Saturday, September 15, 2012

FLY THE BLACK FLAG

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                                                         by wp

  It has become time for Americans to do what our Government is too cowardly to do.   Stand up for America and let the nation of islam know we will not stand for anymore.  IT IS TIME WE BEGAN TO FLY THE "BLACK FLAG" AND MEAN IT.  We can not trust this rogue administration to follow the oaths they lyingly swore to defend the CONSTITUTION against enemies both foreign and domestic.  Treason has become a simple deed for them and they refuse to do their duty.   FLY THE BLACK FLAG WITH ME AND STAND FOR 'OLD GLORY'.  MY BLACK FLAG WILL BEGIN FLYING OCTOBER 1, 2012.  IN GOD WE TRUST AND HOLD OUR FAITH.

MEET OBAMA: THE SANDMAN

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                                                            by wp


WASHINGTON – An eminent psychiatrist and forensic profiler suggests Barack Obama is “confessing” to the American people who he is and what he wants to do to the country, but most citizens are just not trained to decode his messages.
Dr. Andrew G. Hodges, in his new book “The Obama Confessions,” makes the case that, because of the hurts he experienced in his young life, Obama has overcompensated with a sophisticated communication system that can be understood by reading between the lines of what he says.

What does that decoding reveal?
“Obama reveals the completely secret trauma that controls his life, resulting in his deep misguided fury expressed toward America,” writes Hodges.
To understand Obama, says Hodges, one must see him as “the sandman” – the way he views himself because of the trauma in his life.
It was author and commentator Thomas Sowell who first drew the allusion to Obama as “the sandman.”

“The track record of Obama’s pronouncements on a wide range of issues suggests that anything he says is a message written in sand, and easily blown away by the next political winds.”
But Obama has referred to himself as “the sandman.” What does he mean?
At a Jan. 19 fundraiser at Harlem’s legendary Apollo Theater, Obama took to the stage toward the end of the evening and broke out in song.
“It had been a particularly musical occasion and the president’s appearance followed several performers including soul singer the Rev. Al Green, whom Obama acknowledged,” Hodges explains in his book. “But the entertainers were expected to sing – Obama was only expected to speak. Without warning, however, he delivered a surprisingly pleasing falsetto lyric, ‘I’mmm … sooo in love with you’ – the opening line from Green’s 1972 hit ‘Let’s Stay Together.’ Not believing their ears, the audience bursts into applause. After the ovation subsides, Obama takes it all in, then hesitantly glances toward his staff off stage right. Talking directly to them but also to America, he blurts out, ‘Those guys didn’t think I would do it. I told you I was going to do it.’”
But Obama added a comment most reporters missed.
“The sandman did not come out,” Obama said. “Now don’t worry, I can’t sing like you, but I just wanted to show my appreciation.
 CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

OBAMA PROPOSES $129M CUT FROM EMBASSY SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                                                    by wp

BREAKING: Obama Proposes $129M Cut From 'Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance'

14 Sep 2012

Today, President Obama released the long-awaited “sequestration report,” detailing the cuts the White House would make to the budget under last year’s Budget Control Act if no deal is reached in Congress.



And there, buried on page 136, is the White House’s proposed cuts to “Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance.” $129 million. That’s a full 8.2 percent of the possible sequestrable amount. It’s a massive slash of the budget for our embassies, consulates, and security abroad.


That’s just part of the White House’s ridiculously destructive sequester proposal, which takes a chainsaw to the defense budget. Most defense programs would get a 9.4 percent cut, and a 10 percent cut to other Pentagon accounts. Medicare, by contrast, would take only a 2 percent hit. “No amount of planning can mitigate the effect of these cuts,” wrote the Office of Management and Budget. “It is not the responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction. The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government function.”


President Obama brought about this sequestration himself when he refused to cut the budget, and his Democratic allies in Congress did the same. Republicans didn’t want to tie cuts to tax increases; Obama did. Democrats’ default position was that cuts had to come from defense. And thus we ended up with the Budget Control Act, which left Congress in the position of watching President Obama slash the military budget if they couldn’t reach some sort of arrangement.


In the aftermath of worldwide attacks and assaults on our embassies and consulates, it certainly looks incredible for the President to insist on deep slashes to our embassy security budget, let alone our overall defense budget. But that’s what this administration is all about: cutting defense, and leaving America and her emissaries more vulnerable.


Tip

SUIT: ROBERT'S RULING A POISON PILL FOR OBAMACARE

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                     by wp



The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.
But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution requires any tax bills to begin in the House.
The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.
“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.
When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.
But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.
The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.
“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.
His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.
Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and inserted the Obamacare language.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”
The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.
The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”
“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”
His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.
But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.
“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”
The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.
In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion”on two conditions.
If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

 by wp:   As with the majority of the E O's that Obama and his Congressional co-horts have pushed onto the American People  this legislation is filled with dishonesty and consistant violation of the laws of the Constitution which by its own statement overrides the will of the president, Congress and the Supreme Court.  The CONSTITUTION is supreme and is above the laws of the Federal Government.  We, the People, need to realize this and refuse to abide or obey illegal laws and orders.  WE HAVE THE CONDTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FOLLOW THIS.



SEBELIUS SHOULD BE TERMINATED FOR VIOLATING HATCH ACT

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV          by wp

Health Secretary Sebelius Should be Terminated for Violating Hatch Act

sebelius obamaIn 1939, the Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities was passed by Congress and became federal law. The act prohibits federal employees from being involved or holding membership in any political organization which advocates the overthrow of the constitutional form of government. (Say, isn’t that what the Democratic Party has been doing with the help of Barack Obama and Eric Holder?)
The main aspect of the Act, later called the Hatch Act after New Mexico Senator Carl Hatch, is to prohibit federal civil servant employees in the executive branch from taking part in partisan political activity. It also forbids them participating in political campaign activities and from intimidating or bribing voters. They are also not allowed to use public funds for political campaign purposes.
The Hatch Act also covers all Presidential appointees including the Secretary of State and other cabinet positions. This could be part of the reason that Hillary Clinton was outside the country during the Democratic National Convention.
As a rule most violators of the Hatch Act are instantly terminated. In lieu of the fact that President Barack Obama’s declaration of establishing the toughest ethics laws and transparency of his administration, you would expect him to keep to the normal procedure for those in his executive branch who violate the Hatch Act, but that does not seem to be the case.
Back in February, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human services, attended a taxpayer funded campaign event in North Carolina. While participating in the event, Sebelius publicly endorsed Obama’s bid for re-election along with Walter Dalton’s bid for re-election as Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina.
According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, (OSC), Sebelius violated the Hatch Act on more than one account. The OSC also states that an:
“Employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.”
There is a provision that offers an alternative to termination for violations of the Hatch Act. Those federal employees that aren’t appointed to their position by the president or approved by the Senate can be given a punishment that allows them to retain their position if:
“The Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than a 30-day suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the board.”
But, Sebelius is a presidential appointee that was confirmed by the Senate, so she is not eligible for review by the Merit Systems Protection Board. President Obama has been informed by Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner that Secretary Sebelius:
“Violated the Hatch Act by making extemporaneous political remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity.”
“The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election. A federal employee is permitted to make partisan remarks when speaking in their personal capacity, but not when using an official title or when speaking about agency business.”
“Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services reimbursed the U.S. government for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the February 25, 2012, event. HHS subsequently reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.”
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) told The Daily Caller:
“This is exactly why they did the Hatch Act — so you wouldn’t have unions running the government and secretaries weren’t forcing politics on employees. Here you have the most pro-union administration allowing someone to do exactly that. For an administration that claims to be pro-workers — and that’s why the Hatch Act was written, to be protect workers. But hey, what do you expect? This is not surprising. They finally let themselves get caught doing it.”
“I mean, clearly the unions have made it their life’s work to re-elect this president. It sends a very chilling message: If you’re a federal worker, you’re now also an employee of the campaign, perhaps, rather than just an employee of the federal government.”
According to Dan Epstein, President of the Cause of Action watchdog organization:
“Thus the point is that by close of business on Sept. 12, 2012, the president has been informed of a Hatch Act violation and yet has decided not to fire Sebelius. The president has therefore decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities. He has effectively said it is okay to politicize the executive branch.”
Personally, I believe that Sebelius is too important to his healthcare plan and to the contraceptive mandate to terminate her. Nor can he afford to have her suspended for 30 days with all of the court challenges to the health care program and contraception mandate.
So, will President Obama keep his word about strict ethical laws and a transparent administration or will he do his best to ignore the situation and hope it goes away?


Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/7063/health-secretary-sebelius-should-be-terminated-for-violating-hatch-act/#ixzz26a6QsZ9y

ET WILLIAMS ON OBAMA AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY ?

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER POSTED BY BH

BY:  E. T. WILLIAMS   (ET Williams is mad that Obama is destroying African-Americans, and even more angry at those who defend Barack Obama.) His Web Site and Book are Mentioned in the Video.

WHITE HOUSE HIDES FROM ACCEPTING DUE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEATH OF OUR DIPLOMATS

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                  by wp


White House Deflects Responsibility for Islamist Attacks


08012012Clinton“This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, but it is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.” — White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
Methinks the White House doth protest too much.
To say that the violence throughout the Middle East in the past three days has nothing to do with the U.S. but is the product of a little nothing movie somebody made on the cheap is sort of like saying Godzilla doesn’t mean to destroy Tokyo, he just wanted to take out his anger at Mr. Fujito Takahara of 324 Elm St.
Whatever the spurious excuse is, we are the target of Islamist anger. That is why they are targeting OUR embassies, killing OUR people, burning OUR flags and shouting death to America.
By blaming the video, the White House is trying to deflect attention from the unspeakable incompetence of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The whole video issue is shaping up as a really half-baked attempt to blame Israel, American evangelicals and conservatives in general for what is clearly a contrived, coordinated attack by Muslim extremist groups.
Initial reports said the video, “The Innocence of Muslims,” was the creation of a conservative Israeli-American businessman named Sam Bacile. Bacile turns out to be a pseudonym for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an American Coptic Christian who was registered as a Democrat from 2002 to 2008, then changed his registration to American Independent. According to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s sources, he is on probation after conviction for dealing methamphetamine and committing financial crimes. On Friday, police and press were staking out his house, which has a statue of the Virgin Mary on the front porch.
Using the name “Bacile,” Nakoula apparently tried to get Pastor Terry Jones (he of Quran-burning fame) involved in distributing or promoting the film in question. He also engaged Steve Klein, a decorated Marine veteran who has been an activist against Islamists in the U.S. since 9/11 and who has been a target of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks conservatives it considers “haters.”
According to Klein, “Bacile” approached him with a script and an idea to make a movie that would draw in Muslims and trick them into watching anti-Islam propaganda that would make them question their faith and convert.
Klein, who is an insurance agent in Hemet, California, said the man disappeared then showed up again months later with a completed film and wanted Klein to promote it in exchange for consideration if the movie “took off.” Klein was the American Independent candidate for state insurance commissioner in 2002.
Klein said Nakoula tried to advertise the film with fliers throughout Southern California mosques but not one ticket was sold.
Of his minor part in the film’s production, Klein said, “Do I feel guilty that these people were incited? Guess what? I didn’t incite them. They’re pre-incited, they’re pre-programmed to do this.”
The man most directly responsible for alerting Islamist media to the film’s existence is apparently a man named Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-born Copt, who translated the film into Arabic and sent clips to the Egyptian media.
People who are familiar with Sadek have said he is an anti-Islamic publicity seeker who had been banned from his homeland and may have been looking for notoriety in the Egyptian press.
According to Religious News Service, Sadek calls himself a human rights attorney and is president of the National American Coptic Assembly, based in Chantilly, Virginia.
Maybe I’ve read too many spy novels, but the characters behind the movie, namely Nakoula and Sadek, practically scream intelligence agency operatives.
Note I didn’t specify “foreign,” though I’m open on that point.
The entire situation with the Middle East attacks smells of a setup. The embassies were poorly guarded. Information about the return of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was apparently leaked. Egyptian security forces had information about an attack as early as September 4, and the U.S. State Department had information about an attack two days before 9/11, according to British media.
Add all that to the failure to take even the simple common-sense precautions of stepping up security at embassies in the Mideast around the anniversary of 9/11 and there is an inescapable sense of intent here.
So while the liberal media and blogosphere go on about Mitt Romney “politicizing” 9/11 and the GOP springing a “September surprise,” the real answers about who gave birth to this plot may be closer to the White House and an administration that is known to have high-level connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.


Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/7051/white-house-deflects-responsibility-for-islamist-attacks/#ixzz26ZzLF4Ws

"THANK'S BARACK"

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER POSTED BY BH


A QUESTION FOR THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA BY ROBERT FIRTH ?

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER POSTED BY BH

BY ROBERT J. FIRTH 
FREE ZONE WRITER
SEPTEMBER 15, 2012


Questions for the Media: (only those biased silly-ass libs who are in the bag for bama no matter what. The rest of you can ignore this.

OK, Look you all are quick to criticize Romney but- what about bama? He’s failed in all respects, International and domestically! You all know this yet you still protect him!
 
Are you all F---king nuts? Do you know what happens to journalists in Russia? Do you really?  I personally knew one who was shot to death for saying bad things about Putin. She was killed on his birthday…coincidence? I don’t think so- do you? Are you that naive to think it can’t happen here?
You all are pushing for a socialist country which is only a precursor for communism and total control, no first amendment etc. Is this really what you idiots want?
 
Look, I’m a bit older than most of your and a hell of a lot better traveled and educated- probably a little smarter than most of you too. I see your incredible bias very clearly. You all need to be ashamed to call yourselves journalists- which you most certainly are not! You are all in the bag for bama- bent, probably by your communist professors…….
 
Incredibly, on an open mike, you all tried to “sandbag” Mitt and that came across very clearly. How stupid is that?
 
Look, here’s a question- we don’t know for sure if the Marines had live ammo in Libya right? But, if they did, where are the dead Islamic terrorists?  There aren’t any, so it follows that they were unarmed right? Get to the truth of this – if you can! If orders were given to have the guns unloaded as a DOS policy then we’re in real trouble and we need to know!  Get with it- that’s your job!! It’s a hell of a lot more important than what and when Romney said anything about this.
 
Get Ole Jay to quit lying! This is all about Bama’s failures and has noting to do with the stilly you tube video. Surely, you know this- so get with it and report the obvious. How can you actually stand yourselves? That’s not rhetorical- I really mean it! You should be ashamed but, then again, I guess ‘shame’ is an emotion of an earlier era?
 
America is in trouble and most of it’s Bama’s fault. He didn’t inherit Libya and Cairo, he can’t blame Bush! The MB is all on his watch. The Cairo speech in 2009 was the possibly height of naivety for any American President- if indeed that is what he is?
 
Not supporting the Green Revolution in Iran when he had the chance was either stupid or part of his plan! Then, supporting the monsters in Libya and abandoning Mubarak in Cairo while leaving Israel hanging is all Bama. Did he do all this on purpose? Maybe, and, if you call yourselves journalists, and have a shred of self-respect and professional ethics, that’s what you need to find out.
 
Media, You had better hope to hell that Romney wins in November. If you can’t see this then- God help you and God help America! Of course, most of you don’t believe in God anyway, do you?
 
Best,
 
Robert Firth
Boca Raton FL

BLACK FLAGS FLYING AT US EMBASSY- WHAT DO THEY MEAN??

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                                                               by wp

Black Flags Flying At U.S. Embassy – What Do They Mean?


black flag over embassyMost of America has heard the news of how Muslims in Libya overran the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and killed the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans. They also heard that the militants torn down the U.S. flag and raised a black flag over the embassy.
But how many Americans know or understand what the black flag means?
Many of our military men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan know the significance of the black flag all too well.
I have several nephews that have fought in Iraq and have heard and read from others that have served and they all say the same thing—black flags meant the truce was over and that they are a warning to locals and others that danger is present and attacks are near.
One such report was recently posted by David French on the American Center for Law Justice website. French writes about his experience in Iraq back in 2008 and how on this one day he saw the black flags flying for the first time. The streets were eerily empty of civilians. It was the day their convoy came under attack. It was a harrowing time for French and his convoy and he is very thankful that he eventually made it safely back to his base.
When the Libyans who stormed the American compound in Benghazi were sending a signal that any supposed truce between the U.S. and Libya was no longer going to be observed by those involved. It also means that there could and probably would be more attacks and acts of violence against U.S. facilities and citizens.
Yet the U.S. response to the attacks has been questionable at best so far. The Obama administration has condemned the attacks, but their condemnation only makes us look weak and ridiculous in the eyes of the Muslim militants. French summed it up pretty good when he wrote:
“We do not know what is happening behind closed doors (where the administration’s talk and actions may be much tougher than we currently perceive), but the parade of public American condemnations for an asinine YouTube are ineffectual at best and counterproductive at worst. Some jihadists in fact will view the condemnations as proof of their power and influence over American leaders. They had their moments on September 11 and September 12. They need to soon experience a decisive American response.”
Perhaps it’s time Americans start flying black flags to let the Muslim militants know that any truce is over and we are on our way to take justice into our own hands on those that perpetrated the attacks. Our military leaders need to forget our Muslim in the White House and do what’s right by the American people and those that were murdered.

Print Friendly


Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/7059/black-flags-flying-at-u-s-embassy-what-do-they-mean/#ixzz26ZwxMOr7

State Department sent gay man to be (Ambassador to Libya)

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER POSTED BY HS

from Hill Buzz Blog



BREAKING NEWS: Two sources in Chicago diplomatic circles identify Ambassador Chris Stevens as gay (meaning State Department sent gay man to be ambassador to Libya)


[ Ambassador Chris Stevens in the 70s with male companion Austin Tichenor, whose Facebook profile has been displaying photos and remembrances of Stevens the last few days including references to the gay-themed novel "Brideshead Revisited" whose main characters were star-crossed, doomed lovers "Sebastian" and "Charles"...which is not a far cry from the names "Austin" and "Chris", as some of Austin's friends have noted on Facebook. ]

Programming Note: we will talk about this breaking story on the air tonight on HillBuzz & Mrs. Fox Show live at 1030pm CST — click HERE to listen


Today I went out into the field here in Chicago looking to talk to some of the striking teachers but no one in a red-shirt was anywhere to be found (or, if they were wearing one, they had nothing to do with the teachers’ union strike).  A journalist friend of mine asked me to nose around and see if I could uncover anything about slain Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was rumored to be gay.  A former “roommate” of Stevens by the name of Austin Tichenor lives and works in Chicago and while making calls to friends of mine in the theater world who know him I also thought to check some sources with the city who deal with the State Department and foreign dignitaries when they are in town.
Of course, they’ve all been talking about Ambassador Stevens’ murder by Muslims in Libya:  and all of them are incredulous that the State Department sent a gay man to be ambassador to a Muslim country.  News reports continue to indicate that the Muslims who murdered Stevens also raped him repeatedly, before and after his death.
I was told by friends in the City’s protocol office to go over to the Second Story Bar in downtown Chicago, just off Michigan Avenue, because it’s where a lot of gay guys who work for both the city and the consulates go after work.  Chicago is home to a great number of consulates, including the Polish, Chinese, and Serbian consulates amongst others.  I happened to luck out when the bartender working, who is a friend, tipped me off that a man in a suit talking to some other foreign-looking types worked at the Serbian consulate a few doors up the street towards the lake.

Second Story Bar is literally on the second floor of a nondescript building whose ground level houses some sort of Thai restaurant.  A psychic’s office is prominently advertised on the door leading to a steep flight of stairs and a blank green steel door that hides the tucked-away bar.  The place has the feel of a speakeasy, with exposed bricks and battered plaster on the walls and an oddball collection of black and white photographs and pig-themed folk art scattered over drinkers’ heads in any exposed space.
I’m forever perplexed that actual reporters don’t camp out in these sorts of places because great scoops are very easy to find if you just go in there and ask questions.  The Serbian consulate employee identified himself to me as “Dino” and wouldn’t give me any more of a name than that, but told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual”.
Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens’ corpse was something that Muslims do to show the “utmost disrespect to the body” and that this is “a great insult in Islam” reserved for homosexuals.  ”It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life” the Serbian explained to me.  There’s a good chance this guy was Muslim too, and gay, which makes my head spin more than a little since he seemed to have no anger at all in his voice that Muslims in Libya assassinated the American ambassador and then sodomized his corpse.
“He should not have gone there” was the general consensus from this man.
You won’t hear any of this in the media, no doubt, but in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay and that pretty much anyone in the diplomatic world knew that.  That includes the Libyans who were hired as security at the consulate in Benghazi who betrayed Ambassador Stevens and assisted in his murder.
Meanwhile, the White House is ignoring the fact that a gay ambassador to a Muslim country was murdered and they are in fact still pretending that all of this is about some obscure movie about Muhammad and has nothing at all to do with Barack Obama repeatedly and vociferously spiking the football over killing Osama bin Laden (which took place all throughout the Democrats’ convention last week).

TUNE in to the HillBuzz & Mrs. Fox Show tonight at 1030pm CST to listen to more on this story as it develops (click same link to hear in archives later too).

********************
UPDATE:
Here’s a graphic I’ve seen making the rounds on Facebook that says it all…


I think the “ImpeachNancyPelosi” group on Facebook started this one but I don’t know that for sure.
***********************************************
UPDATE #2:  Here are more tributes that are being posted on Ambassador Stevens’ friend Austin’s Facebook page.
* calling them “two gay poets”
* referencing the tragic gay story “Brideshead Revisited” regarding Chris and Austin’s relationship in the past.
People here in Chicago are very openly talking about Chris Stevens being gay…and yet he was sent to be the ambassador to Libya at a time when Muslims were toppling governments and introducing radical Islamists into power.



© 2012, Kevin DuJan. All rights reserved.

Kevin DuJan

Gay conservative political analyst, essayist, author and radio and TV commentator on politics, pop culture, LGBTQ issues, and current events. To email Kevin directly with a comment or complaint about this or any article, do so at: HillBuzz@gmail.com

A



Read more http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291

THE END OF OBAMERICA

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV                                                                              by wp

The End of Obamerica

Events in the Middle East cast into sharp relief the choice facing Americans this fall.
by
David Solway

Bio
September 15, 2012 - 12:12 am
At this moment I’m checking out the sites and dailies for the latest news — the fruits of the Arab Spring which, in an article at PJ Media for April 27, 2011, I dubbed a “fundamentalist winter.” The American embassy in Cairo is under siege and the U.S. ambassador and three other staff members have been killed in an assault on the American consulate in Benghazi. The mainstream media, as of this writing, do not seem to have adequately covered this humiliating defeat and repudiation of Obama’s ruinous foreign policy. Naturally, when the liberal press and blogosphere get around to analyzing the motives of the rampaging Muslim mobs, they will spin the events in such a way as to incriminate the innocent: the makers of the film who abused their free speech rights by offending Islam, or Mitt Romney for unpatriotically condemning Obama, or radical Christian evangelicals (as I have just now heard on CBC Radio’s As It Happens). How long they will be able to run interference for the president and resist disclosing him for the bungler — and perhaps the Constitutional defector — that he really is remains moot.
Nevertheless, sometimes bad news is good news — if by “good news” we mean revelations that might conceivably awaken a largely comatose electorate from its political slumber. The liberation that Obama hailed so heartily last year, and which he seemed so eager to endorse and validate, has nakedly revealed its hatred for the United States and its determination to kill Americans. Obama’s priorities and methods have paved the way for the violence and will be unable to contain it; and the disaster of his approach to foreign policy could not be more obvious. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden is unequivocal about this, stating that the protests which resulted in the death of the American ambassador and his colleagues were the result of Obama’s decision to intervene in the Libyan revolt without a “deep appreciation” for what would follow.
There can be little doubt that the America that Obama envisions is one which disparages and shuns its allies — Honduras, Poland, the Czech Republic, Egypt of the recent past, and, most prominently, Israel — while establishing ever closer ties with its overt enemies — Russia, Turkey — and winking at sundry terrorist organizations — Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and local offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. Even more worrisome, the president’s program of sanctions against the regime of genocidal ayatollahs in Iran is so riddled with waivers and exemptions as to be ineffective and his coddling of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt reveals an administration playing fast and loose with America’s future. Indeed, so palpable is this betrayal of America’s best interests that PJM’s own Zombie, summarizing the Obama administration’s effort to blame the September 11, 2012, siege of the Cairo embassy not on its perpetrators but on a little-heeded amateur film critical of Islam ostensibly produced by Coptic expatriates, concludes: “This time around, our very own government sides with those who attacked us. … Thanks entirely to Obama, our government is now our enemy.”

This will seem to some an extreme or even unbalanced statement devoid of any application to reality. But in the light of the president’s many disturbing actions and decisions on both the domestic and international fronts — whether running up a mammoth debt that threatens to sink the American economy, bypassing Congress, issuing executive orders to suppress required information, suing states intent on sanitizing electoral rolls to eliminate illegal or deceased voters, allegedly contemplating increased regulation of the Internet, putting the weight and influence of the U.S. behind the Islamist takeover of the Muslim Middle East, snubbing the pro-American Israeli prime minister while welcoming the anti-American president of Egypt, among a plethora of such undeniably problematic moves — the sentiment expressed above begins to make considerable sense.
The United States of America is now something alarmingly close to what we might describe as the rogue regime of Obamerica. The “end,” in the acceptation of “purpose,” of this strange new nation appears to be the reversal or erasure of its Republican heritage and its replacement by what Barry Rubin calls a stealth-leftist anti-American substitute. The projected “end” of Obamerica would seem to be nothing less than the material end of America as we have known it throughout its storied history. Its free-market economy is currently in tatters, its competitive edge and productivity blunted by a meretricious “stimulus” and by redistributionist economics, its Triple A credit rating downgraded amid concerns about the government’s budget deficit and rising debt burden, and its unemployment numbers beyond acceptable. Racial and ethnic divisions have been exacerbated by the president’s incendiary rhetoric. Owing to Obama’s policies, America’s network of reliable alliances is in disarray as the program of appeasement and rapprochement with its adversaries grows ever more emphatic. At the same time the power and authority of the erstwhile “leader of the free world” has started demonstrably to wane. And if Obama has his way and is re-elected, he will enjoy, as he confided to former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, even more “flexibility” to pursue his ends.
The looming choice for the U.S. on November 6 of this year is stark and unforgiving. The re-election of Barack Obama will mean the “end,” in its terminal sense, of the America of yore, of the constitutional republic on which the West has grudgingly depended for its defense and prosperity and whose citizens were once the envy of an ungrateful world. An unprecedented experiment in free market economics and individual liberty will have fallen victim to an unscrupulous agenda that intends its demise. Only the end of Obamerica can prevent the nation’s decline. History is about to be made — or unmade. A victory for Obamerica can come only at the expense of America itself, and a heretofore undefeated nation will go down to the first and greatest — and quite possibly lasting — defeat in the chronicle of its tenure.
This is what is at stake and what American voters will soon determine. Will it be Obamerica or will it be America? May they choose wisely.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is Global Warning: Trials of an Unsettled Science, published in August of 2012.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...