Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama PROOF He Hate His Country
6/5/2013 9:05:17 PM
Obama's Filibuster Ultimatum

Confirm his nominees, or Democrats will change Senate rules.

President Obama supports many things he opposed as Senator Obama—such as unlimited terrorist detention—but for flip-flopping with a high degree of artistic difficulty nothing beats his judicial filibuster ultimatum on Tuesday. If Republicans don't confirm his three, yes, three, new nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he'll unleash Democrats to gut the Senate's filibuster rules.

Mr. Obama didn't explicitly state the threat portion of that ultimatum—he's leaving that dirty work to the reliable Harry Reid. But everyone knows that's the subtext of Tuesday's announcement, which is a political attempt to realign the balance of power on an appeals court that has frustrated the Administration's regulatory overreach.

The Senate has "a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation," Mr. Obama averred in the Rose Garden. "Throughout my first term as President, the Senate too often failed to do that."


Associated Press

President Obama announcing his nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

He might have added, but somehow didn't, that the Senate also too often failed to do that "duty" when George W. Bush was President. You could even say that Senate Democrats invented the filibuster against D.C. Circuit nominees. Who can forget the successful Joe Biden-John Kerry effort to defeat the distinguished appellate lawyer Miguel Estrada mainly because he is Hispanic and might make it to the Supreme Court someday? And how about the denial of a vote for 918 days to Peter Keisler? Both men had majority support but weren't confirmed because Democrats set a standard of 60 votes.

And lest anyone forget, Mr. Obama personally led a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in 2006. That filibuster failed, but not because Senator Obama obeyed his "constitutional duty."

Yet now that he's the nominator, Mr. Obama is frustrated that Republicans have adopted his Senate tactics. So he's resorting to a flood-the-zone strategy of making three nominees at the same time to a single court. All three choices—Georgetown University law professor Cornelia Pillard, federal district judge Robert Wilkins and lawyer Patricia Millett—are various shades of left of center.

But the ideology is less important than Mr. Obama's attempt to pack a court that is often considered the second most important in the country and a proving ground for future Supreme Court Justices. The D.C. Circuit is also the main judicial referee for all manner of ill-conceived regulations and other bad ideas from this executive branch. Mr. Obama is still sore, for example, that earlier this year the court ruled that his non-recess recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional. Don't they know judges are supposed to rubber stamp liberal laws?

In May Senate Leader Reid declared that the "majority" on that court "is wreaking havoc with the country" and we "need to do something about it." Since the recent unanimous confirmation of former Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, the D.C. Circuit actually has a 4-4 split of Republican and Democratic appointees among active judges, but that hasn't assuaged liberal fury.

In April, Mr. Reid told Nevada Public Radio that Republicans should expect consequences if they don't bend on nominees. "All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic Senators and the Republican Senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary," he said.

If he makes good on that threat, he'll have reneged on his agreement with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell not to change Senate rules. In January 2011, Mr. Reid noted that despite "interest" from his caucus, he would "oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular order." He repeated the promise this January.

***

Which returns us again to Senator Obama, who in 2005 had this to say when Republicans were thinking of changing Senate rules: "I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the Chamber, but we need to rise above 'the ends justify the means' mentality because we are here to answer to the people—all of the people." He added that "I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party." So much for that.

Republicans should call this bluff. As we've argued ("Packing the D.C. Circuit," May 20), the D.C. Circuit has more than enough judges to hear its shrinking caseload, even as busier appellate courts have legitimate vacancies. The Obama-Reid filibuster ultimatum is nothing more than a liberal power play that shows contempt for traditional political checks and balances.

A version of this article appeared June 5, 2013, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama's Filibuster Ultimatum.[if !mso]>
David Weed President,
+1
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama
6/6/2013 3:35:43 AM
Their should be a confirmation process for these political appointees no matter what post it may be. This bypasses the people's will and the intent of the form of government outlined in our US Constitution.

Governance is not rule by political power. The politics should leave the mind when doing the people's business. The time for politicking is at election time. Bring back the Blue Laws when you couldn't sell liquor on Sunday nor Election Day only the pay off to "Useful Idiots" comes at a higher price these days. It would seem.

Jim

Quote:
Obama's Filibuster Ultimatum

Confirm his nominees, or Democrats will change Senate rules.

President Obama supports many things he opposed as Senator Obama—such as unlimited terrorist detention—but for flip-flopping with a high degree of artistic difficulty nothing beats his judicial filibuster ultimatum on Tuesday. If Republicans don't confirm his three, yes, three, new nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he'll unleash Democrats to gut the Senate's filibuster rules.

Mr. Obama didn't explicitly state the threat portion of that ultimatum—he's leaving that dirty work to the reliable Harry Reid. But everyone knows that's the subtext of Tuesday's announcement, which is a political attempt to realign the balance of power on an appeals court that has frustrated the Administration's regulatory overreach.

The Senate has "a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation," Mr. Obama averred in the Rose Garden. "Throughout my first term as President, the Senate too often failed to do that."


Associated Press

President Obama announcing his nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

He might have added, but somehow didn't, that the Senate also too often failed to do that "duty" when George W. Bush was President. You could even say that Senate Democrats invented the filibuster against D.C. Circuit nominees. Who can forget the successful Joe Biden-John Kerry effort to defeat the distinguished appellate lawyer Miguel Estrada mainly because he is Hispanic and might make it to the Supreme Court someday? And how about the denial of a vote for 918 days to Peter Keisler? Both men had majority support but weren't confirmed because Democrats set a standard of 60 votes.

And lest anyone forget, Mr. Obama personally led a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in 2006. That filibuster failed, but not because Senator Obama obeyed his "constitutional duty."

Yet now that he's the nominator, Mr. Obama is frustrated that Republicans have adopted his Senate tactics. So he's resorting to a flood-the-zone strategy of making three nominees at the same time to a single court. All three choices—Georgetown University law professor Cornelia Pillard, federal district judge Robert Wilkins and lawyer Patricia Millett—are various shades of left of center.

But the ideology is less important than Mr. Obama's attempt to pack a court that is often considered the second most important in the country and a proving ground for future Supreme Court Justices. The D.C. Circuit is also the main judicial referee for all manner of ill-conceived regulations and other bad ideas from this executive branch. Mr. Obama is still sore, for example, that earlier this year the court ruled that his non-recess recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional. Don't they know judges are supposed to rubber stamp liberal laws?

In May Senate Leader Reid declared that the "majority" on that court "is wreaking havoc with the country" and we "need to do something about it." Since the recent unanimous confirmation of former Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, the D.C. Circuit actually has a 4-4 split of Republican and Democratic appointees among active judges, but that hasn't assuaged liberal fury.

In April, Mr. Reid told Nevada Public Radio that Republicans should expect consequences if they don't bend on nominees. "All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic Senators and the Republican Senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary," he said.

If he makes good on that threat, he'll have reneged on his agreement with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell not to change Senate rules. In January 2011, Mr. Reid noted that despite "interest" from his caucus, he would "oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular order." He repeated the promise this January.

***

Which returns us again to Senator Obama, who in 2005 had this to say when Republicans were thinking of changing Senate rules: "I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the Chamber, but we need to rise above 'the ends justify the means' mentality because we are here to answer to the people—all of the people." He added that "I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party." So much for that.

Republicans should call this bluff. As we've argued ("Packing the D.C. Circuit," May 20), the D.C. Circuit has more than enough judges to hear its shrinking caseload, even as busier appellate courts have legitimate vacancies. The Obama-Reid filibuster ultimatum is nothing more than a liberal power play that shows contempt for traditional political checks and balances.

A version of this article appeared June 5, 2013, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama's Filibuster Ultimatum.[if !mso]> [endif]

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama PROOF He Hate His Country
6/6/2013 11:39:37 AM

Middle East genocide


No comments | Printer Friendly




3


We are witnesses to murder, and our governments are accomplices. The relentless destruction of the last remnants of the Middle East’s Judeo-Christian civilization is well under way. And we are silent.

Captives of political correctness, our governments cater to radical immigrant tantrums as our leaders contort the truth to deny the existence of Islamist terrorism. Meanwhile, our Middle Eastern “allies” and foes alike eradicate thousands of years of Jewish and Christian heritage. Our diplomats treat the persecution as a minor embarrassment, best ignored.

The banishments and butchery aren’t new, but the breakdown of the last rotting order in the wake of the “Arab Spring” has empowered psychotic fanatics who do not even value the lives of the faithful, let alone the lives of unbelievers. This is the end-game, the final persecution of Christians clinging to lands they’ve called home for 2,000 years. Except for Israel and the rarest exceptions elsewhere, Jews are already gone from the realms that nurtured them since the early years of their faith.

A thousand years ago, there were more Christians in the Middle East than in Europe, and Jewish communities prospered from the Nile to the Tigris. Even a century ago, more than 20% of the region’s population was Christian, and Jews still adorned Arab cities with their talents.

Today, estimates put the Christian population of the region at under 5% and sinking rapidly — and only that high because of the 9 million Copts who remain, for now, in Egypt.

The birthplace of Christianity, Bethlehem, now has a Muslim majority of as much as 80% — a reversal that coincided with the West’s decision to embrace Palestinian terrorists as “partners for peace.” A few decades ago, Lebanon had a Christian majority. Now, with Christian numbers fading, it’s tugged between Shia Hezbollah and Sunni fanatics.

Slighted by the US occupation — as our government pandered to Muslim hardliners — the Christian population of Iraq has fallen by two-thirds over 10 years. And the most ferocious elements in the Syrian insurgency see no place for Christians in Syria’s future. Even Jordan, struggling to appease its own Islamists, has cracked down on Christian activities.

The Jews, of course, are already long gone.

But the stones of ruined churches cry out, and vanished synagogues haunt decayed Arab neighborhoods.

If you read the New Testament or study the formative centuries of Christianity, there are few references to western cities other than Rome. The names that dot the Epistles of St. Paul and histories of the church are now in Muslim hands: Alexandria, Damascus, Tarsus, Carthage, Ephesus, Nicaea, Constantinople and so many others. Even Mecca and Medina had thriving Christian and Jewish quarters before the first jihads.

But all they possess does not suffice for Islamist fanatics. Israel must be blotted from the earth, and the last Christians must be driven out.

This is an old, old story, nearing its end. We shroud it in lies to excuse ourselves from taking a stand, even accepting the preposterous Arab claim that Muslim failures today are the fault of the Crusades, a brief interlude when Christians occupied a coastal strip hardly larger than Israel. In fact, it was the Mongols, then the Muslim Turks, who shattered Arab civilization. And as for conquests, Muslims occupied Spain in all or part for 800 years — and brutalized the Balkans for half a millennium. The Crusades were hardly a burp.

We also accept extravagant claims that “civilized” Arabs rescued the classical texts that formed our civilization. That’s utter nonsense. The Arab hordes that burst out of barren Arabia in the 7th century were composed of illiterates. Conquering at a time when the warring Byzantine and Persian empires had exhausted themselves, the new rulers found that tribal practices didn’t suffice to run provinces. So they took over the existing bureaucracies, staffed by Greek-speaking Christians and Jews. It was those officials who saved the Greek classics for Europe’s future Renaissance — and their descendants designed Islam’s greatest monuments.

Yes, some Arab rulers came to value learning — but the Arab world never produced a Homer, Plato, Sophocles or Thucydides whose appeal transcended their culture.

Islam was a religion spread by war. It was only a “religion of peace” where it had conquered. True, Islam sometimes proved more tolerant of minorities than Europeans, but that was at the zenith of the faith’s power.

There’s yet another illusion of ours — that Islam is gaining strength. Islam is on the ropes. What we’ve seen in the pogroms and outright genocides over the last 150 years has been the spleen of a once-triumphant faith whose practices and values can’t compete in the modern age.

Consider today’s Middle East, apart from Israel. Despite the massive influx of oil wealth, there isn’t one world-class university. Nothing of quality or technological complexity is manufactured between Morocco and Pakistan. Not even Saudi Arabia has first-rate health-care. Research is nil. Patent applications are statistically zero. Women are regarded as lesser beings, wasting half of the region’s human capital. Not one Arab society’s a meritocracy. And corruption cripples all.

A handful of glitzy hotels and shopping centers do not make a civilization (especially when the merchandise is all imported). Should Islamist fanatics succeed in driving all minorities from the region, they’d be left with a human wasteland of comprehensive failure, seething with hatred and uncontainable violence. The self-segregation of the Islamic heartlands would be a tragedy for humanity — but, above all, for Muslims.

Birth rates are a red herring. More mouths to feed are not magic sources of strength in lands of scarcity and poverty. The Middle East is self-destructive, morally brittle and falling ever further behind a world that’s charging ahead. Islamists can’t even get terrorism right — today, we’re terrorizing the terrorists. So they turn on the weak in their midst, the last minorities.

The initial wave of destruction and slaughter began almost a millennium ago, when the Muslim world first felt itself under threat. But, more recently, as the West shot to power (thanks to science, learning, hard work, religious tolerance and organization), the creaking Ottoman Empire could not shake off its centuries-old stupor to keep up.

Enraged by failure, the Ottomans turned on their most-productive minorities — whose successes outraged yesteryear’s fanatics. Beginning in the 1880s and accelerating in the 1890s, pogroms against Armenian Christians stunned Western witnesses. But European leaders turned a blind eye, just as we do today. So during the First World War, the Young Turks who had seized power decided to finish the job.

It was genocide. At least a million Armenians — perhaps twice that number — were systematically exterminated . . . although not without being tortured, raped, starved and death-marched first. The scale of the butchery was such that it obscured other, concurrent genocides, most notably that of Assyrian Christians at the hands of Turks and other Muslims. Estimates of Assyrian deaths run from just under 300,000 to one million.

Nor did the slaughters stop there. In British-created Iraq, massacres of Christians recurred from 1933 to 1961.

City names we know from our recent wars, such as Mosul, Basra or Tikrit (Saddam’s home town), once were centers of Christian culture, with bishops, cathedrals and monasteries famous for learning.

Gone. And the last pale ghosts, those Christians holding on to homes their blood knew for 20 centuries, are soon to go. Meanwhile, our president assures us that “Islam’s a religion of peace.”

Mr. President, go to Iraq and speak those words in the bomb-torn churches amid desecrated graves.

Mr. President, go to Egypt and explain to the brutalized Copts why your embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood government’s good for them.

Then go to Israel, Mr. President, where Christians worship freely, and tell the Israelis they should “return Palestinian land” after Muslims seized the homes that sheltered Jews for 3,000 years.

Explain to Jews why their temples were profaned and obliterated by the adherents of that “religion of peace.”

Of course, the real tragedy for the Arabs in the last century wasn’t the Naqba, Israel’s close-run struggle to survive attacks by an arc of Arab armies. The tragedy was that the most-backward, intolerant and indolent Arabs, primitive tribesmen, got most of the oil wealth and used it to spread their Wahhabi cult throughout the Islamic world. The intellectuals in the great Arab cities never had a chance.

My wife and I spent our honeymoon on a long bus trip through Turkey, a country for which I have great, if frustrated, affection. All went fine amid splendid hospitality . . . until we reached the east. Along the roadsides in what had been Armenia (the first Christian kingdom, by the way) desolate villages, razed to their foundations, scarred the landscape between drab modern towns. When asked what those ruins were, a Turk would avert his eyes and mutter, “Abandoned.”

Those villages weren’t abandoned. They were the site of the last century’s first great genocide. No one stood up for those inconvenient Christians.

And no one’s standing up for the Middle East’s tormented Christians now, or for the last handful of Jews left beyond Israel.

Even the dust cries for justice, and we look away.

This column was published in the New York Post.

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama PROOF He Hate His Country
6/6/2013 12:25:26 PM

Obama Did NOT Attend Columbia University According To Alumni!

The Following is a factual account by an Alumni of the Class of 1983 which would be the same year Barack Hussein Obama supposedly would have graduated in but no one including a Law Professor says he ever attended the school. This is just another reason for us to demand that his sealed records be unsealed! Call 202-224-3121 and demand his records be opened and also contact Donald Trump as this is now snowballing into the largest fraud ever! Here is the story according to Alumni Wayne Allyn Root Class of 1983 of Columbia University. Please Share this far and wide! http://breakingobama.blogspot.com/2013/06/obama-did-not-attend-columbia.html



I just returned from New York, where I attended my 30th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates. Everyone except Barack Obama. As usual- he wasn’t there. Not even a video greeting. Not a personalized letter to his classmates. Nothing. But worse, no one at our 30th reunion ever met him. The President of the United States is the ghost of Columbia University.

I’m certainly no “Johnny come lately.” For five years now (since 2007 when it became clear Barack Obama was running for President), I’ve been quoted in the media as saying that no one I’ve ever met at Columbia can remember ever meeting, or even seeing, our college classmate Barack Obama. Don’t you think the media should be asking questions? Isn’t this a very strange story?

I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.

But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?

One of the speakers at the 30th reunion should have reminisced about “my days with the future President.” But no one did. You’d think Obama might have sent a video to tell us all how much he enjoyed his time at Columbia. You’d think he’d have sent at least a letter to be read aloud from one of his former college buddies. Right? But he didn’t. Because Obama has no former college buddies. No one that ever met Obama, let alone befriended him, was in attendence at our 30th class reunion.

Now you might argue this is all strange, but it’s possible. Afterall Columbia says he graduated. And I take my college’s word for it. Would one of the world’s greatest Ivy League institutions participate in a coverup, thereby risking their billion dollar reputation? And there is one single article written for the Columbia newspaper with Obama’s name on it. A single photo also exists of Obama in his Manhattan apartment with the man he claims was his college roommate- a Pakistani foreign student. And one single radical leftist Columbia professor who hates Israel also claims he remembers Obama.

That’s the sum total of Obama’s existence at Columbia University, Class of ’83.

So I asked every classmate I met at our 30th reunion, many of them Political Science majors, if they ever met, or saw, or heard of Obama. The answer was a resounding NO from every one of them. I asked if they found this strange, or worried how this was possible? They all answered YES. I asked if they thought it was possible to be a Political Science major and never meet a fellow major in our small classes? They all gave me a very strange look and answered NO. So I asked, “How could this be possible? Can you explain this?” No one had an answer.

Keep in mind these people I spoke to are all- to a man and woman- dedicated liberal Democrats who voted for Obama. I’m guessing 90% are major Democrat contributors. My Columbia classmates are the crème of the crop of American society. Lawyers, doctors, billionaire hedge fund members, stars of the media. They adore Obama. But they all admit they never met him in their four years at Columbia. I am proud of my classmates for their honesty and integrity.

One classmate told me he was present when one of the most honored professors in Columbia University history gave a speech to alumni a couple of years ago. The speech was followed by Q&A. This beloved professor was asked about Obama at Columbia. He said, “I have my doubts about the story.” The crowd was stunned. He immediately went onto the next question and never elaborated. So obviously I’m not the only one with doubts.

So here’s my take on this great mystery. I’ve never said Obama was not registered at Columbia. I’m sure he was. I’ve never said he didn’t graduate. If Columbia says he did, then I’m sure he did. But I’ve always said there is something wrong with the story. It’s rancid. It’s unbelievable. It’s impossible. It’s the story of a Manchurian candidate.

The question isn’t was he ever registered, or did he graduate. And it’s interesting that one photo, one professor, and one newspaper article exists- just enough to provide a thin cover. But the serious question the media should be asking is…What did Obama do for two full years in-between registration and graduation? Did he ever attend a class? Did he ever have a single friend other than a Pakistani national? Why is the only professor to ever come forward and claim he remembers him a radical leftist who hates Israel? What exactly was he doing when no one met him, saw him, or heard of him? Why are his college records sealed? What has he got to hide?
But my educated guess is he can’t, or won’t ever release those records. Because what we’d find would be shocking.

Now I know somewhere in America is an Obama defender that will accuse me of lying. But are all those classmates at our 30th reunion lying too? And if I wanted to lie, wouldn’t I better off saying I knew the future President well? If I wanted to malign the President, shouldn’t I be saying he was my close buddy and I witnessed all kinds of terrible things? But I can’t say that. Because I never witnessed anything. Neither did any of my classmates. We didn’t know him. Never met him. Never saw him. My story is simply the truth- and it’s the same consistent story I’ve told since 2007.

There is something wrong with Obama’s story- that much I know. He is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia.

Courtesy of Wayne Allyn Root: Author’s Website



May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama PROOF He Hate His Country
6/8/2013 4:03:22 PM

DOJ & FBI Raid News Media Offices After Releasing an Alarming Story on President Obama!

FBI Agents Load Seized Documents From the National Report's Offices

FBI Agents Load Seized Documents From the National Report’s Offices

By National Report Staff

<National Report> Within hours of publishing a scathing story on President Obama (http://wp.me/p3dd01-Yp) the DOJ raided the offices of the National Report claiming the raid was lawful under the USA Patriot Act but refusing to say why the government was taking the action.

At about 12:50 this afternoon the National Report released a damning story on the Obama birth certificate scandal providing new evidence which clearly shows the document to be fraudulent. According to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his Cold Case Posse has the evidence to prove the presidents birth certificate was computer generated using Adobe Illustrator.

Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo, revealed for the first time that his findings have been confirmed in a 40 page report by Reed Hayes, a Certified Documents Examiner (CDE) from Hawaii. The birth certificate posted to the White House website clearly shows it was forged using cut & paste methods in several layers.

At about 2:08 pm employees at the National Report were shocked when dozens of black clad machine gun toting DOJ agents wearing black masks entered the National Report office forcing everyone to the ground while demanding they put their hands on top their heads. After securing all employees FBI agents entered and began questioning employees and seizing files and other documents.

“We did exactly as they told us,” said National Report’s publisher Allen Montgomery, who added “No one knew what was happening.” Its being reported that the offices of Montgomery and Editor-in-Chief Nigel Covington, were ransacked and boxes of files were seized and carted off by FBI agents.

Covington said, “This is a gross violation of our Constitutional rights as American citizens and as journalists. All our files relating to President Obama were seized with others including all employee personnel files.”

Montgomery said federal agents did not have a warrant and offered no explanation for the action. He added about an hour before the raid, the National Report had released a story about the mounting evidence which confirms Obama’s birth records are in fact forged. Montgomery said most employees were so shaken up by the raid he let them go home early.

More on this breaking story as it becomes available.

*DISCLAIMER: The National Report is an online portal for "citizen journalists". The views expressed by writers on this site are theirs alone and are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help, please consult a professional. National Report is not intended for children under the age of 18.

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!