In the wake of the horrible bombings in Brussels, Barack Obama is insisting that there is no need to change our approach in the fight against ISIS. He believes that Islamic terror is not a fundamental threat to our way of life, and he wants all of us to be convinced that the way that he is handling ISIS right now is just fine. Well, in this article you are going to learn some very shocking things about Obama and ISIS that are likely to make you very angry. It turns out that our allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been arming, funding and aiding ISIS and other radical jihadist groups such as the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria), and Obama has known about it all along. The goal was to take down the Assad regime in Syria, and the American people were never supposed to find out the truth.
Earlier today, Barack Obama told reporters that ISIS is not “an existential threat to us” during a news conference down in Argentina. You can see video of him making these remarks right here. But at the same time, he is promising “to continue to go after” ISIS until they are “finally destroyed”…
The United States will “continue to go after ISIL aggressively until it’s removed from Syria and from Iraq and finally destroyed,” Obama said, using another name for ISIS.
“The world has to be united against terrorism,” Obama said, adding that “that’s a top priority of ours.” He added that “we can and we will” defeat terrorism.
So what precisely is Obama actually doing to pursue this “top priority”?
We are told that the U.S. military is bombing ISIS targets, but in all the months that this has been happening, U.S. aircraft never targeted the endless convoys of ISIS oil trucks that were transporting stolen oil into Turkey. It has been estimated that ISIS sold 800 million dollars worth of oil in Turkey, and Obama knew about it the entire time.
Why didn’t Obama say anything about this or do anything to stop it?
When the Russians came in, they showed satellite evidence of what was happening to the entire world and they immediately began bombing those oil convoys into oblivion.
But why hadn’t the U.S. already done that?
Massive convoys of oil trucks that stretched as far as the eye could see would go back and forth over the Turkish border completely unmolested and Obama did nothing.
In fact, if the Russians had not come in and bombed the living daylights out of those convoys it would still be happening.
This should be the biggest Obama scandal of them all, and yet nobody is talking about it. Sometimes I think that I must be going crazy because what Obama did was so obviously wrong and yet nobody wants to touch this. For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled “The Biggest Obama Scandal? He Knows That Turkey Is Buying Oil From ISIS And He Is Doing Nothing To Stop It“.
In addition, Obama knows that both Saudi Arabia and Turkey continue to provide advanced weaponry to ISIS and the al-Nusra Front.
He also knows that ISIS fighters use Turkey as a home base, and that when they are injured fighting in Syria they hop back over the border where they are treated at hospitals inside Turkish territory.
But have you heard Obama say anything about these things?
Has he done anything to stop any of this from happening?
The reason why Obama hasn’t done or said anything is because ISIS and the other radical jihadist groups were supposed to win in Syria. Once they had overthrown Assad, then the U.S., the Saudis and the Turks were going to come in and set up a Sunni puppet government. Of course Russian intervention has completely changed the game, and so now the Sunni militants are losing. That is why Saudi Arabia and Turkey are in such a panic about what is going on in Syria right now.
And we are also learning that western intelligence agencies had advance knowledge of the attacks in Brussels. The following comes from a Haaretz report…
The Belgian security services, as well as other Western intelligence agencies, had advance and precise intelligence warnings regarding the terrorist attacks in Belgium on Tuesday, Haaretz has learned.
The security services knew, with a high degree of certainty, that attacks were planned in the very near future for the airport and, apparently, for the subway as well.
Despite the advance warning, the intelligence and security preparedness in Brussels, where most of the European Union agencies are located, was limited in its scope and insufficient for the severity and immediacy of the alert.
So what are we to make of this?
Was this terror attack allowed to happen?
Could it be possible that someone out there helped make it happen?
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to minimize the threat of Islamic terror one bit. I just wonder sometimes which side our government is actually on.
And ISIS is warning of more attacks in the near future. In fact, they are telling us that what is coming “will be more devastating and bitter”…
Even if we were somehow able to completely wipe out ISIS, the threat of Islamic terror would be far from over.
All over the planet, radical Islam is on the rise. These jihadists have a fanatical hatred for Christians and for Jews, and their ultimate goal is world conquest.
And an act of terror does not have to result in mass casualties.
Examples of what I am talking about are all over the place. Earlier today, I came across a Christian Post article that talked about how two radical Muslims hacked a 68-year-old Christian convert to death with machetes in the nation of Bangladesh…
Unidentified attackers hacked a Christian convert to death this week in northern Bangladesh in the latest attack in the Muslim-majority country.
The incident occurred Tuesday morning in the northern city of Kurigram, where 68-year-old Hossain Ali was hacked to death by two assailants wielding machetes.
Tobarak Ullah, the police chief of Kurigram, told the AFP that the militants were able to carry out the heinous crime by using distractions and a getaway vehicle.
Many in the western world may dismiss a story like this because it was the death of only one man.
But what happens when these radical jihadists start getting their hands on bigger weapons?
Former president Ronald Reagan once made the following statement…
“I don’t think you can overstate the importance that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism will have to the rest of the world in the century ahead-especially if, as seems possible, its most fanatical elements get their hands on nuclear and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them against their enemies.”
The use of a single chemical, biological or nuclear weapon in a major western city would set off panic on a scale that would be unlike anything we have ever seen before.
Even something as basic as sarin gas could accomplish what I am talking about. Sarin gas has been used in both Syria and Iraq in the past, and it is exceedingly deadly. The following comes from the Huffington Post…
Inhaled or absorbed through the skin, the gas kills by crippling the respiratory center of the central nervous system and paralyzes the muscles around the lungs.
The combination results in death by suffocation, and sarin can contaminate food or water supplies, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which notes that antidotes exist.
“Sarin is 26 times more deadly than cyanide gas. Just a pinprick-sized droplet will kill a human,” according to the World Health Organization.
Of course there are other chemical weapons that are many, many times more lethal than sarin gas, and it is inevitable that terrorists will get their hands on biological and nuclear weapons at some point as well.
Yes, terror organizations such as ISIS most definitely do represent “an existential threat” to our way of life.
Unfortunately, we have a man in the White House that does not seem particularly inclined to protect us from this threat.
Why are small towns in conservative states being specifically targeted for refugee resettlement? Of course the Obama administration will never publicly admit that this is happening, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is going on. Just look at the uproar that refugee resettlement is now causing in small communities in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Kansas. The Obama administration has deemed large cities such as Washington D.C. to be “too expensive” for the refugees, and so large numbers of them are being dispersed throughout smaller communities all over the nation. If you drop a few hundred refugees into a major city of several million people, it isn’t going to make much of a difference. But if you drop a few hundred refugees into a small town that has only a few thousand people living there, you can start to fundamentally alter the character of the whole area. Could it be possible that this is yet another way that Barack Obama is attempting to “fundamentally transform” America?
You would think that there would be more employment opportunities, cultural attractions and government services available for refugees in major metropolitan areas. So it would seem natural to resettle them in those areas. But instead, there seems to be a major push to resettle large numbers of them in small towns.
Needless to say, this is creating a huge uproar in many areas. In fact, on Monday there is a major protest planned in Missoula, Montana. The following comes from Leo Hohmann of WND…
Another big battle is brewing over Syrian “refugees” sweeping into small-town America.
Rural folks in Montana are pushing back against plans by urban elites to plant hundreds of Muslims from the Third World into Helena and Missoula. They plan a protest rally at 10 a.m. Monday in front of the county courthouse in Missoula. And if the pattern holds of similar rallies in Twin Falls, Idaho, and Fargo, North Dakota, a contingent of pro-refugee people will show up to counter protest.
Well funded pro-immigrant NGOs have been searching out local politicians that are willing to work with them to invite the Obama administration to resettle large numbers of Islamic refugees in their areas. Unfortunately for residents of Missoula, politicians there seem quite willing to open the door…
Here in “Big Sky Country” local politicians in Missoula, working with pro-immigrant NGOs, are inviting the federal government to begin sending Syrians, comparing them to the Hmong refugees who fled Vietnam’s communists in the late 1970s. They have not been deterred by the fact that 98 percent of Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslims, the vast majority of whom FBI Director James Comey admits are impossible to vet for ties to terrorism.
Despite Comey’s warnings, the Missoula Board of County Commissioners sent a letter on Jan. 13 to the U.S. State Department requesting Syrian refuges. “We look forward to seeing approximately 100 refugees per year resettled in Missoula,” the letter states.
“Missoula is an ideal city for resettling refugees,” the letter continues. “Our community enjoys good schools, incredible natural beauty, and a low unemployment rate, among other factors.”
We have all seen the chaos that has erupted in Europe as massive waves of Islamic immigrants have been allowed in and resettled in large numbers in small communities. Just a few weeks ago, I wrote about the epidemic of rape that is sweeping across formerly peaceful countries like Norway and Sweden.
And I am sure most of you have already read about the extremely alarming sexual crimes that Germany is dealing with now. But many of us don’t seem to be connecting the dots. What is happening over there could someday happen to our own wives and daughters.
Fortunately, there are some communities that are still willing to step up and take a stand against what the social engineers in Washington D.C. are trying to do. One of those communities is Sandpoint, Idaho…
Sandpoint City Council members voted Wednesday night to withdraw a resolution supporting refugee resettlement, bringing an end to a heated, month-long controversy.
Cheers erupted from the audience when newly elected Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad asked the council to withdraw the resolution from consideration. A measure meant to counter statements from Bonner County commissioners and Sheriff Darryl Wheeler opposing the resettlement of refugees, the resolution was intended to restate Sandpoint’s commitments to human rights, according to Rognstad.
“This resolution has only served to divide us and this community,” said Rognstad, as he requested the withdrawal. “That saddens me.”
Once again, anti-refugee activists turned out in force to oppose the resolution and, once again, the council meeting procedure was punctured by applause and shouts. When Rognstad called for order, the crowd responded with catcalls.
But other small communities in Idaho are not so fortunate.
Just consider what is happening in Twin Falls…
Beginning the next fiscal year (October 1), some 300 Muslim refugees, primarily from Syria, will arrive in Twin Falls, Idaho, the Twin Falls Times reports.
But this miniature exodus from the Middle East to the small southern Idaho town of 45,000 people is believed to be just the tip of the iceberg, according to WND, which indicates that many more refugees from Iraq, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and likely Syria, are on their way. The conservative news site received reports that community leaders were told at a recent Boise State University conference held for “stakeholders” — including church groups and social service providers — that a couple thousand refugees are planned to a arrive statewide soon.
Look, I am all for assisting people that need our help.
In particular, I would love for our country to take in Christians from Iraq and Syria. The things that ISIS has been doing to those that believe in Jesus Christ are almost too horrible to put into words, and yet Barack Obama has been almost totally silent on the matter.
Instead of taking in persecuted Christians, it has been estimated that well over 90 percent of the refugees from Syria are Sunni Muslims, and surveys have found that a significant percentage of them actually have a favorable view of ISIS.
In the mainstream media, we are told quite often that the number of refugees being brought in is 10,000 a year. But that simply is not accurate. In a previous article, I documented the fact that the White House has admitted that the number of refugees being resettled in this country has been increased to 100,000 per year. The following is a message that was tweeted by the official White House Twitter account on September 28th…
I don’t see how there could be any confusion. Barack Obama himself says that we are bringing in 100,000 refugees a year for the next two years.
Not all of these refugees are coming from Syria, but the vast majority of them are coming from countries where a radical version of Sunni Islam is practiced as a way of life.
When large numbers of refugees are injected into a small community, the character of that community can be fundamentally altered. And at this point, it appears that there is a concentrated effort to funnel large numbers of these refugees into small towns in some of the most conservative states in the country.
If you are concerned about what is going on in places like Missoula, Sandpoint and Twin Falls, you might want to check on what your own local politicians are doing.
An insidious agenda is at work, and I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Under Barack Obama, the U.S. national debt has risen from $10,626,877,048,913.08 on January 20th, 2009 to $18,795,033,928,275.59 on December 21st, 2015. That means that the debt that we are passing on to future generations has increased by 8.16 trillion dollars since Barack Obama was inaugurated. There is still a little more than a year to go in Obama’s presidency, and it is already guaranteed that Obama will add more than a trillion dollars a year to the national debt during his presidency. In fact, when you do the math, we are stealing more than 100 million dollars from future generations of Americans every single hour of every single day. It is a crime of a magnitude that is almost unimaginable, and at this point it is mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off all of this debt. To say that we are in trouble would be a massive understatement.
And of course not all of the blame goes to Obama. The Republicans have had control of the House of Representatives for all but two years while Obama has been in the White House, and they have gone along with all of this reckless spending. Without the approval of the House, Obama could not spend a single penny, but the Republicans have consistently chosen not to stand up to him. In fact, the Republicans in Congress just approved another massive 1.2 trillion dollar spending bill that essentially gave the Democrats every single thing that they wanted. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi even admitted that the Republicans “were willing to concede so much” during the negotiations.
So why do we even have a Republican Party? They always just go along with pretty much whatever the Democrats want anyway. Why shouldn’t we just disband the Republican Party and let the Democrats completely run things? How would Washington D.C. be any different if the Republicans didn’t even exist?
At this point, even Rush Limbaugh is completely disgusted with the Republican Party…
I have a headline here from the Washington Times: “White House Declares Total Victory Over GOP in Budget Battle.” That headline’s a misnomer. There was never a battle. None of this was opposed. The Republican Party didn’t stand up to any of it, and the die has been cast for a long time on this. I know many of you are dispirited, depressed, angry, combination of all of that. But, folks, there was no other way this could go. Because two years ago when the Republican Party declared they would never do anything that would shut down the government and they would not impeach Obama, there were no obstacles in Obama’s way and there were no obstacles in the way of the Democrat Party.
Do you remember when Republican politicians were running around promising that they would defund Obamacare?
That didn’t happen.
Do you remember when Republican politicians were running around promising that they would defund Planned Parenthood?
That didn’t happen.
Do you remember when Republican politicians were running around promising that they would defund Obama’s refugee program?
That didn’t happen.
In this new spending deal, the Republicans got nothing. It was a sham, a farce and a total insult to the American people. Here is more from Rush Limbaugh…
It fully funds Planned Parenthood. That, to me, is unforgivable, with everything now known about what goes on behind closed doors at Planned Parenthood, and that the federal government, led by a Republican Party, sees fit to pay for it. It is beyond comprehension, and it is a total squandering of moral authority to fully fund the butchery at Planned Parenthood. This spending bill fully pays for Obama’s refugee plans, fully. This spending bill, this budget bill quadruples the number of visas Obama wants for foreign workers. This is even a slap at American union workers. Not the leaders. The union leaders seem to be in favor of it, but blue-collar people, known as working people, have been sold down the river along with everybody else here.
This spending bill even fully pays for every dime asked for by Obama on all of this idiocy that’s tied up into climate change. Everything Obama wanted, everything he asked for, he got. You go down the list of things, it’s there.
Even after watching all of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos that came out over the past year, the Republicans in Congress still voted to fund the harvesting and sale of body parts from aborted babies.
And surveys have found that the American people support the continued funding of Planned Parenthood by about a 2 to 1 margin. After everything that we have seen, the vast majority of Americans still want to continue giving those butchers hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year.
No wonder so many people are comparing America to Nazi Germany these days. We truly have become an exceedingly wicked nation.
We like to think that we are an “example” for the rest of the planet, but in reality the only example that we are is a bad one. Our guilt has been put on display for all the world to see, and yet we just continue to race toward even more evil.
Not only did the Republicans not defund Planned Parenthood, the truth is that not a single pro-life amendment of any sort even got into the bill thanks to Paul Ryan. The following comes from lifesitenews.com…
“The bill failed to include a single major pro-life policy rider, despite the requests of over 120 members of Congress and the disturbing revelations about Planned Parenthood brought to light this year,” said Congresswoman Diane Black, R-TN, who voted against the bill.
The House Freedom Caucus offered a series of amendments to the bill defunding Planned Parenthood, strengthening conscience protections for pro-life physicians and organizations, and ending all U.S. funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The House Rules Committee rejected these riders earlier this week, as Speaker Paul Ryan said he did not want conservative amendments added to the bill that would drive away his Democratic colleagues.
The committee also rejected an amendment to increase vetting of refugees who enter the United States from the terrorist hotbeds of Syria and Iraq, which had previously passed the House, with 47 Democrats adding strong bipartisan support.
Like I said, the Republicans completely capitulated, just like they always do.
Now the U.S. national debt is nearly double the size that it was just before the last financial crisis struck, and our leaders continue to borrow and spend as if there is no tomorrow.
Perhaps they have convinced themselves that there will never be any consequences for acting so foolishly.
Perhaps they believe that in the end everything will turn out okay somehow.
Perhaps they are able to rationalize the theft of more than a hundred million dollars an hour from future generations of Americans.
But nothing can erase what they have done to us. The promising future that our children and our grandchildren should have had has been completely wiped out, and the leading edge of the greatest economic crisis that any of us has ever known is now upon us.
If we had done things differently, things wouldn’t have had to turn out this way. But now the die is cast, and we are all going to pay a very high price for the mistakes that have been made in Washington.
This week, Barack Obama sent a guided missile destroyer into disputed waters in the South China Sea to see if the Chinese would start shooting at it. Yes, this is what he actually did. Fortunately for us, the Chinese backed down and did not follow through on their threats to take military action. Instead, the Chinese have chosen to respond with very angry words. The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, says that what Obama did was “a very serious provocation, politically and militarily.” And as you will see below, a state-run newspaper stated that China “is not frightened to fight a war with the US in the region”. So why in the world would Obama provoke the Chinese like this? Yes, the Chinese claims in the South China Sea are questionable. But there are other ways to resolve things like this. My friend Rick Wiles began his radio broadcast yesterday by suggesting that these kinds of actions show that Barack Obama has become “mentally unstable”, and I would have to agree. You don’t risk military confrontations that could potentially spark World War III unless you have a really good reason to do so.
The Global Times is a Chinese state-run newspaper that has very close ties to the Communist party. After Obama’s provocation in the South China Sea, it published an editorial entitled “After the show, it’s time for US destroyer to leave“. The following is the most alarming portion of that editorial…
In face of the US harassment, Beijing should deal with Washington tactfully and prepare for the worst. This can convince the White House that China, despite its unwillingness, is not frightened to fight a war with the US in the region, and is determined to safeguard its national interests and dignity.
Beijing ought to carry out anti-harassment operations. We should first track the US warships. If they, instead of passing by, stop for further actions, it is necessary for us to launch electronic interventions, and even send out warships, lock them by fire-control radar and fly over the US vessels.
Another major Chinese newspaper also responded very angrily…
The People’s Liberation Army Daily, China’s leading military newspaper, used a front-page editorial to accuse the US of sowing chaos in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Cast-iron facts show that time and again the United States recklessly uses force and starts wars, stirring things up where once there was stability, causing the bitterest of harm to those countries directly involved,” the newspaper said, according to Reuters.
But the Obama administration is not backing down.
In fact, CNN is reporting that the decision has already been made to send even more patrols cruising by the disputed islands.
What do you think that will do to our delicate relationship with China?
Most Americans assume that an actual shooting war between the United States and China is not even within the realm of possibility, but many of our leaders see things very differently. For instance, just check out what CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell thinks…
The current posturing in the area has led to heightened tensions between the world’s preeminent military powers, and in May Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN that the confrontation indicates there is “absolutely” a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future.
And Barack Obama’s good buddy George Soros has warned that the threat of a third world war involving the United States and China is very real…
Earlier this year, billionaire investor George Soros also cautioned that the ruling Communist Party may see fit to rally its population around an external threat in order to head off a societal collapse in the aftermath of an economic implosion.
“There is a real danger that China will align itself with Russia politically and militarily, and then the threat of third world war becomes real,” said Soros.
Needless to say, if our relationship with China breaks down that is going to be really, really bad for the global economy. China accounts for more global trade than anyone else in the world, and the U.S. is number two.
And already we are witnessing a slowdown in global trade which is more than just a little bit alarming. So far in 2015 total global trade is down 8.4 percent, U.S. exports are down 11 percent, and Chinese imports during the month of September were down a whopping 20.4 percent from a year earlier.
So what do you think that an actual shooting war between the two great economic superpowers would do?
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to move toward sparking World War III in the Middle East as well. On Tuesday, we learned that Obama has authorized “direct action on the ground” in Iraq and in Syria. That means that our boys and girls could potentially end up in combat in areas inside Syria where the Russians are currently conducting operations. The following comes from NBC News…
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.
“We won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground,” Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.
When pressed, Carter admitted that U.S. soldiers “will be in harm’s way, no question about it“.
Wasn’t Obama supposed to be the president that brought all of our troops home and ended all of the wars?
Instead, his arrogance just seems to grow by the day and he is threatening to plunge the entire planet into World War III.
So what do you think of Barack Obama’s recent “foreign policy decisions”?
Please feel free to share your perspective by posting a comment below…
Is Barack Obama trying to kill the economy on purpose? On Sunday, we learned that Obama is imposing a nationwide 32 percent carbon dioxide emission reduction from 2005 levels by the year 2030. When it was first proposed last year, Obama’s plan called for a 30 percent reduction, but the final version is even more dramatic. The Obama administration admits that this is going to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a year and that electricity rates for many Americans are going to rise substantially. And what Obama is not telling us is that this plan is going to kill what is left of our coal industry and will destroy countless numbers of American jobs. The Republicans in Congress hate this plan, state governments across the country hate this plan, and thousands of business owners hate this plan. But since Barack Obama has decided that this is a good idea, he is imposing it on all of us anyway.
So how can Obama get away with doing this without congressional approval?
Well, he is using the “regulatory power” of the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress is increasingly becoming irrelevant as federal agencies issue thousands of new rules and regulations each and every year. The IRS, for example, issues countless numbers of new rules and regulations each year without every consulting Congress. Government bureaucracy has spun wildly out of control, and most Americans don’t even realize what is happening.
In the last 15 days of 2014 alone, 1,200 new government regulations were published. We are literally being strangled with red tape, and it has gotten worse year after year no matter which political party has been in power.
These new greenhouse gas regulations are terrible. The following is a summary of what Obama is now imposing on the entire country…
Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and 4 million public comments to the Environmental Protection Agency. In a video posted to Facebook, Obama said he would announce the final rule at a White House event on Monday, calling it the biggest step the U.S. has ever taken on climate change.
The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, senior administration officials said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.
In America today, the burning of coal produces approximately 40 percent of the electrical power used by Americans each year.
So what is this going to do to our electricity bills?
You guessed it – at this point even the Obama administration is admitting that they are going to go up. The following comes from Fox News…
The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limits will cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.
In the works for years, the power plant rule forms the cornerstone of Obama’s plan to curb U.S. emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing, and its success is pivotal to the legacy Obama hopes to leave on climate change. Never before has the U.S. sought to restrict carbon dioxide from existing power plants.
And we must keep in mind that government projections are always way too optimistic. The real numbers would almost surely turn out to be far, far worse than this.
In addition, these new regulations are going to complete Barack Obama’s goal of destroying our coal industry. In a previous article, I included an excerpt from a recent news article about how some of the largest coal producers in America have just announced that they are declaring bankruptcy…
On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the biggest American producer of coking coal, Alpha Natural Resources, could file for bankruptcy as soon as Monday.
Competitor Walter Energy filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, and several others have done the same this year.
Barack Obama has actually done something that he promised to do.
He promised to kill the coal industry, and he is well on the way to accomplishing that goal.
Of course Hillary Clinton thinks that this is a splendid idea. She called Obama’s plan “the floor, not the ceiling”, and she is pledging to do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The following comes from the Washington Post…
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged Sunday that if elected she will build on a new White House clean-energy program and defend it against those she called “Republican doubters and defeatists.”
Clinton was the first 2016 candidate to respond to the ambitious plan that President Obama will debut on Monday. Details of the program, which aims to cut greenhouse-gas pollution, were released over the weekend. The new regulation will require every state to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants.
And you know what?
The climate control freaks will never be satisfied. Since just about all human activity affects the climate in some way, they will eventually demand control over virtually everything that we do in the name of “saving the planet”. That is why I call it “climate fascism” – in the end it is all about control.
During the month of September, the Pope is going to travel to the United Nations to give a major speech to kick off the conference at which the UN’s new sustainable development agenda will be launched. As I have documented previously, this new agenda does not just cover greenhouse gas emissions and the environment. It also addresses areas such as economics, agriculture, education and gender equality. It has been called “Agenda 21 on steroids”, and it is basically a blueprint for governing the entire planet.
Unfortunately, that is ultimately what the elite want.
They want to micromanage the lives of every, man, woman and child on the globe.
They will tell us that unless people everywhere are forced to reduce their “carbon footprints” that climate catastrophe is absolutely certain, but their “solutions” always mean more power and more control in their hands.
Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and he is doing it in hundreds of different ways. These new greenhouse gas regulations are just one example. Our nation is being gutted like a fish, and most Americans don’t seem to care.
What in the world will it take for this country to finally wake up?
ISIS camps have now been discovered directly across the U.S. border with Mexico, ISIS operatives have been captured illegally entering the United States, and ISIS is threatening to conduct a massive campaign of terror against U.S. targets, and yet Barack Obama and his underlings continue to insist that “right-wing extremists” are the greatest terror threat that this nation is facing. One recent survey found that 84 percent of all Americans believe that ISIS is a “direct threat to the USA”, but Obama refuses to secure our borders and he is even allowing dozens of American citizens that fought for ISIS overseas to come back into this country. What in the world is Obama thinking? Even though ISIS has promised to drown all of us in our own blood, the Obama administration has purged virtually all references to Islam out of government terror training materials. Meanwhile, as you will see below, Obama’s political enemies have been regularly labeled as “potential terrorists” in official government documents during the Obama era. This includes “patriots”, “conspiracy theorists”, “evangelical Christians” and “general right-wing extremists”.
This week, we learned that it has been confirmed that ISIS cells are operating in northern Mexico just a few miles from U.S. territory. The following is an excerpt from a bombshell report that Judicial Watch just released…
ISIS is operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, according to Judicial Watch sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector.
The exact location where the terrorist group has established its base is around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Another ISIS cell to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas, targets the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming for easy access to the United States, the same knowledgeable sources confirm.
This comes on the heels of reports that federal authorities recently captured members of ISIS after they came across the border…
The warning follows reports from Judicial Watch in recent months that Islamic terrorists have been captured in Texas after coming across the U.S. border from Mexico.
The organization said just last winter its sources within the Department of Homeland Security said several ISIS terror group members were arrested by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr.
Considering how porous our border security is at this point, how many more members of ISIS have been able to come across without getting caught?
And none of this should be catching anyone by surprise. There have been warnings since the middle of last year that ISIS would be attempting to cross the southern border and attack targets inside the United States. The following comes from a recent article by Kurt Nimmo…
In 2014, Midland County, Texas Sheriff Gary Painter said ISIS would cross the border and strike the United States.
In August, a former CIA officer, Mike Baker, told the Laura Ingraham Show ISIS works with the drug cartels.
Judicial Watch said in August ISIS was using Juárez as a staging area and planned to launch a car bomb attack against Fort Bliss, a U.S. Army base about fifteen minutes from the border.
In September, Infowars reporter Joe Biggs. traveled to the area and crossed the Rio Grande dressed in an ISIS terrorist outfit. The stunt demonstrated how easy it would be for terrorists to enter the country.
But some members of ISIS don’t even have to try to come into the U.S. illegally.
If you can believe it, the Obama administration is actually welcoming back home many Americans that went overseas to fight for ISIS. Just check out what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently told 60 Minutes…
It was in a televised chat with Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” that he admitted there may not be as much oversight of those who trained and fought with terrorists as some people would like.
Stahl asked: “As I understand it, of the 180 Americans who have gone overseas to fight in Iraq and Syria, 40 have come back. I assume you’re keeping close tabs on those 40?”
Said Johnson: “We have, in fact, kept close tabs on those who we believe have left and those who’ve come back. A number have been arrested or investigated, and we have systems in place to track these individuals.
“But you can’t know everything.”
All of this is happening despite the fact that ISIS is threatening a massive wave of terror attacks inside this country.
They even have a hashtag on Twitter for this campaign. It is “#WeWillBurnUSAgain”, and it has already been used more than 15,000 times.
A video that was released in conjunction with this campaign sounds quite ominous…
“America thinks it’s safe because of the geographical location,” its voiceover says. “Thus you see it invades Muslim lands, and thinks that the army of jihad won’t reach in their lands.
“But the dream of Americans to have safety became a mirage.”
If I was in the White House, I would be inclined to take this sort of thing quite seriously.
But instead, the Obama administration continues to be obsessed with the “threat” from “right-wing extremists”. For example, a recent National Guard exercise featured role players that posed as “sovereign citizens” and chanted right-wing rhetoric…
The exercise, which Infowars reporters were barred from attending, took place in Richmond this past weekend and involved more than 200 soldiers, airmen, local law enforcement and firefighting personnel.
Footage captured by a local shows Guard troops pushing irate citizens away with batons before one of the protest group states, “I’m a sovereign citizen, I refuse to recognize you guys, I refuse to recognize you.”
“Why in the course of a drill for a dirty bomb, would an actor claim to be a sovereign citizen?” asks Keith Johnson, who filmed the footage. “The San Francisco Bay Area is not known for it’s sovereign citizen militia population and hearing this shouted during a mock terrorist scenario was disturbing. Anybody familiar with Richmond will tell you it is not a rural ‘militia’ environment. Located in the East Bay Area near Oakland, it is a community with reduced circumstances. No one there is going to be proclaiming to be a sovereign citizen.”
And of course this is far from an isolated incident.
Since Barack Obama entered the White House, Obama’s enemies have been identified as “potential terrorists” in official government documents over and over and over. This is something that I documented in a previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“. The list below is from that article. If you would like to see the original document for each point, just click on the link. And as you read this list over, ask yourself how many of these characteristics apply to you…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
With each passing day, the potential threat posed by ISIS increases, and yet Obama remains fixated on “right-wing extremists”.
What is the future of this country going to look like if we continue to get this type of “leadership” from the White House?
Because he can’t get Congress to approve the things that he wants to do, Barack Obama has apparently decided to rule by decree for the rest of his time in the White House. One of Obama’s latest moves is to try to ban some of the most popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Previously, the Obama administration attempted unsuccessfully to ban the AR-15. That didn’t work, so now Obama is going after the ammunition. This is yet another example of the war on preppers that is going on all over the nation. Whether you are a gun owner or not, this assault on our constitutional rights should disturb you greatly. Barack Obama has promised to try to squeeze as much “change” as possible out of his last two years, and in the process he is “fundamentally transforming” America. But what will our country look like when he is done?
At the top of the Drudge Report today, there was a story from the Washington Examiner detailing this ammo ban…
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
And here is more on this ammo ban from the NRA…
As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.
In an effort to thwart BATFE’s attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.
According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.
The crazy thing about all of this is the fact that this ammunition has never met the legal definition of being “armor piercing”. So what the Obama administration is attempting to do is outside the law.
A recent Infowars article broke this down…
The ATF is trying to ban M855 AR-15 ammunition by declaring it “armor piercing,” despite the ammo containing lead which exempts it from the classification according to law.
To be considered “armor piercing” under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17)(B), a bullet must have an entirely metal core or have a jacket weighting more than 25% of its weight, which wouldn’t include M855 rounds because their bullets are partly lead.
The definition in full:
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means- (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
Needless to say, this ban is creating quite a bit of panic among gun owners.
Many gun owners are stocking up on this ammo while they still can…
Word of ATF’s proposal sparked a run on ammo at some Springfield gun stores, and steep price spikes for steel-tipped military surplus ammo at some online ammo dealers. Rounds that sold for 25 to 30 cents apiece tripled at some some stores after BATF posted its proposal on its web site.
“We sold out of what we had in stock,” said Ryan Cook, manager of Eagle Armory in Springfield. “We didn’t have a lot in the store but I might have sold four or five cases after ATF’s statement came out. I called our suppliers but they said there was none available to order. It’s like the ammo shortage before. People are going to panic.”
Like I said earlier, even if you are not a gun owner you have got to be extremely concerned about this erosion of our constitutional rights.
We have a man occupying the White House that seems absolutely determined to stretch the limits of presidential power as far as they can possibly go.
And at this point he has become so arrogant that he doesn’t even care if Congress believes that what he is doing is legal. Just consider what he said during one recent speech…
Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.
Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:
“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
This is how republics die. When one man starts grabbing more and more power and nobody stops him, eventually a dictatorship is born.
This is not what our founding fathers intended. If they could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves.
And a lot of Americans are getting fed up.
In fact, according to one recent survey only 47 percent of Americans still believe that Obama loves this country…
While the creepy #ILOVEOBAMA continues to trend on Twitter, fewer than half of American adults, 47 percent, say they believe that the president loves his country.
According to a survey conducted by Huffington Post/YouGov and released this week, a whopping 35 percent of Americans, more than one in three, believe that Obama doesn’t love the United States, while 17 percent said they weren’t sure.
The poll was conducted in the wake of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani telling a gathering in Manhattan that “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.”
So what do you think?
Do you believe that what Obama is trying to do is legal?
And do you believe that Obama actually loves this country and everything that it is supposed to stand for?
Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…