Does anybody recall when George Bush created the Patriot Act and began wire-tapping practices?  Do you remember Democrats screaming about the right to privacy and how that wasn’t constitutional?  Well, it wasn’t constitutional and it did give the government a lot of control into our lives.  The Liberal rantings of “Big Brother is out to get me,” could be heard far and wide and the media certainly wouldn’t let us forget it.  So where is the media now?  They would be investigating… but they haven’t found time to clean their noses after being so close to Obama’s rear.

I didn’t mind the Patriot Act that much only because I was still in shock and appalled by the actions of radical Islamic terrorists on 9/11.  I knew I had nothing to hide and had no problem if they in fact wanted to tap my phone.  However, I now understand that this is not constitutional, and see why there was such a big deal made about this piece of legislation.  So why aren’t the liberals out in full force now that Obama has expanded upon the Patriot Act and is also considering to let the United Nations become the new global IRS?  We may be paying global taxes this time next year.  Why are the liberals, given that several Democratic Senators were against extending the E-Verify program for illegals, all of the sudden supporting eye scans and biometrics to check for citizenship?

Eye scans and United Nations control seems more Big Brother-like to me than the Patriot Act.  If you are going to be upset about the actions of one then be upset about the actions of another, if they are the same.  Ann Coulter completely nailed her evaluation of liberals when she said: “If liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.”  You would think that there would be no surprise to any of this, but I guess I am just hoping that Democrats and Progressives alike, wake up and actually stand on principle for once – and call a spade a spade.

The Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development that begins on Wednesday will consider adoption of a document calling for “new voluntary and innovative sources of financing initiatives to provide additional stable sources of development finance…” This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. They are anything but “voluntary” for the people forced to pay them.

The most “popular” proposals, which could generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue for global purposes, involve taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and financial transactions such as stock trades.

The document was agreed to at an informal meeting of expert “facilitators” and was made available on Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. It is doubtful that any changes will be made to it.

The conference was postponed from June 1-3 and will now take place June 24-26 at the U.N. in New York. While the “outcome document” has been watered downsomewhat from the previous version, it still reaffirms attainment of the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals, which would require the payment of $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers. A commitment to the MDGs was a stated objective of the Global Poverty Act, which Barack Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator. It requires the U.S. to devote 0.7 percent of Gross National Income to foreign aid.

And what about those lovely little eye scans proposed by Schumer?

Senate Democrats outlined plans yesterday to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, including a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprints or an eye scan.

Speaking on the eve of a White House summit with congressional leaders on immigration,  Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said a national system to verify work documents is necessary because Congress has failed to crack down on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents.

“I’m sure the civil libertarians will object to some kind of biometric card — although . . . there’ll be all kinds of protections — but we’re going to have to do it. It’s the only way,” Schumer said. “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.”

By announcing his plans, Schumer, who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, ushered in what President Obama has signaled will be his next major legislative campaign, after the economic stimulus plan, health care and energy.

I am utterly speechless - Is it just me or are we living in an Orwell novel?

Share on Facebook

Osama Bin Laden is not very happy with Obama’s outreach and attempt at sweet talking the Muslim world.  He made a statement today that Obama is basically Bush II.

Shortly after President Obama landed in Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden’s homeland, a new audio tape purported to be from the al Qaeda leader was aired today on Al Jazeera television network.

“President Obama’s presence in the kingdom obviously touches a raw nerve,” said former counterterrorism official Dick Clarke, now an ABC News consultant. “Bin Laden founded al Qeada in the first place because of the American presence there.”

In his latest audio message, bin Laden warns Americans to prepare for war as the policies of Obama are no different from those of former President George W. Bush in the eyes of al Qaeda.

Bin Laden makes reference to this spring’s violence in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, indicating that he recorded his message relatively recently.

Just keep saying it to yourself: “Hope and Change, Hope and Change.”  I don’t think it matters to the radical Islamofascists, whether you are nice or not – could Obama win some people over?  Sure, that happens with anyone, but I just hope that some people realize that the true terrorists have one goal and that is the destruction of the West and Israel and they could care less how you speak, how you carry yourself, what your roots were, or how much you try to kowtow… They have a goal and that’s Islamic rule.

Share on Facebook

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of senior Bush officials who helped draft the policies for EITs. They state that former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller cannot be held accountable for an incident with a Pakistani Muslim that occurred back in 2002.

Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in New York in 2002, had argued that while Ashcroft and Mueller did not single him out for mistreatment, they were responsible for a policy of confining Muslim prisoners in highly restrictive conditions and subjecting them to strip searches and brutal beatings. He has since been deported to Pakistan.

The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, said there was nothing linking the two Bush officials to Iqbal’s treatment. The court’s liberal justices — David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens — dissented, so even a liberal pick by President Obama to replace Souter would not change the mix.

But as we all know, the liberals won’t stop there. They are planning, if not already, bringing up charges against various Bush administration officials that were also party to the documents, legal memos, and policies used on Gitmo detainees. Earlier on C-Span radio and the Washington Journal, Mr. Kessler who is a journalist for Newsmax, and an author of various books regarding the CIA, Secret Service, and Intelligence Community, gave his take on the CIA memos, waterboarding, EITs, what the true technical definition of torture is, and why terrorists and pirates do not fall under the Geneva Convention. The hate and vitriol from liberal callers was astounding. Just when I think that people couldn’t get more vile and hateful they always seem to surprise me!

A coalition of left-leaning advocacy groups filed complaints today with five state bar associations, accusing a dozen former Bush administration lawyers — including Ashcroft and ….

…former attorneys general Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey — of violating professional standards by approving the use of torture on terrorism suspects. The punishment: They want the lawyers disbarred in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and the District of Columbia.

Also on the list: John Yoo, now a law professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt School of Law, Jay Bybee, a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Pentagon lawyer Douglas Feith, and David Addington, legal guru for former Vice President Dick Cheney.

If we are going to have these truth commissions, maybe we should have had one for Vietnam and lined up LBJ or we should have interrogated FDR for his concentration camps in the United States during World War II. We should also interrogate all the Democrats who were part of the financial melt down and make them take lie detector tests to get at the bottom of who is honest in the government. I would say we should also go back to the Clinton administration and go back over the Kosovo conflict and the fact that his foreign policies lead to much of the 9/11 attacks in the first place… But it’s always the hate on the left that feels the need to act like the new McCarthyites and go on these despicable witch hunts.

Share on Facebook

But…but…but… I thought Bush was eeeeeevil and stuuuuuuuuuuupid?

What about CHANGE?

Obama will continue the military tibunal system for Gitmo detainees.  This was a point of contention for Obama and part of the Bush administration that he brought up and campaigned against last year.  However, Obama has flip-flopped (yet again) and will be resuming these activities.

President Obama is planning on Friday to resume the Bush administration’s controversial military commission system for some Guantanamo detainees — which he suspended in his first week in office — according to three administration officials.

Some of the high-profile terror suspects who are being charged in the military commission process include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

The administration officials stressed that the updated system will include expanded due-process rights for the suspects, which administration officials note is consistent with what Obama pushed for as a senator in 2006 in order to improve upon the widely criticized approach created by the Bush administration.

The move could increase tensions with liberal groups, led by the ACLU, which are already furious about Obama’s shift this week to block the release of photos showing prisoners allegedly being abused by U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, called the expected new approach on military commissions “fatally flawed” despite the changes.

“The military commissions are built on unconstitutional premises and designed to ensure convictions, not provide fair trials,” Romero said in a prepared statement released earlier this week after speculation about the restart of military commissions surfaced. “Reducing some but not all of the flaws of the tribunals so that they are ‘less offensive’ is not acceptable; there is no such thing as ‘due process light.’ ”

Two of the administration officials said the president will also leave open the option of starting civilian trials on U.S. soil for some of the detainees. But that, too, is a fiercely debated issue on Capitol Hill because of concerns by lawmakers in both parties about where the terror suspects will be kept during such trials.

BWAHAHAHA!

Share on Facebook

Would you lie for the greater good or would you tell the truth and be honest about the way you conducts business.  I think that these moral hazards and cover ups are what got us into this economic crisis among other outside factors.  So what would covering up something else really help?  If the data is bad why continue to cover it up and prolong the inevitable?

I know that prolonging the inevitable is favored on Capitol Hill these days, but in my opinion that just makes things worse, suckers more people into the failing financial market, and makes for a worse collapse.  Let it go and give us the real facts!

Rick Santelli calls out one of his colleagues at CNBC who offers up the question as to whether or not the media should cover up the truth behind what’s going on in the financial sector for the greater good.

But, as I stated above, is that really for the greater good or is it just for the good of a political agenda and money in the media’s pocket? After knowing what recently occurred at an NBC meeting with Zucker and Immelt exclaiming that CNBC has been too harsh on the President and has criticized his policies too much recently… I can only take what they say at CNBC with a grain of salt because there may be a conflict of interest; like saving their jobs:

Share on Facebook

Discussing the Republican listening tour conducted by Former Governors Jeb Bush (FL) and Mitt Romney (MA), radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said they are “embarrassed” by Sarah Palin.

Limbaugh said the underlying issue of these speaking engagements is that Bush and Romney “hate” and “despise” the Alaska Governor and former running-mate of John McCain. Limbaugh added they have “presidential perspirations” and called their tour an “early campaign event.”
Limbaugh defended Palin and heralded her as the “most prominent and articulate voice” for conservatism.

Rush concluded this “need to praise” President Obama leaves him “wanting.”

She is the quintessential Conservative and she lives and breathes conservatism in her every day life!  Time to stop getting all caught up with these elitists and establishment figures.  They are just as much about power and control as the Democrats… it’s time that some Republicans also wake up to this fact.

Click here for the audio clip.

Share on Facebook

Well, if we are into persecuting people, maybe we should persecute Democrats for all their fraud and corruption and their collapsing of the economy – Dodd and Frank would be the first two up!

So with that said – the only way to resolve that is to dump Dodd and vote for Rob Simmons!

Click here to contribute…

Share on Facebook

This week President Obama has pretty much slammed the door on getting any cooperation from the Republican Party (less Collins and Snowe of course – true RINO’s). This week, the administration has set forth, yet again, to squash any attempt by the Republican side of the aisle to vet and control any of the President’s social engineering and lax national security agenda items.

Early this past week, on the issue of Bush administration terrorist interrogations, the administration coyly announced that they were in favor of moving on and looking to the future.

“As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards,” he said. “I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations.”

President Obama is not all that worried about it, as he has already dismantled many safeguards that President Bush put into place that have kept the nation safe for 8 years.

However, in the next breath, the President said he would leave it up the the U.S. AG, Mr Holder, caving into the left wing fringe of Moveon.org and George Soros.

Second, came the announcement that the President, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi will once again railroad the people of the United States by shoving a health care reform measure down our throats with no debate or filibuster:

If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama’s legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as “reconciliation.”

Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama’s health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.

Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.

If that is what the Obama Administration refers to as ‘transparent’ government, then I guess the Mississippi River is as clear as the Caribbean Sea. This is social engineering being plied to and paid for by the American Tax Payer.

Social, economic, and national security issues are being debated by elitists who have not gotten dirt under their fingernails since they were 7 years old playing in the back yard.  They, many who have no experience in either the defense industry or the military, are making decisions regarding enhanced interrogation techniques.  The issues specific to interrogations and national security were vetted and approved by lawyers, congressional leaders (Nancy Pelosi included), and administration officials. However, the Dems, Moveon.org, and Soros are foaming at the mouth to begin their witch hunt.

Democrats have focused their laser on Federal Judge Jay Bybee.  Judge Bybee was one of the lawyers who approved the enhanced interrogation techniques.  Democrats wanting to criminalize lawyers who give legal opinion on administration policy is  absolute nonsense.  What lawyer in their right mind is going to do anything for an administration if 5 or 8 years later some hell-bent blow-hard Senator (Leahy) wants to make a big media splash to keep his funding from Soros and Moveon.org going? The answer: no one worth his salt. We will never get a valued A.G. or White House council again (not that the dems have produced any decent A.G.’s….I mean Janet Reno, Eric Holder…puh-leeze).

It will also further erode our ability to gather pertinant intelligence about terror plots and organizations. These groups will now be able to train for what the Army field manual specifies, since it is a general unclassified publication. These actions will further put doubts into the minds of DoD personnel charged with gathering the intel as to what may be laying ahead if they proceed with interrogations. They will be scared and it will further embolden an enemy who’s main objective is to kill Americans.

Finally, it will so polarize the congress that nothing is ever going to get accomplished. I guess what the Democrats meant by reaching across the aisle was ”shut up, we won.”  The country will not stand for this, as demonstrated on April, 15th.  These liberals are digging themselves a hole and just may see some wholesale changes in the Congress come 2010; one can hope.

Share on Facebook

Is that you Stalin?  How is this not edging ever so closely to communism and totalitarian government?  Power grab anyone?

The days of a large unregulated Internet may be coming to an end.  The government, and especially the democrats, will use the latest crisis of the electronic grid hacking, although China and Russia say it did not occur, to implement a new Cyber Security Act that will control and regulate the Internet.  To be quite frank, I have no idea who to believe.  At this point China, Russia and the Democrats could all be working together for all I know!

The latest from Obama and “our” government:

A bill making its way through Congress proposes to give the U.S. government authority over all networks considered part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cyber Security Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security.

Does Obama have ultimate authority to police the net?  What criteria is necessary to shut down a website or to remove an individual from the net?  Does anybody get the feeling that the latest DHS report conveniently came out before most recent power grab act of 2009?  Why couldn’t Obama use the DHS report to remove any right leaning websites, blogs, individuals etc.?  I don’t care if you are a Democrat or a Republican this is just plain scary!

Again, I have an issue with the hypocrisy that is taking place.  Liberals screamed and cried over the NSA wiretapping for known terrorists and those who had background information that would lead us to believe they had terrorist ties, but this is ok all of the sudden?  The fact that something as large as the Internet may be policed is worse, in my opinion, than wiretapping.  Even if you don’t agree with wiretapping, it’s not like Obama has banned wiretapping and is now only policing the net – he is doing both!  Why are the liberal sheep so easily blinded by the blatant double standards here?

The government also would have access to digital data from a vast array of industries including banking, telecommunications and energy. A second bill, meanwhile, would create a national cyber security adviser — commonly referred to as the cyber security czar — within the White House to coordinate strategy with a wide range of federal agencies involved.

Oh, wonderful, another czar…

The need for greater cyber security is obvious:

– Canadian researchers recently discovered that computers in 103 countries, including those in facilities such as embassies and news media offices, were infected with software designed to steal network data.

– A Seattle security analyst warned last month that the advancement of digital communication within the electrical grid, as promoted under President Obama’s stimulus plan, would leave the nation’s electrical supply dangerously vulnerable to hackers.

– And on Tuesday the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies had broken into the Pentagon’s $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project and had breached the Air Force’s air-traffic-control system.

I have inside information that the electronic grid that was hacked into could easily be taken out with a gun shot – it’s not that big and it’s not that hidden.  I also know for a fact that on black programs that are highly classified, they are not allowed on the net.  You are placed in a pass-coded room that is closed off to everyone else, you are not allowed to bring blackberries, cell phones, cameras etc. into the room where you work, nor are you allowed to have internet access or email access on the computer containing the classified information.  Your personal computer is placed at the front of the room away from classified material if you need to send emails.  So I’m curious how much people actually know about classified information and why is this “classified” information on the Internet in the first place, when defense companies I have worked for in the past, do not allow that to happen?  I’m only curious…

Nonetheless, the proposal to give the U.S. government the authority to regulate the Internet is sounding alarms among critics who say it’s another case of big government getting bigger and more intrusive.

Silicon Valley executives are calling the bill vague and overly intrusive, and they are rebelling at the thought of increased and costly government regulations amid the global economic crisis.

Others are concerned about the potential erosion of civil liberties. “I’m scared of it,” said Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group.

“It’s really broad, and there are plenty of laws right now designed to prevent the government getting access to that kind of data. It’s the same stuff we’ve been fighting on the warrantless wiretapping.”

Isn’t that a shame?  Most of these people in Silicone Valley, like the Googles and Yahoos of the world, voted for Obama.  I think people really have a hard time understanding what big government really means.

The bill would allow the government to create a detailed set of standards for cyber security, as well as take over the process of certifying IT technicians. But many in the technology sector say the government is simply ill-equipped to get involved at the technical level, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.

“Simply put, who has the expertise?” he said. “It’s the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard.”

ROTFLMAO!  Of course the government doesn’t have the expertise, I’m not sure they have the expertise to run a lemonade stand!  We have seen what they have done to our economy, the banking system, the auto industry, the farming industry, and even the Mustang Ranch.

A spokeswoman from Rockefeller’s office said neither he nor the two senators who co-sponsored the bill, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., will answer questions on cyber security until a later date.

The fact that the Senators who came up with this idea are not answering questions should send up the red flags!

If the United States was to set its own standard for cyber security, they say, it would create a host of logistical challenges for technology companies, virtually all of which operate internationally.

“Any standards have to be set at an international level and be industry led,” said Dale Curtis, a spokesman for the Business Software Alliance. “This industry moves so fast, and government just doesn’t move that fast.”

How true!  But, yet so many people put their trust and faith in government.  They have treated Obama as if he were God-like and the man himself believes his own hype; Pathetic!

Many Silicon Valley executives remain hopeful that the White House’s recommendations will be more industry-friendly, following what Journoud said was a good dialogue with former Bush administration official Melissa Hathaway, who is leading the White House review and is considered a likely candidate for cyber security czar.

Good luck believing that Obama will be industry friendly, he is just as progressive, if not more so, than FDR, who hated the private sector.  And just to remind everyone… Bush was a big government “conservative.”  I have major qualms with him and his big government policies and spending practices, but I respected him for his efforts in the War on Terror.  There are many politicians on both sides of the aisle that merely want the power and control and this latest act proves that it is only going to get worse from here.

It was nice knowing you Freedom of Speech!  Maybe we’ll meet again one day.

Share on Facebook

Our enemies rejoice!  They can now know what it is we do and or did and can train accordingly.  We officially have just shot ourselves in the foot thanks to Obama and his ridiculous appeasement, anti-American and apologetic beliefs and the rest of his incompetent administration.

Four former  CIA directors protested the release of these Bush-era memos and although the natural argument from the left would be because they had things to hide, this is not the case yet again when dealing with terrorists and individuals whom do not fall under article IV of the Geneva Convention.  The major concern was the trust in D.C.’s Intelligence operations and trust in the CIA for accepting the release of these documents and also releasing them for the rest of the world to see and to know what it is we actually do to obtain crucial information.  This means we would have to start from scratch on different methods.

Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.

President Barack Obama ultimately overruled those concerns after internal discussions that intensified in the weeks after the former directors intervened. The memos were released Thursday.

Obama’s personal involvement grew as the decision neared, and he even personally led a National Security Council session on the matter, said four senior administration officials.

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked with Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the CIA directors’ opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process.

So let me get this straight… A man who has never served in our armed forces, never worked in the defense industry and has never been in charge of a national guard (being a governor) thinks that he personally knows what is best for the country in regards to national defense and intelligence operations?  Just wonderful… I once again believe this to be an act to appease his liberal base who has wanted to persecute Bush and his administration for some time now and believe him to be some torturous, murderous dictator, of which they will most likely be sorely mistaken – and will wind up doing more harm to our country than they could possibly even know.

The most well known technique used for detainees was called water-boarding and liberals make it sound like it’s some horrible torture – it is annoying more than anything since water is poured continuously on the neck of the individual to give the sensation of drowning – but stipulations were enacted for the amount of time allotted among other measures so that there would be nothing considered harsh or cruel punishment.  These types of methods were drawn up and created by the Bush administration, lawyers well versed in the torture treaties and the CIA.  I would love to know what liberals think of the torture techniques used in China, Cuba, North Korea, punishment in Singapore, by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East.  How about visiting a torture museum in Spain to see what used to be used during the Spanish Inquisition?

Not everything in life is roses and gum drops and I hope that some begin to wake up and realize that in this life we all have the capability of evil, cruelty, anger, violence and all those other emotions and actions that can be considered the negative aspects of human nature.  Reality is not sunny and reality can and will be painful at times and this is what needs to be understood.  Those who live in reality and know suffering can see the best when it comes and can appreciate those things that are better than the worst they have seen and experienced in their own lives.
 
Obama gave the matter “the appropriate reflection,” Axelrod said. He said Obama’s deliberations revolved around “the issue of national security versus the rule of law,” and amounted to “one of the most profound issues the president of the United States has to deal with.”

On March 18, the Justice Department told CIA Director Leon Panetta — as he was leaving for a foreign trip — that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said.

Which rule of law was Obama referring to?  Sharia? (sorry I had to be snarky).

Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would hurt the agency’s ability to interrogate prisoners in the future. They also said the move would further tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials’ legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services’ trust in the CIA’s ability to protect national security secrets, current and former officials said.

On March 19, the Justice Department requested a two-week delay in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that asked for release of the memos. Justice officials told the court dealing with that lawsuit that it was considering releasing the memos voluntarily.

Two weeks later, Justice lawyers told the court the memos would come out on or before April 16.

This is the prime reason as to why the ACLU must be stopped and must be abolished.  What they do to our society is detrimental to us all, whether you understand that now or in the future is up to you.

The Justice Department argued that the ACLU lawsuit would in the end force the administration to release the documents anyway, officials said.

Obama eventually agreed. The administration decided it would be better to make the release voluntarily, so as to not be seen as being forced to do so, the officials said.

How can a president, the person holding the highest office not have enough “chutzpa” to hold his ground against an agency like the ACLU?  If he can’t stand up to the ACLU how would anyone ever be able to think that he could stand up to the leader of another nation?  Something we are seeing play out currently.  This is just unbelievable and so pathetic.  This sets a horrible precedent for the ACLU and any other organization that wants to question an administration after they have left office.  I hope that Obama understands that the very same thing can be done to him.

Obama took the unusual step of accompanying his decision with a personal letter to CIA employees. He also devoted a big share of his public statement to saying — and repeating — that he believed strongly in keeping intelligence operations secret and operations about them classified. And he said he would not apologize for doing so in the future.

Actions speak louder than words Obama, something that you just don’t have.  All you have are words – mostly downloaded onto a teleprompter.

For the PDF memos:

Share on Facebook