Wednesday, April 1, 2015


Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner could be in jail tomorrow, if Speaker, John Boehner, would simply employ this one constitutional provision.

   The United States House of Representatives can, and should, use their power to charge Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner, and any other contemptuous witness with “Inherent Contempt of Congress”.  It is the most effective arrow in their quiver for use in pursuing the truth.

   The power provides for incarceration of the recalcitrant witness for the duration of the current congress.  Since the 114th Congress began January 2015, and the duration of a congress is two years, a witness convicted in the House of Representatives in 2015 may be held until January 2017.

   The House of Representatives and the Senate each have their own version of the law, independent of the other, as well as the Courts and the Executive branches.  That is to say, if the House charges Hillary Clinton and convicts her of Inherent Contempt, the Sgt. at Arms will take her into custody and imprison her until the end of the duration of the 114th Congress, or the witness provides the required evidence.  There is no appeal to the Courts, including the Supreme Court, nor can the President of the United States, or his Cabinet (i.e. Attorney General of the United States) intervene.

   If by January 2017, Hillary Clinton does not produce the required documents (ALL of her emails while Secretary of State), the 115th Congress may take up the case and recharge her and hold her for another two years (until January 2019).  The same procedures apply to Lois Lerner and her infamous missing emails.  Both of these women, should absolutely be subjected to the charges and prosecution for Inherent Contempt of Congress…  and then serve their time in jail.

   By January 2017, a new administration will be in control of the White House and thus, the Justice Department.  If that be the case, then it would be likely that an honest Attorney General would opt to prosecute Hillary Clinton for the numerous violations of the Document Reporting Act, and Obstruction of Justice;  In which case, she will sit in a jail cell afforded her by the Justice Department for a sentence imposed by the courts.  Her incarceration in the House of Representatives’ jail would not hinder prosecution by the Justice Department.

   Unfortunately, it appears that for some unknown reason, Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, refuse to use the best weapon they have at their respective disposal, to get to the truth and to achieve a modicum of justice for the American people.  


   Under the inherent contempt power of the House, the recalcitrant wit- ness may be arrested and brought to trial before the bar of the House, with the offender facing possible incarceration. 3 Hinds § 1685. The first exercise of this power in the House occurred in 1812, when the House proceeded against a newspaper editor who declined to identify his source of information that had been disclosed in executive session. 3 Hinds §1666. Such powers had been exercised prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution by the Continental Congress as well as by England’s House of Lords and House of Commons. Jurney v MacCracken, 294 US 125 (1935).

   At the trial of the witness in the House, questions may be put to the witness by the Speaker (2 Hinds § 1602) or by a committee (2 Hinds § 1617; 3 Hinds § 1668). In one instance, the matter was investigated by a commit- tee and the respondent then brought to the bar of the House, and a resolu- tion was reported to the House for its vote. 2 Hinds § 1628.

   The inherent power of Congress to find a recalcitrant witness in con- tempt has not been invoked by the House in recent years because of the time-consuming nature of the trial and because the jurisdiction of the House cannot extend beyond the end of a Congress. See Anderson v Dunn, 19 US 204 (1821).

Duration of a Congress
   Each Congress lasts two years and is comprised of two sessions. The dates of Congress' sessions have changed over the years, but since 1934, the first session convenes on Jan. 3 of odd-numbered years and adjourns on Jan. 3 of the following year, while the second session runs from Jan. 3 to Jan. 2 of even-numbered years. Of course, everyone needs a vacation, and Congress' vacation traditionally comes in August, when representatives adjourn for month-long summer break. Congress also adjourns for national holidays.

Thursday, June 26, 2014


   These two documents, taken together, substantially prove that the Obama administration knew in January 2014; a full 6 months in advance of the surge of "Unaccompanied Alien Children" (also undocumented) that began in June of 2014.  It also strongly suggests that the Obama administration, vis a vis, the DHS had a hand in the planning, preparation and distribution of the flyers (cheat sheets), and instigated, with false promises, the exodus of indigent children from Central American to the United States .

   The ubiquitous "Cheat Sheet" found in the possession of many of these children was clearly prepared by someone with intimate, inside, knowledge of the process and knowledge that their guidance would surmount the specific and unique legal hurdles that these children would face, once across the U.S.-Mexican border.  Given the first document that was published with amazing clairvoyancy, six months prior to the surge, the obvious explanation must be that it was planned and orchestrated many months ago by the Obama administration.

   The presence of these documents begs several questions (for Director of DHS):
  • Who prepared the web post for the "Escort Services for Unaccompanied Children"?
  • Who authorized the position and the funds for their salaries?
  • Where is the published Job Description?
  • How much does the position pay?
  • What is the overall budget for this program?
  • How many people were hired for this position?
  • What training, if any, was provided for these new employees?
  • How did they know, SIX MONTHS prior to the event of the 'surge' there would be a need?
  • Who prepared the 'Cheat Sheet'?  (certain to deny involvement)
  • How and where were these 'Cheat Sheets' distributed?
  • Was there any collusion with Central American government officials?
  • Was there any cooperation between DHS and ANY other group or individuals?
  • Who within DHS, or any other part of the Obama Administration worked on the effort?
   It also begs the question as to why:

   What motivation may be ascribed to Obama for such a draconian and heartless maneuver?

   It has long been the goal of the Democrat Party to convert the undocumented alien population into an hispanic constituency, in the hopes of garnering an indomitable political majority.  They have been licking their chops, like starving wolves lording over a huge flock of unwary sheep.  Facing difficulty, of his own making by the way, in achieving what is deceptively referred to as 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform', it appears likely that Obama has resorted to extreme measures to circumvent the law, and flood America with imported Democrats, no matter the expense.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013




   Let’s give it a name.  In deference to the liberal, Democrat penchant for using misnomers in titling legislation to assuage their low information, read-the-headlines-only, proletariat; we shall name this proposed legislation, “The Affordable and Humane Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act”. 

   And further, we will also defer to the same politically correct, liberals’ call to cease using the term, “Illegal Alien” (ostensibly because the term ‘Illegal’ is an adjective and not a noun or a pronoun, therefore should not be used to identify certain people).  Henceforth, we shall refer to people who enter this country without the proper permission as, “Criminal Invaders”.  The term is more accurate, and complies with the use of a noun to describe the person as a “Criminal”.

   We don’t require 2,700 pages of secret sneaka-tax and tyrannical violations of the constitution.  We will keep it simple and straightforward.  It’s okay if the liberals in congress don’t want to read it; they can follow Nancy Pelosi’s pretzel ‘logic’ and pass it to find out what’s in it.

The Affordable and Humane Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act

   A National Citizen Registry shall be established within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security that will verify the validity of citizenship, and issue at no cost to the citizen, a secure National Citizen Photo Identification card and digital registry number to all United States Citizens.  Such a registry shall be held in an electronic database that includes the citizen’s name, digital image, place of birth, date of birth, gender, social security number, national ID number as well as the national ID numbers and Social Security numbers of birth parents, where known, and of adoptive parents.  Additional information to be recorded within the database may include current and historical home addresses, employers, and voting participation (but not which candidate or party the person voted for).  This National Citizen Photo Identification Card and digital registry number, shall be required to be presented by the citizen to which it is issued, to any police officer, prospective employer, or to a bona fide poll worker, at his duly assigned polling station, in order for the citizen to vote in any election.  Read only, secure, DHS digital computer servers shall be distributed in such a manner that access to verification for the purposes of identification by law enforcement, employment, or voting, shall be readily available and such verification shall take place in a timely manner.

   The United States of America shall henceforth establish a policy of reciprocity, whereby any person and/or their progeny, that enters the borders of the United States without properly securing legal permission shall be deemed ‘Criminal Invaders’ and shall bear ‘in-kind’ treatment, relative to the laws and conditions existent in the countries from which the criminal invaders emanate.  Children born to Criminal Invaders while in the United States of America without proper legal permission or authority, shall not be considered citizens of the United States of America.

    Rights afforded to citizens of the United States of America, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States of America, shall NOT be given to any person who is not a citizen of the United States of America, or that willingly enters the borders of the United States of America without the requisite permission and proper documentation.  This shall apply not only to Criminal Invaders, but to enemy combatants captured in battle outside of the boundaries of the United States of America.  There is no way that someone who is fighting to destroy the very nation that hosts these rights for its citizens, should be allowed to enjoy such rights.

   The recent advent of terrorism within the borders of the United States of America, dictates that securing the borders is paramount in establishing a free and safe United States of America.  As important as physical security of our borders is, there is another, even more effective means by which we can slow, or even reverse the flood of Criminal Invaders into the United States.  Make it a serious felony to employ any person without documented proof of U.S. Citizenship.  Make the penalties severe enough that no employer would even consider violating this law. 

   To wit; Any person, corporation, or business employing any person without proof of citizenship; that is, proper documentation such as a valid and verified National Citizens Registry Photo Identification Card, Social Security Card, or Birth Certificate, shall be punishable by a fine of up to 5 times, but not less than 2 times, the amount of the projected annual salary, based on the highest wages paid for any week of such employment multiplied by 52, while under the employ of said business or individual.  In addition, for any additional instances of such violation, the same fine shall apply for each instance, but, in addition, shall carry with it a sentence of not less than 6 months in a federal prison for each such instance, but not to exceed 5 years in the aggregate.  Criminal Invaders that are caught working with false documentation shall face a minimum of 6 months in prison, and then immediately deported.  If criminal invaders have funds, they shall be required to pay for the expenses of prosecution, incarceration, and deportation.  The violating employer shall make up any shortfall in payment of the costs.

   In addition, there will be no funds from any U.S. government based institutions, whether federal, state, or local, allowed to be distributed to Criminal Invaders.  No welfare, no food stamps, no General Assistance.  Nada.  No medical provisions.  No Medicare or Medicaid.  No Emergency Room treatment, without first paying for it.  Any costs associated with the capture, incarceration, and deportation of Criminal Invaders shall be billed first to the Criminal Invader, and any shortfall to their home country.

   With the exception of properly documented foreign students, no person without proper evidence of United States citizenship shall be allowed into public K-12 or post-secondary institutions.  Foreign students must keep their student visas current at all times, and shall certify through their designated educational institution that they are currently enrolled.  Any travel, by foreign students holding U.S. visas, either out of, or into the United States of America, must be logged as well.  Foreign students that fail to keep currently registered, and their whereabouts up to date, are subject to immediate deportation and revocation of student visa.  Children of Criminal Invaders that do not possess proof of U.S. citizenship shall be deported with the adult parent Criminal Invaders.

   If you think these terms and conditions are tough, take a look at the terms and conditions for equal treatment from the countries that the Criminal Invaders emanate.

   By enacting legislation in the spirit of  The Affordable and Humane Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act” as described above, the United States government could quickly, decisively, efficiently and fairly, accomplish effective border security, substantially reduce or eliminate voter fraud, and significantly reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on our homeland.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

How the House can put an end to Obama Administration Corruption


   Barak Hussein Obama, with the help of the minions within his administration, is running roughshod over America, the American people, and the U. S. Constitution.  He is doing so in multi-faceted onslaught.  In fact, there are so many controversial violations of the U.S. Constitution that it is difficult to focus on just one.  What is obvious to me, is that Obama and Company have committed more than enough egregious violations of the constitution, high crimes and misdemeanors, and possibly even treason, to warrant removal from office.  But the unfortunate reality is that while the Democrats control the Senate, they will never vote to convict on impeachment to remove him from office.  We have to look at what practical approach we can take to stop the corruption.

   There is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth among the population and in particular and with due cause, the conservatives in this country. In addition, there are many concerned and knowledgeable people in other countries, all around the free world, that worry about the consequences that carry a magnitude of damage so severe that the repercussions will shake the rest of the world to its core as well.

   It is clear that this corruption must be stopped, and the sooner it is stopped the less damage America, and the free world will sustain.  This begs the question of how to go about accomplishing this termination of tyranny without waiting until the only alternative is something akin to what is happening at this time in Syria.  There are several methods that have been designed into the innate genius of the constitution; removal from office by means of impeachment (by the House) and conviction (by the Senate); appointment of a Special Prosecutor; Criminal Prosecution; citation of Criminal Contempt of Congress; or citation of Inherent Contempt of Congress.

   Assigning a Special Prosecutor would be useless, given the corruption from within in the DOJ.  Eric Holder, with Obama’s implicit approval would simply refuse to appoint one, or if he felt compelled for whatever reason, he could and most likely would, simply appoint someone that he would be certain to skew the investigation in favor of Obama and himself.  Besides the amount of time it would take to conclude such an investigation, it would merely serve to take the issue off the table for the investigative period; likely the remaining term, Obama and Holder would be free to ride wild and free to impose as much damage as possible.  It would be an exercise in futility.

   Removal from office by means of impeachment and conviction would, at first blush, seem to be the most favored method of ending the tyranny, dereliction of duty, malfeasance, and abuse of power that is so rampant in the Obama administration.  However given the exigent political climate whereby certain Democrat Senators would never vote to convict Obama, even if they were provided clear, incontrovertible, evidence of Obama committing treason.  Democrats have shown their true colors in the past.  These particular Democrats are apparently so consumed with their greed and lust for power that there is nothing that they wouldn’t do to obtain, or retain it; the welfare of the nation be damned.

   Obama and Company has made it crystal clear that criminal prosecution isn’t going to happen.  Eric Holder actually dropped a case against the hate mongering, weapons wielding, New Black Panther Party members who were caught on video, blatantly and aggressively violating the law by verbally, and physically intimidating white voters in front of a polling station in Philadelphia on voting day 2008.  One of the perpetrators is seen on You Tube publicly spewing vitriolic hate speech declaring his hatred for every iota of white people and his desire to kill all white people, and kill their babies.  Yet, the newly installed Obama administration via Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ minions dropped the case AFTER they were already convicted in default!  This is not an honorable administration or Department of Justice, but a corrupt and racist organization apparently bent on racially motivated abuse of white people. The sheer number of criminal wrong doings that have surfaced within this administration that have not only gone unpunished, but in several cases have been rewarded by President Obama and/or Eric Holder is infuriating to say the least.  So, given the evidence of this intrinsic corruption, it is obviously a fool’s errand to try and use the ‘Justice’ system to enforce bona fide criminal charges against anyone in this administration.

  As for relying upon the Judicial Branch to enforce a House citation for Criminal Contempt, Eric Holder was deemed in Criminal Contempt of Congress by the House on June 28, 2012, and a civil lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment directing Attorney General Eric Holder to comply was filed on August 13, 2012.  The case is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  This process is slow, and relies upon the proper participation of the Judicial Branch.

   Fortunately, there is still one arrow in the congressional quiver.  Although, nearly dormant for lack of use (we have not seen corruption so egregious as evident in the current administration that would necessitate its employment), the power to cite for ‘Inherent Contempt of Congress’ is still available and it turns out that it may very well be the tool best suited for the job, at this time.  The application of the citation does not preclude other remedies, such as citation for Criminal Contempt, Criminal prosecution, or the Impeachment process.  Nor, does it interfere with an investigation by a special prosecutor.  The other good news is that the process is held entirely within the House of Representatives, where the Executive Branch, the DOJ, or even the Judiciary can interfere.  Once the citation is determined and made, the Speaker instructs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the contemnor and he, or she, is tried at the House Bar, and upon conviction, held in jail within the House or elsewhere until the contemnor complies with the requisite subpoena or the term of the congress expires.  If they contemnor refuses to comply during the term, it is possible that another subpoena may be issued at the beginning of a new congress, perhaps in the form of a subpoena duces tecum, and failing compliance, a new and separate charge of Inherent Contempt may be imposed and the contemnor, may find himself, or herself, in jail for a new term.

   No matter what, it is an ugly scenario, but it is only necessary because of the blatant and wanton disregard of the constitution and the rights of the people, by the Obama administration and conspiratorial complicity of the Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Friday, November 2, 2012



Just a Mom and her gun - and her thoughts on gun control:

I have been teased, in love (mostly) by both family and friends for making the decision to carry a concealed weapon everywhere I go.  When I have carried both into church and movie theaters I have most definitely gotten the "eye roll" from many of my friends and family.  You see, I do not advertise that I carry a concealed weapon, but most people I know saw me go through the process of gun purchasing as well as time in the range shooting and then the classes I took to receive my concealed carry permit in the state of California.  That said, I frequently get asked by my friends and family, "So, are you packing heat now?"  If you ask, I will tell - knowing full well I am going to get the typical response of, "Oh, Brandi!"  OR  "Do you really carry your gun everywhere?"  AND  my favorite, "You shouldn't live in fear."  The reality is, I do not live in fear.  Especially now.  

Almost two years ago when I had a man follow me out into a Target parking lot with a taser gun going off in his hand... yes, that made me fearful.  Especially, since I did not have anything on my person, except my own common sense to protect myself.  The only thing that scared him off was me charging toward him, pulling my hand to my hip in a pretend "draw position" and yelling, "I will kill you!"  He then made a quick left into a sea of cars and I retreated to my vehicle.  That was the first time owning a gun became a serious consideration for me.  Not even a week later my home alarm went off in the middle of the night.  Someone had lodged open my outside garage door.  Not having any guns or weapons in our home, my husband did what so many husbands do when someone attempts a break-in in the middle of the night.  He opened our back door and walked out to the garage completely unprotected and vulnerable.  As soon as he stepped outside I was horrified.  I became sweaty and clammy and my stomach started to turn.  This, was what living in fear felt like for me.  That moment in which you feel like you have no control over what could happen to you and to your family.  It turned out that whoever it was ran away... but what if he had not?  What if he had held a gun to my husband's head and marched him straight back into our home?  What if the intruder had a weapon and decided to use it on my unarmed husband, and then do God know what to me and my five defenseless children?  It was that night that made me realize that this was not a chance I was willing to take.  The next day I was in a gun store for the first time in my life and purchasing two weapons...  a pistol grip shot gun and a Kimber .45 ACP.

I had never even touched a gun until that day.  I realized that I had a lot to learn, a safe to purchase, and classes to take.  I decided to take this serious.  If I was going to own a gun, I sure as heck wanted to have the common sense in how to use it safely and accurately.  I was as scared as they come to pull the trigger on the .45 the first time at the range.  Would I drop it?  Would the sound horrify me?  Would I pull that trigger once and hate it so bad that I would never want to pull it again?  The answer was a solid, no, no and no.  In fact, with the eye and ear protection on, I was surprised how smooth the first shot was, how protected my eyes felt from the flying casings, and how much the ear protection dulled the impact of the noise.  I found I loved the thrill of target shooting.  It became great stress relief as well as something both my husband and I liked to do together.  I am not a competitive person by nature but am very competitive with myself.  This was the perfect sport for me.  I love going to the range, I love challenging myself to become a better shot, I love cleaning my gun, and yes, I love the smell of gunpowder and lead.  I am officially a gun junkie.

In light of what has happened in Aurora, we are again facing the sneers and jeers of those who think that taking away the right to own guns is going to stop the nut-jobs from carrying out their senseless acts.  My thought this weekend while watching this horrific tragedy play out was, "What if there had been someone in that theater carrying a legally concealed weapon, who could have popped off a magazine of shots at the armed invader?"  Yes, I know that he was wearing a bullet proof vest and a gas mask.  However, even in a bullet proof vest, eight rounds to the chest with a .45 ACP is going to stop you in your tracks, most likely knock you off your feet and at the least take your breath away - not to mention be an unexpected stunner.  Would this have made a difference?  Perhaps it could have possibly allowed more people to escape while the gunman composed himself and regained his bearings.  Would perhaps it have given an unsung hero the chance to take advantage of the situation and tackle the gunman while he was down and reassessing his own health or a new plan of attack?

In the aftermath of this tragedy these are questions we will never have the answers to.  When hearing about this incident I immediately thought about every time I have conceal carried my gun into my local movie theater.  There have been times I have not wanted to carry into the theater because holstering a weapon during a two and a half hour movie is not necessarily the most "comfortable" movie experience.  But I have to think, did the people attending that movie in Aurora ever think in their wildest dreams that a gas-masked, bullet proof vested gunman would storm the exact theater they were sitting in and start taking out humans like it was open season?  I extremely doubt it.  This is a day and time in which we should not live in fear, but we should be wise enough to realize that there are desperate people in this world, who at random times and places, act out in such a way that can be devastating and life-altering to those who happen to be innocently standing, or in the case of the Aurora theater massacre, sitting in their path of destruction.  For every time I have had the thought cross my mind that maybe I am being "over the top" or "obsessed" by carrying my gun with me everywhere I go, the incident in Aurora mad me give pause and realize that we never know what a day holds for us.  I will never again second guess my instinct to take advantage of my right to bear arms and legally and lawfully conceal carry my weapon into any movie theater, church, grocery story, shopping mall...  well, you get the picture - I will carry everywhere that I legally can.

So, all this nonsense about gun laws.  What makes us as a society so stupid to think that stricter gun laws are going to stop a criminal or a total whacko from carrying out their evil agendas?  People who act out in these ways are going to get their weapons one way or another.  If they have no criminal past, yes, they may get them legally.  If they have a criminal past they won't be stopped by the DROS process.  They will just get their weapons illegally.  Guns, and weapons of any sort for that matter, will always be easily obtained illegally by anyone who wants one bad enough.  Criminals will not be stopped by tougher gun laws.  If the gunman in Aurora had not been able to obtain a gun legally, do you really think he would have just given up on his notion to wreak havoc in the theater that night?  Not a chance.  Taking away the right to "legally" bear arms or making the laws so strict that it is impossible to obtain a "legal" gun, only hurts those of us who are responsible citizens and are already "law abiders".  If we fall prey to this notion and way of thinking, only the criminals and whacko will be bearing arms while the rest of us... just sitting ducks.

I have been called "obsessed" and "over-the-top" when it comes to how much and how often I conceal carry my gun.  After this weekend's chain of events, I am okay with that.  In fact, very early this morning at 4:30 a.m. when my house alarm began blaring throughout my home, for the first time I had the sense of no fear.  Instead of that feeling of panic and being defenseless, both my husband and I calmly popped open our bedside safes and pulled our Kimber .45s out.  I am glad there was no intruder... only for his sake.  So, the next time someone rolls their eyes and tells me, "You shouldn't live in fear", I'll just smile.  Fear...  I have never felt so fearless in my life - thanks to my Second Amendment right.  God forbid it is ever taken away from us as Americans.

Brani Shurtz-Huffmaster



Tuesday, October 30, 2012


"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."
          - George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense

   Adolf Hitler is undoubtedly the most recognizable and despised dictator in modern history.  In 1921, he became the leader of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte, (National Socialist German Worker's Party), known as the Nazi Party, for the pronunciation of the first two syllables of its name.

   By March of 1933, Hitler assumed Power of Legislation, essentially taking dictatorial control of Germany and placed Nazi officials into powerful political positions throughout the country.

   In October of the same year, Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, withdrew Germany from the League of Nations and began tripling the size of the German army.  By 1935, he went public with Germany's military expansion and the world learned that the Nazis had secretly built 2,500 warplanes and an army of 300,000 with plans to increase the size of the army to 550,000 by means of conscription.

   In spite of the obvious warnings, the world stood by and did nothing, which emboldened Hitler.  By June of 1935, Hitler demanded and got an agreement (the Anglo-German Naval Agreement) that removed the restrictions on Germany's navy, allowing them to increase its size to one third the tonnage of Great Britain's surface ships, and an equal tonnage of submarines.  This allowance was the first instance of a concept known as 'appeasement'.

   In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke of his disdain for the Treaty of Versailles and promised to break what he considered, its 'unjust' terms.  It was obvious to anyone paying attention that Adolf Hitler was a growing problem that needed to be dealt with.  But, it seems that the threat he posed was ignored as the Nazis built up a huge war machine.

   In September of 1938, another naive fool believed that he could negotiate an agreement with such a mad man, who was intent on war.  Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England, flew to Germany to bargain with Adolf Hitler in an attempt to stop Germany's military aggression and expansionism.  He came back to England, triumphantly declaring 'Peace in Our Time' and waiving a piece of paper in his hand, bearing the signatures of Adolf Hitler and himself.  That agreement is known as the 'Munich Accord'.

   The Munich Accord allowed Hitler more time to build his military without provocation.  Just one year later, September 1939, Hitler and his Nazi army totally disregarded the agreement and began their expansionism in earnest.  World War II ensued and over 60 Million people died as a result.  It is estimated that 410,000 Americans lost their lives to WW II.  To grasp the scope of the horror;  in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, from 2001 through 2012, there have been approximately 6,700 American fatalities.

   Appeasement was proven to be a failure of monumental proportions.  After all, Hitler had just broken the Treaty of Versailles;  who would be so naive as to believe that Germany would adhere to this new agreement?  Never the less, Neville Chamberlain was convinced that it would lead to long term peace. Obviously, it didn't work out that way.

   The cold, hard, lesson learned from the attempt at appeasement is that sometimes it is better to stand up and fight sooner, rather than later, when the consequences are generally much worse.  In the case of Iran developing atomic bombs, it most certainly is the case that action needs to be taken sooner, rather than later.  Barak Obama seems to be a modern caricature of Neville Chamberlain, albeit even more naive.

   Obama is foolish to believe that he possesses the negotiating skills necessary to persuade the lunatics in Iran to relinquish their unholy aspirations of developing nuclear weapons.  There mere fact that they have, to date, ignored all sanctions without regard to the level of damage that their nation suffers as a consequence speaks to their determination.  Any reasonable observer would conclude that negotiations with the Iranians are more likely to be futile than effective.

   Both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are on record, ad nauseum, declaring their intent to 'wipe Israel off the map' and to 'bring down the Great Satan'.  The Iranians refer to Israel as the 'Little Satan', and the United States as the 'Great Satan'.  Their blatant hatred for Israel and the United States is palpable.  Meanwhile, they continue to feverishly race towards the completion of an atomic bomb and long range missiles that are capable of delivering the nuclear warheads to both Israel, and ultimately, the United States.  It is not difficult to imagine what they intend to do with them, given their inflammatory rhetoric of the past decade.  

   While Obama is pleased to imagine that he might be able to negotiate with Iran, it would serve him better to remember history, relative to nearly identical circumstances vis-a-vis an evil dictatorship and government, obviously building a nuclear capability, while demonstrably intent on deploying them as soon as they achieve their goal.  Only this time the consequences are far more dangerous given that nuclear weapons are involved.

   But that is not the only consideration to be factored into this equation.  Even if the Iranians could be convinced to actually cease the development and enrichment of their nuclear material, there still lies a great danger.  Iran has its tentacles extended throughout the Middle East, and in particular with Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah Al Islam;  not to mention several splinter groups of al Qaeda.

   If Iran was to be thwarted in its efforts to achieve nuclear material enriched to the point necessary to make a functional nuclear weapon, it could still use the material they have on hand today, at its current state of enrichment to make what are known as 'dirty-bombs'.  These weapons are comprised of conventional high explosives mixed with non-fissile radioactive material.  The explosion is not as powerful as an atomic bomb, but the radioactivity spread by the explosion would effectively render the area of the blast uninhabitable for over 200 years and kill massive numbers of people.  Iran has publicly demonstrated a force of over twenty thousand soldiers, in addition to their connections with known terrorist groups, who are ready to use suicide-bomb techniques to detonate these bombs in cities around the world.

   Israel is surrounded by these terrorist groups, harbored by adversary countries that resent their existence nearly as much as Iran does.  Unless the existing radioactive material, and the equipment used to enrich it, are totally confiscated, any agreement with Iran to get them to cease their efforts of developing nuclear weapons is just plain folly.  They will simply divert the material to use in dirty-bombs and deploy them at will.

   The United States is far from safe from such dirty-bomb attacks, since our southern border is largely sieve-like.  To make that same point, a politician running for office demonstrated the ability to cross the Mexican-United States border, across the Rio Grande, on the back of an elephant, while a mariachi band played loudly on the shore.  At no time, did any authorities come to the site.
     Watch this video:

   It is not hard to imagine that agents of Iran, transporting dirty-bombs, would have an easy time of it, bring them across the border, then dispersing to twenty or so of our most important cities.  It has been reported that Mexican 'coyotes', experts at smuggling people across the border, have already been hired to transport Middle Eastern men from Mexico to the United States.  Whether or not they have dirty-bombs with them is unknown.

   In summary, even if Obama strikes a deal with the Iranians, the likelihood that they will ignore it is extremely high.  As in the past, they will stall, lie, hide and negotiate until it is too late.  At a minimum, they already have enough radioactive material to make plenty of dirty-bombs and distribute them throughout the world, to detonate at a time of their choosing.  Nothing less than total surrender of all their nuclear material, along with the destruction and confiscation of the enrichment machinery is acceptable.  

   Beware the illusion of appeasement...  It won't work.


Saturday, October 27, 2012



... And he can't deny it.  Barak Obama has severely tarnished the dignity of the office of the President of the United States.  As Americans, we all share that stain.  We might as well have Baghdad Bob addressing the world in his place.  In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Obama has repeatedly lied to the American people, and to the world about what transpired in Benghazi, Libya.

   Richard Nixon resigned his presidency in disgrace for far less than what Barak Obama has done.  Nobody died as a result of the Watergate break-in.  That was merely a botched burglary, but it was the subsequent cover-up, unearthed by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, that was Nixon's undoing.  Whereas, Barak Obama neglected his responsibilities as President, violated his Oath of Office, denied security that led to the deaths of Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith Glen Doherty, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens; and then lied about it for weeks after the fact.

   There are three distinct phases to the Benghazi story;  The period leading up to the attack, the attack itself, and the post-attack cover-up.


   It is incumbent upon the President of the United States and Commander in Chief to protect all citizens of the the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That includes the security of our diplomatic corps around the world.  It is in the Oath of Office.  He swore that oath.  He violated that oath.  He should resign, immediately, or face impeachment.

   It always was, and still is, HIS responsibility.  His job doesn't require playing 107 rounds of golf, nor flying off to Florida to schmooze with 'The Pimp With a Limp', but it does require that he protect America from "All enemies, foreign and domestic".  He failed, miserably, in that regard.

   For the period leading up to the attack, Obama would have us believe that he had nothing to do with the security of the Benghazi Consulate, and that he was unaware of any actionable intelligence indicating a need for increased security.  These are two bald-faced lies.

LIE #1:  He had nothing to do with the security of the consulate in Benghazi.

   Obama has stated that the security for the diplomatic corps is handled by 'security professionals' within the State Department.

   Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, ordered increased security for the Libya mission prior to the attack, but Obama said, 'No!'

   This was avowed by Ed Klein during an appearance on the 'Wilkow!' show on BlazeTV.  He was provided this information by Hillary Clinton's legal council.  This was taken from an article published October 26, 2012 on '' by Christopher Collins.  Retrieved October 26, 2012 from:

LIE #2:  He was unaware of any shortcomings in security at Benghazi

   It was September 11th for heaven's sake!  Larry, Curly, or Moe could have figured it out.  There needed to be reinforcements, at least for the day.  Why wouldn't any prudent leader err on the side of caution?

   In addition to the clear notice provided by Secretary of State Clinton, there were several other warnings prior to the September 11th attack.

   There were two prior and recent terrorist attacks on the Benghazi Consulate.  One of those attacks involved a powerful IED (Improvised Explosive Device) that breached the inadequately fortified exterior security wall.  This would have certainly been a topic for discussion in the President's Daily Brief.

   There were a multitude of emails and diplomatic cables from Ambassador Stevens himself requesting additional security, opining the reduction in security, and warning of increased threats from known al Qaeda affiliated Jihadi terrorist groups.  His fears were palpable in those messages.  This information too would be included in any adequate PDB.

   All other nations abandoned the regions, as did even the Red Cross, out of rational concerns for safety.

   The compound itself was in direct violation of minimal security standards.  That was known, and likely that a waiver would have required the approval of the President.

   The Libyan military warned the U.S. three days prior to the attack of the forthcoming dangers.  This was reported widely;  the story even carried on CNN and NPR.  This, most certainly, would have been a topic of discussion in the President's Daily Brief.

   Because he missed so many PDB meetings, (62% of them in 2012), IF he didn't get the information, it could only be because Obama was not engaged as Commander in Chief.  That he, and 'Laughing-Joe' Biden, continue to contend that they did not know that security of the Benghazi Consulate was inadequate is patently false, and disconcerting to all Americans who rely on the President of the United States to defend us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

   That he missed EVERY single PDB meeting in the week leading up to the attack (9/06 - 9/13) could account for him not getting the memo from the Libyan military that came three days prior to the attack.  (while he was taping a radio show with 'The Pimp With a Limp' in Florida).  I believe that it begs the question;  What other important security intelligence information did Obama miss during that full week of dereliction of duty?


LIE #3:  "Every piece of information we got, we laid out for the American people, as we got it."

   This is one lie, with multiple instances.

   We KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that news of the attack on the Benghazi Consulate was reaching the White House Situation Room in real time...  that is, as it occurred.  Emails from the State Department were sent at the outset of the attack to over 300 different recipients, including the White House.  Additionally, there was live video streaming from the Benghazi Consulate that was being watched in real time.  This video was seen at the CIA compound in Libya and should have been available to the President, in the White House Situation Room, for viewing in real time as well.

   It was painfully clear at that time that this was NOT the work of a disgruntled protest crowd that never actually existed.  It was obviously a well orchestrated attack by terrorists wielding AK-47 machine guns, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), and military grade Mortars.  Blaming the misinformation on the CIA, the Military, and the National Intelligence was another string of insidious lies.

   Although security at and around the compound was woefully inadequate, there were military assets within the region that could have been brought to bear.  Among them were F-16s as well as AC-130 Spectre Gunships, which are designed specifically to handle just these types of situations.  In fact, because it was reported, at the time, that he mortar firing sites were being lazed as targets, by our own personnel, the AC-130 Spectre Gunship would have been ideal to quell the assaults.  It was affirmed by military personnel that an AC-130 Spectre could have been over Benghazi within two hours.  It was seven hours after the attack began, and the first requests for help were made, that Glen Doherty and Ty Woods were ultimately killed by incoming mortar rounds, as they valiantly continued to fend off the enemy and protect the people in the compound, armed with just machine guns.

Firepower of an AC-130 Spectre Gunship - The small black bumps at the bottom of the picture are trees.

   However, requests for backup were denied... multiple times, despite the panicked pleas from the personnel on the ground there.  Ty Woods and Glen Doherty requested permission to travel from the CIA compound to the Benghazi Consulate, approximately a mile away, to provide support, but were told to 'Stand Down'.   Sometime after the second refusal by the President (the only person there with the authority to make such calls) they decided to risk their careers, and their very lives, to disobey the absolutely absurd order and rushed to the consulate anyway.  They ended up saving over 30 people, but were too late to save Sean Smith or Ambassador Stevens.

   Obama's response to this foreseeable disaster was abysmal and shameful.  As he stood by and watched these brave heroes murdered as they struggled for over seven hours to fend off an organized terrorist offensive, Barak Obama essentially handcuffed the military and prevented the rescue of these brave, former Navy Seals.  The bungling of this situation is inexcusable and unforgivable.

   He has not yet released this information to the public and it happened nearly two months ago.  It is another lie that he is perpetuating.

   He has yet to admit that Hillary Clinton ordered increased security in Benghazi, but thanks to a well planned leak by her legal representation, we have that information.  Obama is still furthering this lie.  It will annihilate the Obama campaign, if and when it gets traction from the main stream media.  But don't count on them; they only tell you what they want you to know.


LIE #4:  It was a demonstration that got out of hand because of a video

   This is another example of one lie that was told multiple times.  Of course, later, the Obama spin machine denied they ever told the lie in the first place.  Then it became a lie about a lie.  Hard to keep score with so many lies flying around.  But Obama continues to lie, even in the face of televised evidence of multiple instances.

   On the morning following the attack, Barak Obama made what appeared to be an obligatory speech in the Rose Garden, on his way out the door, to collect some campaign cash in Las Vegas.  At that time he mentioned the phrase, 'terrorist attack', but apparently only marginally connected to the events from the previous night.  When he got back from Las Vegas, the spin-cycle began in earnest.  Then the lie became that the attack was the result of a mystical demonstration gone bad;  NOT a foreseeable attack by a Jihadi Terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.  The truth would look bad, and cost Obama some votes.  So, a convoluted cover story was concocted.

   If it got out that Obama knew Hillary ordered additional security for the consulate prior to the attack, and that he turned it down, it would be political suicide.  So the new campaign strategy was to obfuscate and muddle, flummox and befuddle, and to shuck and jive.  Obama devised what apparently he stupidly believed was a story that would cover his ass.

   He tried to claim that the attack was the result of some obscure, Internet video that nobody had seen and had been posted several months prior to the attack.  He tried assiduously, but in vain, for approximately two weeks to foist that far-fetched story on the American public, but got exposed as a liar in the process and had to retrace his steps.  He looked really bad in doing so.

   His lies were, and still are, disgraceful.  And then, he lied about ever telling the lies in the first place.  He and his minions are caught on video recordings lying... on both sides of the coin.  He appears to be an incorrigible, pathological liar.  It seems that the entire Obama campaign got its proverbial mammary glands caught in the wringer.

   When, and if, the main stream media picks up on this information and the facts get to the American public, Barak Obama will be exiled and his legacy shall be relegated to the trash heap of infamy, where it belongs.

   Obama lied... and people died!  He still hasn't come clean that he knew it was a Jihadi terrorist attack within the first two hours, even though he was actively turning down requests for rescue support at the time and had to have known.  And yet, for two weeks he tried to blame it on an imaginary, spontaneous protest, even to the point of sending the current Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, out to five highly rated Sunday television news shows with his well orchestrated talking points.  There is no doubt that those talking points she repeated, time and time again, as well as the instructions to deliver them on national television came directly from Barak Obama.  They were bald-faced lies, in direct contradiction to the facts known to him at the time.

   For two long weeks subsequent to Obama's return from Las Vegas, the political spin machine muddled the waters as best it could, attempting to hide the foreknowledge and concomitant lack of action on the part of the President.

   David Axelrod confirmed the Obama campaign's politicization of the Bungle in Benghazi by his involvement in the fray.  He made several television appearances trying to obfuscate the obvious truth; but he ended up looking much like a pathetic caricature of Floyd, the barber, from Mayberry RFD, stuttering, stammering, hemming and hawing;  obviously flustered by the difficulty of lying his way out of the debacle he's found the Obama campaign mired in.

LIE #5:  'No actionable intelligence'

   For two weeks, Obama & Co. (Obama, Laughing-Joe Biden, Jay Carney, David Axelrod, et al) continued to assert that they had no 'actionable intelligence' that it was a terrorist attack.  Do we ask 'How stupid do they think we are?' or 'How stupid are they?'  I'll opt for the latter, but it occurs to me that maybe I misheard them, and they were actually say they had no actual intelligence.  That might make sense in a different context.

   Jay Carney, the President's Press Secretary (liar for hire), willfully lied repeatedly, steadfastly claiming that the attack was the result of a demonstration that went bad, even in the face of hard evidence exposing him as a liar.  Once he did his '180', he vehemently denied ever having said that it was ever anything but a terrorist attack.  How does he sleep at night?

   No U.S. President, not even Jimmy Carter, has ever disgraced himself as badly as Barak Obama, as he lamely tried to conceal the truth and defend the idiotic decision to withhold information regarding his denial of security to the Benghazi Consulate prior to the attack;  then exacerbating the problem by refusing to send in military rescue assistance to the Ambassador and his people as they were being brutally murdered;  and finally, for the truly monumental stupidity in the lame attempt to lie his way out of it.

   Barak Obama is in way over his head.  The blood of Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ambassador Christopher Stevens is on his hands.  His actions are disgraceful and he is in no way qualified to serve as President of the United States. He should resign as soon as possible.