The Blood on Obama’s Hands

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper, Patriot, and Infidel.

Never in U.S. History has America been subject to the tyrannical zealot, the likes of Barack Hussein Obama.obamabenghaziemptychair1

He fails to take responsibility and when possible, uses the courts and executive orders in an attempt to sweep the horrific consequences of his inaction under the rug.

Obama must be impeached or removed from office by any legal means. 

Front Page Magazine

Reprinted from

obama-benghazi-blood-on-his-handsWhen conservatives consider the casualties of Obama’s national security policies, their attention is drawn quite naturally to Benghazi. In this shameful episode, the Obama Administration sacrificed an ambassador and three American heroes to protect a deceptive presidential campaign message in which Obama claimed that the war against al-Qaeda was over and won (“Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run”).

The facts are these: Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American heroes were sent into an al-Qaeda stomping ground that the British and other diplomatic consulates had already evacuated.

They were denied the security they had requested; they were then left to die during a seven hour fire fight when their compound was attacked, and finally betrayed in death, when Obama and his representatives lied to the world about what had taken place and when he failed to bring their killers to justice as he had mendaciously promised he would.

Benghazi can be seen as the collateral damage caused by presidential lies – and worse – presidential denial that there is in fact a war that Islamists have declared on America.
Instead Obama insists – in the official language he authorized and that is still in place – that America’s responses to acts of Islamic terror should be described as “overseas contingency operations.”
If Islamic murders and beheadings take place in the homeland, Obama calls them “workplace violence.” Benghazi is also the most shameful presidential abandonment of Americans in the field in our history, a disgrace compounded when Obama justified his trade of five Taliban Generals for one American deserter by saying Americans don’t leave their countrymen on the battlefield, which is precisely what he did in Benghazi.
All of which justifies the conservative focus on this terrible event.
Entire article below.

Continue reading

Obama oversells his non deal with Iran

crew-2231Obama oversells his alleged nuclear deal with Iran as a good thing.



If it were true no one with a functioning brain would put such and idea forth.

Remember the old commercial, “Is it real or is it Memorex?”  With Obama there is one certainty, it’s not real, he is lying.




Having missed the latest deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, President Obama chose Thursday to make his most persuasive case yet that the deal he has not yet made is a good one.

He argued that no better option exists, given how close the Iranians are already to developing a nuclear bomb. He said that even though U.S. and Iranian negotiators failed to reach a final deal, they have agreed to a “framework” with terms that will at least appear agreeable to the layman, and which will supposedly become a final deal by June 30.

Has Obama’s concession of ground to the weaker party in negotiations ultimately been rewarded with cooperation? Has his decision to let Iran have four times as many centrifuges as originally envisioned, and to allow centrifuges to be installed in Iran’s underground facility at Fordo, produced a new era of Iranian-American friendship?

Forgive our skepticism. After all, Thursday’s announcement was merely a media event designed to put the best possible face on the fact that no deal was made by the stated deadline.


And not only was there no deal, but Obama’s account of the non-deal differed substantially from that offered by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who took to Twitter within hours to dispute Obama’s characterization of the pace at which sanctions were supposed to be lifted — immediately, he insisted, not gradually as conditions are met.

Assuming for argument’s sake that the progress toward a deal is real, Obama seems to have succumbed to wishful thinking about Iran’s intentions. When he says, “Iran has met all of its obligations,” in an effort to sell the deal, Obama is simply not telling the truth — he is papering over a history of nuclear deal-breaking by the Islamic Republic’s regime.

That includes more than two decades of covert Iranian nuclear development, beginning in the 1980s. More recently, it included a series of calculated false and incomplete declarations of Iran’s nuclear progress. In 2003, after Iran finally came clean, or supposedly came clean, international inspectors kept discovering new and still-undeclared nuclear sites within Iran.

Much more recently, as Foreign Policy reported in December, Obama’s administration caught and quietly scolded Iran for breaking the framework that led to the current negotiations — shopping for components for its heavy-water reactor, which could be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Just five months ago, Iran was caught feeding uranium gas into advanced centrifuges, again apparently violating the terms of the current framework. Last April, Iran was even caught cheating on the amount of oil it was allowed to export under the relaxed sanctions of the current framework.

“This deal is not based on trust,” Obama said Thursday. “It is based on unprecedented verification. … If Iran cheats, the world will know.”

But the thing is, Iran has been cheating, over and over and over again. That’s what Tehran’s mullahs do. Lying is in the regime’s DNA. The world has known each time it has cheated in the past, and no one has lifted a finger to do anything about it — save for the Congress that imposed tough sanctions against Obama’s will during his first term. Those sanctions brought Iran to the table, and Obama seems to be failing to exploit their effect, even though he boasted about them in yesterday announcement.

Nor can any evaluation of Iran’s trustworthiness omit the years and years of Iranian provocations by way of its auxiliary paramilitary death squads. Just hours before Obama spoke, the Iran-backed Houthi rebels continued their march through Yemen, seizing control of the presidential residence in Aden and threatening to provoke a much larger Sunni-Shiite war in the Islamic world. Other Iranian-backed militias have recently been seen starting (and restarting) war in Gaza and crushing what non-Islamist resistance there once was to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Perhaps there is some secret grand plan that Congress and the public cannot judge because they do not know enough — because Obama has hidden the details of talks up to this point. But there are just too many indications that Obama is in over his head and does not understand with whom he is dealing.


Would anyone with a functioning brain believe what is presented below?

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

It has never been suggested at this site that Obama has a functioning brain.

His goal, as his actions have shown is to bring America to her knees while helping his Muslim brothers.


Negotiating in good faith with terrorists?  A completely absurd proposition.

Taking out their entire nuclear development plants with bunker busting bombs would be the first step in the right direction.

While the world powers have been negotiating with Iran in good faith, its leaders have been driving forward with their plans to develop nuclear weapons.

With nuclear warheads in their possession, the radical regime in Tehran will be able to threaten US allies and even the US homeland.

After watching the clip, you can quickly and easily write your representatives asking them to take action.

No Nukes For Iran! We prepared an e-mail and will send it for you to your elected officials. Our system will always allow you to preview the e-mail before it sends it. Make your voice count! It should take less than a minute.

Continue reading

White House office to delete its FOIA regulations

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Obama has a very short memory or likely doesn’t give a damn about anything he says or has said as the second video below illustrates.

Hey, what’s one more constitutional breach and unwarranted executive order to add to thousands? 

Five seconds of truth follow immediately below.

WASHINGTON — The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office.

Absolute unequivocal bull shit alert directly below. a289bcfa0734-1

The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law. The office handles, among other things, White House record-keeping duties like the archiving of e-mails.

But the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day and during a national debate over the preservation of Obama administration records. It’s also Sunshine Week, an effort by news organizations and watchdog groups to highlight issues of government transparency.

“The irony of this being Sunshine Week is not lost on me,” said Anne Weismann of the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

“It is completely out of step with the president’s supposed commitment to transparency,” she said. “That is a critical office, especially if you want to know, for example, how the White House is dealing with e-mail.”

Unlike other offices within the White House, which were always exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, the Office of Administration responded to FOIA requests for 30 years. Until the Obama administration, watchdog groups on the left and the right used records from the office to shed light on how the White House works.

Entire article below.

Continue reading

When the Bizarre Becomes More Bizarre: Of course it’s about Muslims

crew-2231By  Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.



Are the police so politically correct in Darby or terrified by Muslims that they are incapable of caring out their oaths to protect the U.S. Constitution and the citizens within their township?

Obama Invites 80,000 Muslim Immigrants Into the United States – Promises 100,000/Per Year for Next 5 Years




He can’t possibly believe anything positive will happen for the U.S. as the result of his treasonous behavior.

The law of the land for Muslims who commit crimes in host countries, if found guilty they are sent back to the countries from which they came.

It’s that simple.





A well known Muslim extremist who was confronted by Britain First outside the Indian embassy in London has been charged with “preparing acts of terrorism.”

This notorious Islamist (aged only 19) features in the iconic photo where he is grilled by Britain First leader Paul Golding, pictured right.

Karim is friends with other Islamic extremists like Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and Abdullah Deen. Britain First is in the process of stepping up its campaign to oppose the Islamic extremist movement in the UK

Continue reading


There is absolutely no way to determine how many lives his split decision action saved.

It’s time that those who deemed it appropriate to strip him of the Silver Star which was upgraded to the Distinguish Service Cross, spend a few months in an active theater of operation.


By Dan Lamothe / Washington Post


The secretary of the Army is defending his decision to strip awards for heroism from a former Green Beret officer, saying the soldier demonstrated a “lack of honorable conduct” after he earned the medals.

Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn received the Silver Star in 2011 for valor in Afghanistan on Feb. 20, 2010, and was later approved for an upgrade to the even more prestigious Distinguished Service Cross. That award is considered second only to the Medal of Honor in recognizing heroism in combat.

Golsteyn was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat — a violation related to the killing of a known enemy bombmaker, according to officials familiar with the case. The investigation closed in 2014 without Golsteyn’s being charged with a crime, but Army Secretary John M. McHugh made the rare decision to strip him of both awards anyway.

The move has been scrutinized by the media and criticized by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), a Marine veteran who has advocated on Golsteyn’s behalf. But McHugh stood by his decision in a new letter to Hunter, saying that the senior officer who initially approved Golsteyn’s Silver Star, Gen. David M. Rodriguez, agreed with his decision.

“Every step in the process of investigating Major Golsteyn’s actions, and reviewing and subsequently revoking his valor awards has been thorough, objective and justified,” McHugh wrote in the Feb. 26 letter, obtained by The Washington Post. “The Army’s investigation demonstrated that Major Golsteyn’s service during or at the time of the distinguished act, achievement or meritorious service was not honorable, which led to the revocation of the Distinguished Service Cross.”

So, this hero is being stripped of his awards for killing an ENEMY BOMB MAKER? By killing this scumbag he saved countless lives! This is completely insane!


Continue reading

White House: Obama very interested in taking executive action on corporate taxes

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.


There he goes again, showing his ignorance on the simple law of physics, as in “What goes up must come down.”

The same is true in economics.



Is Obama so completely dense that he doesn’t grasp that as he raises taxes on corporations they will pass them down as they always have to their customers, thus leaving John Q. Public less money to spend in the private sector thus stimulating the economy, creating wealth and more private sector jobs.

Oh yes, the above question was rhetorical!


White House press secretary Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama is “very interested” in the possibility of using executive action to hike taxes on corporations.

“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle-class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question on whether Obama would consider executive actions on taxes.




In a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for the Obama administration to close $100 billion in tax loopholes through executive action with the Internal Revenue Service. Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, pointed to areas he said the IRS could act without Congress regarding corporate tax loopholes.

Earnest said Obama is “very interested” in looking into the possibility of executive authority, but was noncommittal on the issue.

“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest said. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally.”

Obama wants Congress to pass corporate tax reform, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has said the proposal would not go anywhere.

Thus the advantage of having tax and spend democrats removed from both houses of congress as majority parties.




Continue reading

How Obama Caused ISIS

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist Oath Keeper and Patriot.





Obama’s incessant dawdling, another mark of his failed leadership and command coupled with not listening to the members of his Joint Chiefs of Staff  and firing flag officers who disagreed with him are indeed the reason ISIS today flourishes.




Obama has done virtually everything he could get away with to destroy America while destroying its military presence at the same time.

It’s time for Obama to be tried for treason.

The National Review

By Ira Straus


The administration has caused or exacerbated most of the current problems in the Mideast.


The Syria policy of the Obama administration is the main reason for the growth of the Islamic State (or ISIS)  – and with it, for the current crisis in Iraq, and for a greatly increased danger of terrorism in Europe and America.

Administration policy has fanned the rebellion in Syria and kept it going for three full years, while doing nothing to bring it to a successful close. Sometimes the administration has explicitly tried to keep the rebels in a stalemate with Assad; Secretary of State Kerry said that it was his policy to do just that, in order to promote negotiations and “peace.” The result, so obvious as to make that statement a shameless Orwellianism, has been to keep the war dragging on.

This has provided the hothouse for the growth of the extremist Islamic State. In due course, it spilled over from Syria into Iraq, and it has issued threats against the American homeland. The Obama-Kerry policy has also made for the more than 190,000 deaths in Syria, 500,000 wounded, and 8 million refugees (more than 2 million abroad, 6 million inside Syria).

This, out of a population of about 22 million.It is hard to imagine a policy more irresponsible, or worse from a moral standpoint. Yet it has been the long-standing policy of Obama and Kerry, and it was Secretary of State Clinton’s, too, until her last weeks in office, when she finally seemed to be getting serious, only to have her new plans thrown out by Kerry.

Fanning a rebellion just up to the point where the country is bleeding continuously — what could be more horrible? As the saying goes, “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.” Worse, because it keeps compounding the crime, as a matter of principle. But absurd behaviors often have their causes in beliefs.

This policy has been a logical product of the attitudes and ideologies of the Obama administration: anti-anti-Islamism, moral posturing, moral inversion — enthusiasm about toppling allies like Mubarak, nervousness about toppling adversaries like Assad — and, under the guise of peace, an ideological neutralism directed against one’s own side, something very different from an honestly neutral objectivity.

Entire article below.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: