Then they changed the name to Organizing for America.

Sperry suggests that Obama is using the Organizing For America group to orchestrate the protests and disruptions at town halls.

In an interview with Fox & Friends, Sperry explains how the Jason Chaffetz town hall was sabotaged by the OFA.

Here is a clip of the Chaffetz twon hall and the dramatic feedback he got from the crowd.

Generally when a President leaves office after his eight years are up, they go back home and relax. Not Obama.

The former president is taking a little time off, but then returning back to Washington to live, just two miles from the White House. Obama will be in the center of all the action, and Sperry claims with Obama’s legacy on the line, he seems to be taking an active part in undermining Donald Trump.

With an organization like OFA and the funding that Obama has available, Sperry suggests that Obama is forming a shadow government to uphold his legacy and restore the progressives to power.

At no time in history has something like this happened. Obama does not plan on sitting around and enjoying retirement. He even promised with his first Tweet after Trump took office that he would be back to work soon.

Back to work? He needs a new job. Unfortunately if Sperry is correct, then his new job will to ruin the Trump presidency.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -

Of the many words to describe Donald Trump, “measured” and “precise” are not among them. This, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing for a larger-than-life figure like Trump. His grandiose demeanor and over-the-top rhetoric is not only responsible for his celebrity status and immense wealth, but his political fortunes as well.

The hallmark of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign was Trump’s broad, sweeping pronouncements about the “sad” state of America; on issues from immigration to terrorism to outsourcing, and more. His ability to channel populist angst about the failures of the Establishment to address the real problems facing Americans was masterful, especially considering his solutions to such problems were no less vague and simplistic. The tactic worked, and Trump won the election. However, that was the campaign, in which exaggerated rhetoric and bite-sized solutions are a candidate’s stock-in-trade.

Serving as president of the United States, however, is far different; or at least it should be. A sure sign of this is the hullabaloo over Trump’s executive order regarding the temporary halt of refugees from foreign countries, and a pause in travel for residents of seven countries considered terrorist hotspots. On intentions alone, the executive order was both a reasonable and a practical first-step to ensuring America’s national security interests were not being sacrificed in the name of globalist altruism. Given Europe’s ongoing battle with domestic terrorism due in part to the flood of refugees from the Middle East, it would have been irresponsible not to immediately review our policies in this regard.

Yet, as the saying goes, the road to Hell — or in this case the federal court system — is paved with good intentions . . . and, poor execution.

Such seems to be the case with the so-called “travel ban” executive order. Instead of working with the various federal agencies involved with immigration policy — prepping them on the incoming changes and soliciting their advice for its implementation — the Trump White House reportedly rushed its release; giving little notice to Homeland Security and failing to have the policies properly reviewed by the Justice Department. The final result of what should have been a noteworthy policy change was mass confusion, mass protests, and a continuing court battle over its constitutionality.

The White House did itself no favors with the release of the order or in its subsequent explanations; using terms like “extreme vetting” to describe the changes, without ever defining what, exactly, “extreme vetting” actually means.

For starters, “vetting” is not a legal term, so its use to describe changes to a legal process only muddies the water. Secondly, the federal government (and the president in particular) already possesses broad powers to police America’s borders and ports of entry. Such powers include warrantless searches of persons, luggage, or vehicles; powers which the president or those agencies involved can change or expand anytime, without issuing an executive order or calling on Congress for legislative authority.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration frequently asserted the government’s right to inspect and detain electronics from all persons traveling into the United States, and to copy any information stored on those devices. Add to this the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently started collecting social media account information for those applying for travel to the United States, and you have an extremely robust “vetting” process already in place.

Thus, outside of any updates to the internal processes of the State Department and other agencies involved in approving refugees or foreign travelers, the government already has at its disposal a broad arsenal of “extreme vetting” powers. So, if the changes were, in fact, behind-the-scenes, why was this not explicitly detailed by the Trump Administration when announcing the policy, rather than brushing aside the changes with overly simplistic and utterly meaningless terminology?

Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with the changes made by the executive order, Administration officials, if not Trump himself, have a responsibility to clearly and precisely explain significant policy changes. There is a practical reason for this, as the chaos following the immigration policy illustrated. So-called “Green Card” holders were left stranded in airports — a result that allowed the liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hang their hat in finding Trump’s Order unconstitutional.

If the White House will not define its policy changes, others will, including Democrats looking for any chance to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Administration. That is exactly what happened here; and guess with which narrative the Mainstream Media ran?

Trump has already proven detractors of his abilities as Executive-in-Chief wrong with several of his cabinet picks, not to mention his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Avoiding stumbles like his immigration executive order, by keeping in mind that he is no longer on the campaign trail, will help him keep this momentum and out of unnecessary controversies; otherwise, further unnecessary challenges and set backs will result.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -
A Fourth of July Party at the U.S. Embassy in London held for diplomats and their close friends -- tab went to the U.S. Taxpayers

The United States Department of State has a problem.

The isolated employees of this government agency that serves as the face of America across the world appears to have their own agenda regardless of who is serving in the White House.

A “dissent cable” is being reported widely within the corporate media and has garnered 1,000 signers of State Department employees . . . and it’s still being circulated.

The letter started in an office in Washington, D.C. then electronically shuffled its way around the world, showing up in one embassy after another.

The Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) document is reproduced in full below.

The memo, while written in a standard government format that is difficult to understand due to overuse of acronyms and “inside talk” essentially vents about the Executive Order signed by President Trump.

The order temporarily blocked refugees from seven hostile nations.

Standing out within the document is its emotional tone that is designed to invoke sympathy for non-Americans. The memo recalls an Iranian boy whose parents had spent $6,000 on a trip to NASA who asked, “Can I not go because I am Iranian?”

Other sob stories told by State Department employees included an Iranian couple who were traveling to see their son who was dying of cancer in the United States, and another Iranian man, married to an American who wanted to travel to see the birth of his child.

The author of the sensitive document, along with its 1,000 signers clearly place the personal interests of foreign nationals over the security of the United States.

But it’s nothing new.

The “dissent channel” has existed within the United States Department of State since the Vietnam War.

It is an unusual method to voice complaints and resolve conflicts that creates confusion abroad and discontent at home as the internal memos are nearly always leaked.

In June of 2016, 51 American diplomats circulated a similar dissent cable critical of President Obama’s Syrian policy and called for “bombing” within the war-torn nation. The bombing runs were promoted by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The corporate media of course buried that story.

Fast forward just four days, and President Trump’s discussions with foreign leaders were leaked to the press and offered in a way to embarrass the new president.

The Drudge Report blared with the headline. “Trump Threatens Troops in Mexico” while another story recalled a tense discussion with the Australian Prime Minster over Syrian refugees.

Who would have had access to these transcripts?

Employees of the Department of State.

Who leaked them? Take a guess.

Diplomats and their many employees and assistants, paid for by American taxpayers, have for many decades taken a “let’s all get along for a better world” mentality rather than doing what they are paid to do which is placing America’s interests above all else.

Compromise appears to be their only solution as they mingle with their well-healed foreign counterparts; attend their cocktail parties and treat any foreigner with power as close as family.

The loyalty of these entrenched diplomats appears to stop at the borders of their own nation.

It’s time for President of the United States to clean house and terminated the jobs and contracts of anyone and everyone working for the Department of State. Their institutional knowledge is best forgotten and replaced with the acumen of American business leaders who have had no other choice but to deal with foreign nations fairly yet firmly.

Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the example of the type of diplomat America needs at this point in time.

For far too long, our nation has served as not only the World’s Police Force, but the wealthy, dumb uncle that everyone takes advantage of.

One-by-one, Trump can take pleasure in marching in every State Department employee . . . down to the last secretary . . . and repeating the words, “You’re fired.”

“Dissent Cable” printed below.

Subject: Visa Applicants at Consulate General Dubai Seek Clarification on Executive Order
SUMMARY
1. (SBU) Begin summary. For the second consecutive day, pursuant to official guidance from Consular Affairs on the President’s January 27 Executive Order (EO) on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, Consulate General (CG) Dubai canceled over 180 visa interviews on January 30. Consular officers once again staffed the security checkpoint at the Consular Services Entrance and personally provided letters explaining the appointment cancellations to over 50 Iranian nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants; consular staff also informed several Legal Permanent Residents and immigrant visa beneficiaries who had not yet entered the United States about the EO. Consular officers witnessed significant frustration and confusion, especially among the mostly Iranian NIV applicant pool, as they relayed and explained the new policy. End summary.
GREEN CARD HOLDERS AND IMMIGRANT VISA HOLDERS
2. (SBU) Several green card and immigrant visa holders sought clarification on their ability to travel to the United States. An Iraqi man, who previously obtained a Special Immigrant Visa for his work as an interpreter with the U.S. Army in Iraq, provided a letter of recommendation from the U.S. military and said, “I just don’t know what to do.” Another young Iraqi man with an approved immigrant visa, accompanied by his Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) mother, inquired as to whether he or she could travel to the United States. An Iranian green card holder expressed concern that the 90 day suspension would affect her LPR status.
FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL IMPACT ON IRANIAN NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICANTS
3. (SBU) Over half of the Iranian NIV applicants appeared for their canceled January 30 appointments, despite Consulate General Dubai’s GSS contractor having informed them on January 29 of their appointment cancellation. [Note: While NIV appointments for January 30 included applicants from the other six countries affected by the EO, none appeared at the consulate for their interview. CG Dubai’s GSS Contractor notified all applicants affected by the EO of the interview cancellations via email and text message. End Note] Many applicants lamented the financial burdens incurred in traveling from Iran to Dubai for an interview that had been canceled. One couple said that they had waited for over six months for their appointment date; they expressed concern about the difficulty of rescheduling if the ban is lifted.
4. (SBU) Several applicants were elderly parents trying to visit their children in the United States. One Iranian woman stated, “I haven’t seen my daughter in two years. I was going to meet my new grandchild. I pray this all gets situated. We were hoping we could have been interviewed and have our cases put on hold. Then we would have felt that we had made some sort of progress.” Another Iranian applicant accompanied by his wife and daughter complained about “the arbitrariness” of the EO. He stated, “Tell President Trump that my government is the terrorist, but we the people are not terrorists.”
5. (SBU) Applicants became extremely emotional while interacting with consular officers, believing that the recent reports of a judicial stay on the EO applied to them. An Iranian man with a pregnant American citizen wife in the United States pleaded, “Please, can I just go see the birth of my child? Is there any exception? I will have to have my wife come to Iran for the birth. I want to be there to see my child.” Another Iranian couple said that they were traveling to care for their dying son in the United States, stating, “By the time the ban is lifted, my son is going to be dead from cancer.”
6. (SBU) A thirteen-year old Iranian boy also came to the Consulate to inquire about the validity of his previously issued U.S. NIV. He said that his parents had paid $6,000 for an upcoming school trip to NASA. He asked, “I heard about the Presidential order. Can I not go because I am Iranian?”
COMMENT
7. (SBU) CG Dubai is still inundated with Iranian NIV applicants, green card holders, and immigrant visa holders affected by the EO who are seeking clarification and explanations. Post believes that communication challenges reaching individuals inside Iran mean that applicants are not receiving appointment cancellation notifications from Post’s GSS contractor and continue to travel to Dubai to attend their visa appointments. CG Dubai will continue to deploy consular officers to directly engage with those who have questions or complaints about interview cancellations or bars on U.S. travel. CG Dubai seeks updated talking points on how the EO impacts legal permanent residents seeking to return to the United States and dual nationals of countries of concern.

by -

In one of his last-minute, rushed acts, President Obama commuted the sentence of traitor, criminal and general nutcase, Bradley Manning.

And no, I won’t give this freak the courtesy of calling him “Chelsea” – he’s a dude and makes and an even uglier woman.

My personal disdain for Manning came after researching a story about his acts a few years ago.

Nothing has changed aside from the tempo of his shrills from behind federal bars in Quantico, Virginia

And Barack Obama fell for it.

Just to recap, Bradley Manning was an Army intelligence analyst as an enlisted soldier.

He was openly gay but also clearly mentally unstable. Before his deployment to Iraq in 2009, his commanders questioned his mental state and ability to deploy, but did so anyway due to a shortage of manpower.

As troops were deployed and fighting the enemy, Manning released three-quarters of a million documents containing sensitive and secret information to the world via WikiLeaks.

Why did he do this? Likely because he had a crush on Julian Assange and believed “she could be herself” in his chats online with someone assumed to be Assange.

For a comparison, Edward Snowden leaked evidence of the government committing crimes and spying on its own people. Snowden attempted to follow whistleblower procedures but was ignored.

Manning, betrayed the nation as a “brief respite from isolation and anxiety.”

He literally had no reason to release those documents other than that it gave him personal pleasure.

No joke.

But to show the true, demented personality of Manning, my mind always goes back to an incident he initiated as an Army solider.

Before his arrest, Manning assaulted a woman, Specialist Showman.

The incident was witness by an Army Captain who walked in to see Manning pinned to the ground by Showman, who had been attacked and hit by Manning.

For whatever reason, Manning decided it was cool to hit a woman (soldier or not) and then, his puny butt was pinned to the ground by the girl he attacked.

Manning’s defense attorneys used that incident to blame the Army, saying that if the military had discharged him at that time of “emotional instability” the treason would not have occurred.

Really?

Now that it’s more than established that Manning is a dangerous nut that belongs behind bars, the question remains, why would Obama pardon the man?

Who knows, maybe Obama has a crush on little Chelsea and her blonde locks.

We’ll never know, but hopefully a President Trump or Attorney General Sessions can find a way to keep Manning behind bars.

Comment below.

by -

Yesterday, President Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States, with only 72-hour’s notice.

The expulsion affects 96 Russians, including toddlers and pre-schoolers who are forced to evacuate – many of whom have established homes in the U.S.

They are forced to pack up or abandon their belongings and head to the nearest airport.

Some families reported problems obtaining last minute tickets for extensive overseas travel, so the Kremlin responded by sending a plane for their citizens.

Moscow is calling it a “last ditch effort” by Barack Obama to provoke the Russian government.

The government also showed calm and reserve in not retaliating by kicking out U.S. diplomats stationed in Russia. Instead, the Russians announced they would “decide the future of relations” based upon the actions of President-Elect Trump.

Critics say that in the final months of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted like a man intent on starting a war.

In Syria, the Obama Administration has created such a mess that Sunni jihadist rebels have been backed by both al-Qaeda and the United States.

But the Sunni’s are fighting Shia Muslims that have also received support from the Obama Administration.

Both sides are reportedly using U.S. weapons and Russia is fighting along side the Shia’s, who are battling Obama-backed Sunni’s.

While it’s difficult to make sense of the foreign policy moves that have placed the United States literally exchanging gunfire with Moscow, the summary is this:

Obama backed and arguably created total chaos in Syria. The Russians stepped in to stop ISIS rebels (also backed by Obama), and now, in his final throws of governance, Obama is doubling down in his attempt to agitate Putin by disrupting Russian families without cause.

Obama’s newest excuse is the claim that Russia “hacked” the presidential elections.

To date, the Obama administration has offered no proof that the Russian Government was involved in the Wikileaks hacks or release of the Podesta emails.

Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, has repeatedly explained that his information was not obtained from Russian sources.

Nonetheless, the Obama Administration, backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, continues to try and pick a fight with Vladamir Putin.

Critics of Obama have said the lame-duck president’s actions are comparable to a mentally disabled child poking an MMA fighter in the leg.

Comment below.

by -

Judicial Watch announced today that it has received new documents from both the Secret Service and the Air Force relating to Obama travel expenses, bringing the known total over the past eight years to $96,938,882.51. The reports contain information regarding Obama’s Earth Day trip to the Florida Everglades, a political fundraising trip to San Diego, Michelle Obama’s annual Aspen ski trip, her trip to Morocco, a family vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, as well as Hillary’s ride with Obama on Air Force One to North Carolina.

Judicial Watch filed two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits for Secret Service costs related to Obama travel (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:15-cv-01983)) and (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:16-cv-00863)). The Secret Service is a component of the Department of Homeland Security.

  • Secret Service records reveal that Barack Obama’s April 22, 2015, Earth Day trip to give a global warming speech in the Florida Everglades cost taxpayers $145,752.36, which brings the total cost of the trip to at least $1,012,367.76.
  • The Secret Service records for Obama’s October 2015 fundraising travel to San Diego reveal expenses totaling $180,187.09. Including the U.S. Air Force expenses, the total cost of Obama’s San Diego trip was at least $2,181,655.99.
  • Michelle Obama’s February 2016 ski trip to Aspen with her daughters cost taxpayers a total of $222,875.58. The Secret Service expenses were $165,806.78.  Judicial Watch previously obtained records from the Air Force revealing that Michelle Obama’s weekend trip to Aspen, Colorado, last year cost American taxpayers $57,068.80 in travel expenses alone for the 7.4-hour round-trip flight.
  • Judicial Watch obtained records from the U.S. Air Force and the Secret Service revealing that Barack Obama’s trip to Cuba and Argentina in March 2016 cost taxpayers $7,146,015.18 in Secret Service and Air Force travel expenses.
  • Judicial Watch recently obtained Air Force records which reveal that the Obama’s August 2016 vacation to Martha’s Vineyard cost taxpayers $450,295 in flight expenses alone.
  • Judicial Watch also recently obtained records from the Air Force showing that in July 2016 taxpayers paid $360,236 for Hillary Clinton to accompany Obama on Air Force One for a campaign trip to North Carolina.

Also, in October 2016 Michele Obama joined Hillary Clinton in North Carolina for a rally reportedly to “encourage early voting in North Carolina.” Documents regarding this trip have been requested but have not yet been received. The First Lady typically flies in a C-32A so the 1.8 hour flight can safely be estimated to have cost taxpayers $28,522.80.

“The Obamas’ notorious abuse of presidential travel perks wasted military resources and stressed the Secret Service.  Judicial Watch estimates that the final costs of Obama’s unnecessary vacation and political travel will well exceed $100 million,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  “President-elect Trump can immediately save taxpayers money by reforming presidential travel.”

by -

U.S. Officials are reporting that 35 Russian diplomats have been given 72 hour notice that they are expelled from the United States.

Early reports show that the Russian diplomats were located in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, New York and Maryland.

Two diplomatic “compounds” were also said to be “shut down” in New York and Maryland.

The expulsion comes on the heels of President Obama’s promise to take action for alleged Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election.

While the Obama Administration and his CIA reported that they have proof of hacking by the Russian government, no evidence has been released to the public.

As with many government operations, the public has been left to trust the reports of the Obama administration with no evidence.

According to the Russian government, the Russian Federation maintains Consular Offices in five cities around the United States: New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Seattle and Houston, Texas.

The Russian Consular Office in Houston was contacted to inquire if that office has been shut down as well and no response has been received as of this report.

by -

An Al Qaeda operative incarcerated at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo has confirmed what Judicial Watch has been reporting for years, that a Saudi Arabian “rehabilitation” program that supposedly reforms jihadists is really a terrorist training camp. The U.S. has released dozens of Gitmo captives to the comical jihadist rehab and earlier this year considered sending another, senior Al Qaeda boss Ghassan Abdullah al-Sharbi, a dangerous Saudi national with a U.S. college education.

During a hearing before President Obama’s Gitmo parole board, al-Sharbi said “you guys want to send me back to Saudi Arabia because you believe there is a de-radicalization program on the surface, true. You are 100 percent right, there is a strong externally…a strong de-radicalization program, but make no mistake, underneath there is a hidden radicalization program.” The testimony was delivered months ago, but was recently declassified by the Department of Defense (DOD), which maintains that al-Sharbi is a committed jihadist and threat to the U.S., its interests and allies. The panel denied al-Sharbi’s petition for release, but has granted many others recently.

In his quest to clear out the prison and close it, Obama has embarked on a frenzy releasing droves of terrorists jailed at the U.S. Naval base in southeastern Cuba. More than 100, including Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards, have been released to the Saudi rehab program, officially known as the Prince Mohammed bin Naif Counseling and Care Center. It specializes in “spreading the concept of moderateness and rejecting immoderate way of thinking” by using art therapy, video games, exercise and sports to de-radicalize terrorists. Obama has praised the bogus Saudi terrorist rehab program, even though the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency disclosed years ago that many of the Gitmo detainees who rejoin terrorist missions after leaving the military prison returned to “the fight” after graduating from Saudi rehab.

Among them is Al Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, the poster child for the Saudi rehab’s failures. Years after releasing al-Rubaysh from Gitmo, the U.S. offered a $5 million reward for information on the whereabouts of the Saudi rehab grad. The State Department coined the “senior leader” of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, revealing that “he serves as a senior advisor for AQAP operational planning and is involved in the planning of attacks.” Judicial Watch reported this two years ago, citing the State Department announcement describing al-Rubaysh as a senior AQAP sharia official since 2013 who has made public statements calling on Muslims to wage war against the United States. Many others have returned to terrorism after completing terrorist reform school.

This hasn’t deterred Obama from sending more Gitmo terrorists to the laughable de-radicalization program. Earlier this year the administration transferred nine Yemeni captives to Saudi Arabia and just a few weeks ago it approved the transfer of an Al Qaeda bomb maker, Jabran al Qahtani, that U.S. authorities believe will reengage in terrorism. The president’s Gitmo parole panel, officially known as the Periodic Review Board (PRB), specifically mentions the Mohammed bin Naif Counseling and Care Center in its final determination to transfer al Qahtani and states its “confidence in the efficacy of the Saudi rehabilitation program.” Al Qahtani’s “credible desire to participate in the Saudi rehabilitation program and reintegrate into society” also played a role in the parole board’s decision to release him. The PRB found that “the risk the detainee presents can be adequately mitigated by transfer for prosecution and rehabilitation in Saudi Arabia.”

Though al-Sharbi will remain at Gitmo, the fact remains that he disclosed damaging information about a fake Middle Eastern reform program the administration has used to free a multitude of dangerous terrorists. Based on his DOD file, al-Sharibi shouldn’t have even been considered for transfer. With a degree in electrical engineering from an Arizona college, al-Sharibi operated within the United States organizing sophisticated terrorist cells and conducting educational directives involved with mission planning. He has attended an Al Qaeda training camp and was selected by the terrorist group to a receive a special remote control detonation training to carry out attacks on U.S. forces, his DOD file states. “Detainee has demonstrated a commitment to jihad, has links to key facilitators in the Al-Qaida international terrorist network, and has participated in terrorist training,” according to the defense assessment, which also says al-Sharibi poses a high risk to western interests.

TRENDING STORIES

In his book, Men in Black, Mark Levin wrote, "Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes--contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting...