Senator Ted Cruz: Wrong Shade of Brown to Suit Bill Richardson?

By John W. Lillpop


Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a prominent Hispanic politician in times long since past, opined as to Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his identification with the Hispanic people.

Richardson (Now THAT is a Hispanic handle!) said the following, as reported at the reference:

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson joined ABC News for a web interview after his appearance on the “This Week” roundtable on Sunday, answering viewer questions about his time as governor, his experience meeting with the Taliban, and his thoughts on Korean ruler Kim Jong-Un. When asked about Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Richardson expressed his distaste for the senator.


“I’m not a fan. I know [Ted Cruz is] sort of the Republican latest flavor. He’s articulate. He seems to be charismatic, but I don’t like his politics. I think he introduces a measure of incivility in the political process. Insulting people is not the way to go. But I guess he’s a force in the Republican political system, but I’m not a fan.”

ABC News: Do you think he represents most Hispanics with his politics?

“No, no. He’s anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. No, I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic. He’s a politician from Texas. A conservative state. And I respect Texas’ choice. But what I don’t like is… when you try to get things done, it’s okay to be strong and state your views, your ideology. But I’ve seen him demean the office, be rude to other senators, not be part of, I think, the civility that is really needed in Washington.”

Would the senator be more ‘Hispanic’ in your eyes, Mr. Richardson, if he was up to his neck in scandal and disrepute? How about if he was an illegal alien?

Just asking!

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/05/05/Gov-Bill-Richardson-on-Ted-Cruz-He-should-Not-be-defined-as-a-Hispanic-He-demeans-the-office

Amnesty Scheme All About Leveling Playing Field With Mexico!

By John W. Lillpop

In Barack Obama’s Marxist brain, his main function in life is to redistribute wealth from those who presumably have too much to those who have less.

Obama adheres to this obsession with ‘redistribution to level the playing field’ in all matters, excepting his own personal affairs. Which is why his daughters attend pricey private schools while other children attend second rate public institutions.

Its also why Michelle O. spends a small fortune to clothe herself in fancy gowns and jewels, and indulges her lust for the ostentatious with vacations that only the royalty of the world can afford.

And it is why Obama himself spends millions of dollars to golf with Tiger Woods and buy extravagant sports lessons to soothe his mangled psyche after a disastrous first term, and an even worse start to the second!

Its all about leveling the playing field in YOUR life, not his!

He is the poster child for the rich who live by the slogan, Level Not My Playing Field(LNMPF).

And it really explains Obama’s goofy policy toward Mexico.

You see, Obama sees Mexico as poor people of color whom have been victimized by the insatiable greed of white people living in America.
To his way of thinking, America has too much wealth while Mexico has too little of the booty.

Obama’s solution is straight out of Marxism 101: Wealth in America must be extracted from white folks and transferred post haste to Mexicans.

The easy way to do that is to open the borders to as many Mexicans as will come here for free education, health care, welfare, and food stamps, all paid for by taxes taken from greedy whites in America.

Eventually, the Mexicans will return to Mexico with zillions of American dollars stuffed in their pockets and wallets.

Ultimately, there will be parity between Mexico and America, when both are piss poor 3rd world disasters.

At that lovely day, Obama will declare victory as the ‘level playing field’ smothers all creativity and initiative in both nations and makes being dirt- poor the new cool!

Middle -East Erupts in Hot War: Whither Dithering US President?

By John W. Lillpop






Barack Obama’s refusal to stand by his “red line” commitment for action in Syria has NOT deterred the State of Israel from taking decisive action in that region.

As reported at the reference:

Israeli jets bombed Syria on Sunday, rocking Damascus for hours and sending pillars of flame into the night sky in what a Western source called a new strike on Iranian missiles bound for Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Local people reported massive explosions and internet video showed the capital's skyline lit by flashes; Syrian opponents of President Bashar al-Assad rejoiced at Israel's third raid this year, and second in 48 hours, while anger in Tehran highlighted how Syria's civil war risks spinning further beyond its borders.

Israel, while declining to confirm the strike, stressed its focus was to deny its Lebanese foes new Iranian firepower and not take sides between Assad, long seen as a toothless adversary, and rebels who have won sympathy from Israel's Western allies but who also include al Qaeda Islamists hostile to the Jewish state.

It appears to calculate that Assad will not risk forces he needs to fight the rebels by attacking a much stronger Israel.

Syrian state television said the bombing around a military research facility at Jamraya caused "many civilian casualties and widespread damage" and quoted a letter from the foreign minister to the United Nations saying: "The blatant Israeli aggression has the aim to provide direct military support to the terrorist groups after they failed to control territory."

People living near the Jamraya base spoke of explosions over several hours in various places near Damascus, including a town housing senior officials: "Night turned into day," one man told Reuters from his home near Jamraya, also struck on January 30.

CNN quoted Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad calling Sunday's attack a "declaration of war", and the Iranian foreign minister urged countries to resist Israel. But a senior Iranian commander also said Syria was strong enough to defend itself without Tehran's help - though he also offered training.

ROCKETS TARGETED

A confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel hoped that by not confirming its attack, it would not force its enemies into serious retaliation. There was little response from Hezbollah, Syria or Iran to an earlier attack on the Jamraya compound, near the Lebanese border, on January 30.

After an Israeli strike on Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah, which fired many rockets into Israel during a war in 2006.

A Western intelligence source told Reuters: "In last night's attack, as in the previous one, what was attacked were stores of Fateh-110 missiles that were in transit from Iran to Hezbollah."

Hezbollah in Lebanon declined immediate comment. Iran denied that the attack was on armaments bound for Lebanon.

Israel has long sought to block Hezbollah's land, sea and air transport from Iran and frets such new missiles could give the Shi'ite militants, who share in Lebanon's government, the ability to strike its Tel Aviv conurbation with some accuracy.

Netanyahu's colleague, Tzachi Hanegbi, noted Obama's reluctant to heed calls for U.S. military backing for the rebels despite Assad's forces alleged use of poison gas.

Given the confusion among world powers, he added, Israel was only trying to protect its own interests and saw little to be gained by trying to influence the outcome of Syria's civil war.

"The world is helplessly looking at events in Syria," he told Army Radio. "That is why, as in the past, we are left with our own interests, protecting them with determination - and without getting too involved."

It was unclear whether Israel sought U.S. approval for the action; in the past, officials have indicated that Israel sees a need only to inform Washington once such a mission is under way.

Netanyahu and Obama have had a fraught relationship in past years, as Washington seeks to hold Israel back from any attack on Iran's nuclear program while diplomatic moves continue.

At a routine public appearance on Sunday, Netanyahu made no direct reference to the strikes in Syria but spoke pointedly of his responsibility to ensure Israel's future.

He maintained a plan to fly to China later in the day, suggesting he did not expect a major escalation. However, a military source said the army had deployed more anti-missile defense systems near the northern borders in recent days.


NIGHT OF EXPLOSIONS

Video footage uploaded onto the Internet by Syrian activists showed a series of blasts. One lit up the skyline of Damascus, while another sent up a tower of flames and secondary blasts.

Syrian state news agency SANA said Israeli aircraft struck in three places: northeast of Jamraya; the town of Maysaloun on the Lebanese border; and the nearby Dimas air base.

"The sky was red all night. We didn't sleep a single second. The explosions started after midnight and continued through the night," one man told Reuters from Hameh, close to Jamraya.

"There were explosions on all sides of my house," he added, saying people hid in basements during the events. In the center of Damascus, people at first thought there was an earthquake.

Hezbollah's Al-Manar television aired footage showing a flattened building spread over the size of a soocer field, with smoke rising from rubble containing shell fragments. It did not identify where the film was shot.

The streets of central Damascus were almost empty of pedestrians and traffic on Sunday morning, the start of the working week. Checkpoints that have protected the area from rebel attack appeared to have been reinforced.

Some opposition activists said they were glad strikes may weaken Assad, even if few Syrians have any liking for Israel.

"We don't care who did it," said Rania al-Midania in Damascus. "We care that those weapons are no longer there to kill us."

But in Israel, Netanyahu ally Hanegbi spoke of relative indifference in its attitude to the rebels and Assad, who had maintained a standoff with Israel that dated from the time of his father, who led Syria in its last war with its neighbor in 1973: "We have no interest because we have no ability to assess what is good for us regarding the future regime," Hanegbi said.

Netanyahu appeared at the dedication of a highway junction in memory of his late father. He made no reference to raids but said his father "taught me that the greatest responsibility we have is to ensure Israel's security and guarantee its future".

With the middle-east on the edge of all out war, one must ask: Where is the President of the United States?

The answer is (pick one): 1)on a DC golf course, 2)fund raising and voter registration at a Cinco de Mayo rally for illegal aliens in the US,  3)touting the benefits of ObamaCare to would-be invaders still stuck in Mexico, or 4)preparing talking points to destroy the careers of whistle blowers scheduled to testify about Benghazi before Congress, or 5) Strumming a uke on the beach in Hawaii.

As usual, Obama is leading from behind while the world burns!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-blasts-idUSBRE94400020130505

Benghazi Happened ‘a long time ago.’ But Is the Truth About to Be Exposed Even After Eight Months of Lies and Obstruction?

By John W. Lillpop



White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to minimize the importance of questions about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya and subsequent cover-up allegations with these words:

“Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”
See Reference 1.
Carney’s weasel word answer makes it all the more imperative to get to the bottom of the leftist media-White House cover-up which, had the press corps been even slightly professional, might have seen Barack Obama sent home with just four years of harm inflicted on the nation and its people, rather than still in the White House and doing greater damage every day.

Nonetheless, as reported at reference 2, determined patriots remain committed to unraveling the Benghazi nonsense and appear ready to unravel with a bang next week:

Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistleblowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.

Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counter terrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

At the time of Stevens's death, Hicks became the highest-ranking American diplomat in Libya.

Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall's hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.

"For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building," Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating. The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.

Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens’ earliest phone calls amid the crisis.

“We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks.

Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response.

“The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”

According to the State Department web site, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counter terrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”

Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.”

Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Republicans -- disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistleblowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.

The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.

“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. ... It's frightening. ...They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”

DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing’s respective clients: “There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them.

“The people that we are representing are career civil servants...people who have served the country overseas…in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.”

Stay tuned, Jay Carney! You may be taught that time alone can not always prevent the pursuit of truth!


Ref 1 http://www.inquisitr.com/646618/jay-carney-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/



Ref2

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/#ixzz2SNdDQv6C

Real Purpose for Obama Jaunt to Mexico: Recruitment!

By John W. Lillpop


Barack Obama’s visit to Mexico is officially listed as a diplomatic mission to reinforce ties with our close friends and allies in Mexico.

However, the real reason is far more sinister and may, in fact, be part of a “high crime and misdemeanor” for which Obama could face impeachment and removal from office.

Treason may also be involved, but punishment for that transgression would surely spark unceasing, ill-founded cries of racism, and will thus be avoided for the time being.

The real purpose behind Obama’s visit to this 3rd-world failed state is voter recruitment, plain and simple.

Obama is desperate to make sure that those with the urge to invade America (about 33 million Mexicans!) act in a timely fashion and get settled before the amnesty scam is codified! The idea is to be in America and covered by amnesty in time to register and vote in the mid-term elections next year.

Which is why Obama spoke in glowing terms about immigration reform (AKA Amnesty) and redemption for millions of invaders through unearned citizenship.

His message was simple: Do not allow this opportunity to pass you by. Invade America now and secure a bright future and plenty of dinero for you and your family!

Constitutional scholars must decide if Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense. After all, he has refused to secure the borders and to enforce immigration laws on the books.

That insolence has the potential to deliver at least 11 millions voters to the Democrat party and turn the nation blue for decades.

The burning question: Can a sitting president refuse to enforce selected laws in order to “grow” his party? Is he allowed to visit a foreign nation to encourage would-be-invaders to come to America illegally, again, for the purpose of growing his party?

Is that not an act of voter fraud committed by the Executive branch?

Message to the Gang of Eight: Before passing your amnesty scheme, consider the probability that signing said dilly could put Barack Obama in line for removal from office via impeachment!