Tuesday, December 23, 2014

This is Al Sharpton, Obama's New Spiritual Advisor. Read and Share. This is who America's President consorts with.

THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE DETAILED  BIO OF THE SHAKE DOWN ARTIST AND HUSSEIN OBAMA ADVISOR..

AL SHARPTON 



 Hussein Obama has a natural affinity for Anti Americans, Crooks, Race baiters and Assholes. 
Al has made 87 Visits to the White House ( Officially!)




AL SHARPTON FITS THAT BILL..
THE TYPICAL PROGRESSIVE NEGRO WHO LOVES A SHAKE DOWN 
AND IS A VICTIMHOOD ADVOCATE



  • Founder of the National Action Network
  • Helped incite anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights, New York in 1991
  • Convicted of libel for his role in the racially charged Tawana Brawley hoax
  • Incited black anti-Semites against a Jewish business establishment in Harlem in 1995
  • Democratic Party presidential candidate, 2004


  • See also:  National Action Network  


    Early Years

    Alfred Charles Sharpton was born in Brooklyn, New York in October 1954, to comparatively prosperous parents. He demonstrated considerable verbal dexterity at an early age and is reputed to have begun preaching when he was four years old. He was touted as “the wonder-boy preacher” by age 7, when he toured with gospel singer Mahalia Jackson and Pentecostal minister F.D. Washington. Washington personally ordained Sharpton, who idolized Adam Clayton Powell, as a Pentecostal minister when the boy was 10.

    That same year, Sharpton’s parents divorced, leaving the youngster and his mother impoverished and reliant on welfare. In the late 1960s, Sharpton joined the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In 1969 he was appointed as youth director of SCLC's "Operation Breadbasket," an initiative headed by Jesse Jackson which boycotted businesses accused of failing to hire enough black employees. Jackson, moreover, became a mentor to Sharpton.

    Supporting a Communist Front and Angela Davis

    In the February 9, 1971 edition of the Communist Party USA newspaper Daily World, CPUSA member Stephanie Allan wrote about a pair of recent rallies (in Chicago and in White Plains, New York) which had been held to support a CPUSA front called The Committee to Free Angela Davis. At the time, Davis was in prison for her role in abetting the murder of a California judge. Eliseo Medina was one of the speakers at the Chicago event, while Sharpton addressed the New York rally. According to Stephanie Allan, Sharpton and fellow speaker J.L. Scott “exposed the connection between [the] A&P [Corporation], U.S. monopoly capitalism, racism and imperialism, and related these to the Angela Davis case and the threat to the vital rights of the Black people.”

    1971-1978

    Also in 1971, Sharpton established the National Youth Movement, an organization that sought to organize young African Americans to push for increased voter registration, cultural awareness, and job-training programs. He would lead the group for the next 17 years.

    After attending Brooklyn College for two years, Sharpton dropped out and had no additional higher education or formal seminary training. He soon began working (as a tour manager) for the entertainer James Brown and, later, for boxing promoter Don King. In 1978, Sharpton made an unsuccessful run for the New York State Senate.

    Cocaine, Money-Laundering, and the FBI
    In early 1983 the FBI was trying to nail boxing promoter Don King on cocaine-dealing charges. Toward that end, an undercover FBI agent—using the name Victor Quintana—arranged a meeting with King on the pretext of discussing a prospective boxing match in the Bahamas. But King, wary of this individual, persuaded his close friend, Al Sharpton, to meet with Quintana instead—i.e., to take Quintana to dinner at a restaurant and try to ascertain what type of person he was. Sharpton did so, accompanied by a friend.

    At one point during the meal, Quintana, posing as a former South American druglord who was now seeking to launder money through boxing promotions, told Sharpton: “I know where 10 kilos of cocaine are and we can make some big money on this.” Sharpton's companion, wary of the implications of getting involved in such criminal activity, immediately told Sharpton that this line of discussion was unacceptable and persuaded Sharpton to leave the restaurant with him. Sharpton, intrigued by Quintana's proposition, was hesitant to walk away but ultimately did.

    Soon thereafter, Sharpton and his companion met with Quintana a second time, in a hotel room. But when Quintana again raised the subject of cocaine, Sharpton’s friend once more called off the meeting.

    After that, Sharpton and Quintana set up a third meeting that would take place in March 1983 without Sharpton's companion, though the reputed mobster Danny Pagano of the Genovese crime family would also be present. At this meeting—which, unbeknownst to Sharpton, was being secretly videotaped by FBI surveillance cameras—Quintana told Sharpton that he could procure cocaine for $35,000 per kilo. Sharpton, wearing a cowboy hat and chomping on an unlit cigar, nodded his head and said, “I hear you.” When Quintana promised Sharpton a 10% finder’s fee if he could arrange the purchase of several kilos, Sharpton referred to an unnamed buyer and said, “If he’s gonna do it, he’ll do it much more than that.”

    According to a comprehensive report by TheSmokingGun.com (TSG):
    “While Sharpton did not explicitly offer to arrange a drug deal, some investigators thought his interaction with the undercover agent could be construed as a violation of federal conspiracy laws. Though an actual prosecution, an ex-FBI agent acknowledged, would have been 'a reach,' agents decided to approach Sharpton and attempt to 'flip' the activist.... In light of Sharpton’s relationship with Don King, FBI agents wanted his help in connection with the bureau’s three-year-old boxing investigation.”
    Thus, one Thursday afternoon in June 1983—three months after his third meeting with Quintana—Sharpton arrived at a Manhattan apartment expecting to meet with him again. Instead he was confronted by men identifying themselves as FBI agents. They showed Sharpton the “cocaine” videotape and warned that he could face criminal charges as a result of that recording. Panicked, Sharpton immediately agreed to cooperate with the FBI by serving as a wired, undercover agent for the Bureau.

    In that capacity, Sharpton became known by the FBI as “CI-7”—short for confidential informant No. 7—and began having numerous face-to-face meetings, all recorded, with mob figures from the Gambino and Genovese crime fanilies. TSG reports that “[t]he resulting surreptitious recordings were eventually used to help convict an assortment of Mafia members and associates.”

    Sharpton's undercover work with the FBI continued until 1987, when his involvement with the infamous Tawana Brawley case (see below) put an end to his relationship with the Bureau. For comprehensive details of Sharpton's FBI work during the mid-1980s, click here.

    The Tawana Brawley Racial Hoax

    Sharpton first entered America's national consciousness on a large scale in November 1987, when he injected himself into the case of a 15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley, who claimed that she had been abducted and raped by a gang of six whites in Dutchess County, New York. Despite a complete absence of any credible evidence to support Miss Brawley's story, Sharpton assumed the role of special adviser to the girl and thereafter worked closely with her attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people).

    Lamenting that their client had fallen prey to “certain elements that have constantly antagonized the black community, including the Ku Klux Klan and law-enforcement personnel,” Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime—an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department. Sharpton further demanded that New York Attorney General Robert Abrams be removed from the case because of an alleged “relationship” between Abrams and the Dutchess County sheriff who was, according to Sharpton, “a suspect in this case.” Sharpton insisted that there was “absolutely no way” that his client would talk to Abrams. “That’s like asking someone who watched someone killed in the gas chamber to sit down with Mr. Hitler,” he said.

    The case dragged on, week after week, with Brawley refusing to speak to even a single investigator—ostensibly because she feared that as an African American she would be unable to get a fair hearing.  

    Then at a March 1988 news conference, Sharpton and the attorneys fingered Stephen Pagones, Dutchess County’s assistant district attorney, as one of their client’s attackers. When Sharpton was criticized for accusing Pagones without offering a shred of proof, he retorted: "We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If we're lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue us -- sue us right now."

    Further accusing district attorney William Grady of trying to cover up Pagones’ involvement in the crime, Sharpton, Mason, and Maddox demanded that Governor Mario Cuomo immediately arrest the two “suspects.” When asked what evidence they could provide to substantiate their charges, Sharpton and his cohorts were evasive, saying only that they would reveal the facts when the time was right.

    In a speech he delivered when the Brawley case was dominating news headlines, Sharpton derided his white critics as racists: "They looked up and they saw Maddox, Mason, and Sharpton. What's wrong with them? What was wrong with us was [that] crackers didn't choose us!"

    On another occasion, Sharpton appeared on the late Morton Downey's television program and publicly used an anti-gay slur. The incident occurred when Sharpton got into a shouting match with an audience member and yelled, while gesturing to that individual to come up to the stage and fight: “You ain’t nothing! You a punk faggot! Now come on and do something!”

    In June 1988, a Sharpton aide named Perry McKinnon stepped forward to make a remarkable series of disclosures. A former police officer, private investigator, and director of security at a Brooklyn Hospital, McKinnon revealed that “Sharpton acknowledged to me early on that ‘The [Brawley] story do sound like bull---t, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad. Then you’ve got a movement.” Explaining that Sharpton was methodically “building an atmosphere” for a race war, McKinnon continued: “Sharpton told me it don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her...even if Tawana done it to herself.” To prove his truthfulness, McKinnon submitted to a lie detector test administered on camera and passed all questions.

    In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of New York taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax.

    Sharpton, however, would concede nothing. He continued to reiterate his claim that Brawley had been brutalized by a gang of whites. In February 1989, he told a Spin magazine interviewer, without the barest shred of proof, that Stephen Pagones had privately confessed to the crime. Sharpton further asserted, falsely, that Brawley’s gang-rape allegations had been confirmed by medical tests whose results were in C. Vernon Mason’s exclusive possession. And finally, for good measure, he lamented that Miss Brawley had tragically fallen prey to a barbaric “white supremist [sic] cult ritual.”

    When Stephen Pagones in 1997 sued Sharpton (as well as Maddox and Mason) for defamation of character, Sharpton, under oath, said he could “no longer recall” having made a number of his slanderous accusations against Pagones and other law-enforcement officials years earlier. When asked whether he had made even the slightest attempt to verify Brawley’s allegations about Pagones before going public with them, Sharpton retorted, “I would not engage in sex talk with a 15-year-old girl.”

    Pagones won a $345,000 court judgment against Sharpton and his two accomplices, of which Sharpton was responsible for $65,000. But Sharpton, claiming poverty, never paid his debt. When asked in a deposition how he could afford the expensive suits he wore, he replied that he did not own the garments but was merely granted “access” to them as needed. The same, he said, applied to all his other belongings. Ultimately, Sharpton's $65,000 debt was paid (along with $22,000 in interest) in 2001 by a group of wealthy Sharpton supporters.

    It should be noted that during the decade prior to Pagones’ long-awaited vindication in court, the former prosecutor had suffered constant stress and anxiety (exacerbated by numerous death threats from Sharpton’s credulous followers) that contributed heavily to the devastating dissolution of Pagones’ marriage and the virtual ruination of his life.

    Notably, Sharpton has never apologized for the way he conducted himself throughout the Brawley hoax, because to apologize, he explains, would be “all about submission” to white people eager to “forc[e] a black man coming out of the hardcore ghetto to his knees.” Reflecting on the Brawley case 12 years after it first made headlines, Sharpton said: “If I had to do it again, I’d do it in the same way.”[1]

    In October 2013, Sharpton appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program to promote his new book, The Rejected Stone. When MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski raised the issue of the Brawley case, Sharpton replied:
    "I think that what I learned in Brawley, and it’s a case where if I was called today by a young lady who made those claims, I would respond the same way, but what I wouldn’t do is get into a back and forth with name calling with the prosecutor, and go for the quick from the hip kind of flippant attitude with the press. You learn to do what you do better….Whereas 25 years ago, it was 'I don’t care what you think, I feel I’m right, I feel I’ve gotta do what I’ve gotta do,' now I’m not talking to the prosecutor."
    Asked if he regretted the anguish he caused for the innocent Stephen Pagones, Sharpton answered:
    "... Why would I say that I should not come to the defense of someone who had made a claim and those who had accused never would have come forth in the grand jury at that time that we got involved…. Any of the cases we get involved with, we’re not the investigators, but we have the basis of coming in based on we feel there has been a civil rights violation."
    Pressed again on whether he would have acted similarly if he had known then what he knew now, Sharpton became animated:
    "Well, what do I know now? A grand jury didn’t believe her?... You’ve got to remember the same prosecutor came after me on situations I knew was wrong. Why would I believe the jury that he used there?....Why wouldn’t civil rights leaders respond? That’s what we’re about... I believe that the basis of our involvement, of saying that this prosecutor should have moved forward and brought this into court was absolutely the right position to take, and that’s the position we took."
    The Central Park Jogger CaseIn April 1989 a 28-year-old white woman, dubbed the "Central Park jogger," was brutally gang-raped and nearly beaten to death in New York's Central Park by a group of black teenagers. Despite the defendants' graphic and detailed confessions, which were captured on videotape and delivered in the presence of their parents or guardians, Sharpton insisted that the boys were innocent victims of "a fit of racial hysteria" that was sweeping the criminal-justice system and all of American society. Charging that the jogger's boyfriend was the real rapist in the case, Sharpton organized protests outside the courthouse where the five suspects were being tried, chanting, "The boyfriend did it!" and smearing the victim as a "whore!" Further, Sharpton appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim, saying: "It doesn't even have to be a black psychiatrist." All five suspects were convicted for their involvement in the crime and were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 5 to 15 years apiece. Their convictions would later be overturned in 2002 when another man, Matias Reyes, who was already serving a life prison sentence, confessed to having committed the 1989 rape alone. For explicit details about the confessions of the five youths in question -- and about their obvious involvement in the 1989 assault -- click here.

    Forming the National Action Network


    In 1991 Sharpton formed the National Action Network (NAN), whose platform "revolves around activism against racial profiling, police brutality, women’s issues, economic reform, public education, international affairs, including abolishing slavery in Africa, job awareness, AIDS awareness, and more."

    Emphasizing the urgent need for aggressive left-wing activism, Sharpton during this period derided moderate black politicians with close ties to the Democratic Party as "cocktail-sip Negroes" or "yellow niggers."

    The Anti-Semitic Riots in Crown Heights

    In the summer of 1991, Sharpton injected himself into the unrest that followed an August 19 incident where a Hasidic Jewish driver had accidentally run over and killed a 7-year-old black boy named Gavin Cato in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York. Scarcely three hours after that accident, a mob of local blacks seeking retribution hunted down and murdered a 29-year-old Australian-born rabbinical student named Yankel Rosenbaum, who was not in any way involved in Cato's death. Shortly thereafter, Sharpton exploited the interracial angle of the boy's death to further fan the flames of racial animus. He organized angry protest demonstrations and challenged local Jews to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” to settle the score if they were displeased with his actions.

    Stirred, in part, by Sharpton's contentious anger, hundreds of Crown Heights blacks subsequently took to the streets for three days and nights of violent rioting. Sharpton reacted to the chaos by repeatedly shouting the mantra, “No justice, no peace!” “We must not reprimand our children for outrage,” he declared, “when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system.”

    Years later, Norman Rosenbaum, brother of the murdered Yankel Rosenbaum, reflected on the events of August 1991: "Based on everything we have seen and read, Sharpton never called upon the rioters to stop their anti-Semitism-inspired violence. He never called on the rioters to go home." Rosenbaum elaborated:
    "The riots were the product of anti-Semites taking advantage of the tragic death of a child to justify inflicting their violence on innocent people -- the Jewish community of Crown Heights -- and murdering Yankel Rosenbaum, a Jew from Australia, amid the cries of 'Kill the Jew!'"[2]
    Notwithstanding the mass violence that had engulfed Crown Heights in the wake of Gavin Cato's death, Sharpton, delivering the eulogy at the boy's funeral on August 26, persisted with his racially charged rhetoric. He told the mourners, for instance, that it was not merely a car accident that had killed the child, but rather the "social accident" of "an apartheid [Jewish] ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights" that allegedly did not care enough to do everything in its power to help black victims in need. Added Sharpton:
    "Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid.... All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no coffee klatsch, no skinnin' and grinnin'. Pay for your deeds."
    Failed Senate Bid

    Sharpton ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1992 and 1994, and he received 32 percent of the vote in the 1997 Democratic mayoral primary in New York City.

    Sharpton Derides Mayor Dinkins As a "Ni**er Whore"

    During the administration (1989-93) of New York City mayor David Dinkins (an African American), Sharpton angrily denounced Dinkins (when the latter was unsupportive of Sharpton's activism) in the following terms:
    “David Dinkins, you wanna be the only ni**er on television, only ni**er in the newspaper, only ni**er that can talk. Don’t cover them, don’t talk to them, ’cause you got the only ni**er problem. ‘Cause you know if a black man stood up next to you, they would see you for the whore that you really are.” (Click here for audio.)
    On another occasion, Sharpton referred to Dinkins as "that ni**er whore turning tricks in City Hall."

    Becoming a Baptist Minister
    In 1994 Sharpton was re-baptized into the Baptist faith and became a minister of that denomination.

    The Racist Kean College Speech

    Also in 1994, Sharpton delivered an incendiary speech at New Jersey’s Kean College, where he said:
    “White folks was in the cave while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”[3]
    Sharpton subsequently explained that while his use of the word “homos” may have been “irresponsible,” it “is not a homophobic term”[4]

    The Kean College speech also featured Sharpton explaining that America’s founders consisted of “the worst criminals, the rejects they sent from Europe ... to the colonies.”[5] “So [if] some cracker,” he continued, “come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold you pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks.”[6] Sharpton later defended his use of the word “cracker,” calling it merely a “colloquial term used to describe a certain kind of bigot, who hates both blacks and Jews. It’s certainly not a racist term and certainly not an anti-Semitic term, because a cracker hates Jews and blacks.”[7]

    Million Man March

    In 1995 Sharpton -- along with such notables as Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright -- helped organize Louis Farrakhan's October 16th Million Man March.

    The Deadly Boycott of Freddy's Fashion Mart

    Also in 1995, Sharpton led his NAN in a racially charged boycott against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned business in Harlem. The boycott started when Freddy’s owners announced that because they wanted to expand their own business, they would no longer sublet part of their store to a black-owned record shop. The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was also the head of Sharpton’s “Buy BlackCommittee. Powell and his fellow protesters repeatedly and menacingly told passersby not to patronize the “crackers” and "the greedy Jew bastards [who are] killing our [black] people." Some boycotters openly threatened violence against whites and Jews––all under the watchful, approving eye of Sharpton, who referred to the proprietors of Freddy's as "white interlopers." The subsequent picketing became ever-more menacing in its tone until one of the participants eventually shot (non-fatally) four whites inside the store and then set the building on fire––killing seven employees, most of whom were Hispanics.

    Appearance at a Socialist Scholars Conference

    In 1998 Sharpton was a featured speaker at the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York.

    "Redeem the Dream" Rally

    In August 2000, Sharpton held a "Redeem the Dream" rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, where one the the featured speakers was Malik Zulu Shabazz. At that event, Shabazz called on black young people, including "gang members," to unite against their "common enemy" -- "white America" and its allegedly racist police departments. He also articulated a "black dream that when we see caskets rolling in the black community … we will see caskets and funerals in the community of our enemy as well."

    Characterizing White Republicans As Racists

    In a May 2003 speech sponsored by Harvard Law School, Sharpton characterized Republicans as racists who “cut taxes for the rich while [they] strangle the poor”; he likened black Republicans Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to subservient house slaves; he called for “$50 billion a year” in tax hikes so that America could “invest in working-class people, not multi-billionaires”; he proclaimed that “white male land owners” were in control of the United States; and he asserted that the descendants of the white men who “used to buy [blacks], now they rent 'em.”

    Failed Presidential Campaign

    A harsh critic of the Iraq War and the Patriot Act (which he called "unpatriotic" and "illegitimate" legislation), Sharpton campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2004. Though his candidacy was unsuccessful, the Democratic Party establishment allowed him to speak in the prime-time slot on the third day of its national convention.

    Supporting Cindy Sheehan

    In August 2005 Sharpton visited activist Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, Texas to show support for her anti-war, anti-Bush protest campaign.

    Speech at an Anti-War Rally Organized by Pro-Communist Coalitions

    On September 24, 2005, Sharpton spoke at the "Call to United Mass Action," an anti-Iraq War rally in Washington, DC that was co-organized by International ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice. Other speakers at the event, which was attended by an estimated 300,000 people, included Brian Becker, Michael BergMahdi Bray, Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan, George Galloway, Larry Holmes, Dolores Huerta, Ralph Nader, Elias RashmawiMichael Shehadeh, and Lynne Stewart.

    The Duke Lacrosse Case

    In March 2006, a black stripper accused three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team of having beaten, raped and sodomized her during an off-campus party. These charges triggered an instantaneous eruption of outrage among left-wing civil-rights activists. Sharpton, for his part, declared that these ”rich white boys” had attacked a ”black girl,” and warned that if arrests were not made immediately, there would be no peace. He further claimed that "this case parallels Abner Louima, who was raped and sodomized in a bathroom [by a New York City police officer] like this girl has alleged she was.... and just like in the Louima case, you have people here saying she fabricated it...." It later became evident, however, that the plaintiff's charges were indeed entirely fabricated, and all charges against the defendants were dropped.

    Disparaging Mormonism

    When Mitt Romney, a Mormon, ran for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sharpton said: “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.”


    Charging Racism in Major League Baseball's Steroid Investigations

    In February 2008, Sharpton asserted that the federal government was seeking to prosecute black athletes more aggressively than white athletes in scandals over their alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs. Specifically, Sharpton claimed that members of Congress, in their recent questioning of white pitcher Roger Clemens, had acted as if "they were at a fan club meeting," as compared to the allegedly harsher treatment which black outfielder Barry Bonds was receiving. "You've got to understand that the fight has always been about the criminalization of black men," said Sharpton.

    Supporting Barack Obama

    In March 2008, Sharpton, a strong supporter of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, stated that he was accustomed to speaking with Obama on a regular basis -- "two or three times a week."

    Shakedowns and Extortions

    Sharpton often threatens to organize black boycotts of corporations on grounds that they supposedly discriminate against African Americans. Those companies, in turn, typically try to pacify Sharpton with cash; sometimes they hire him as a consultant. For example:
    • In June 1998 Sharpton threatened to call for a consumer boycott of Pepsi, alleging that blacks were underrepresented in the company's advertising. Less than a year later, Pepsi hired Sharpton as a $25,000-per-year adviser until 2007.
    • In November 2003, Sharpton threatened to lead a boycott of DaimlerChrysler over the allegedly pervasive “institutional racism” in the company’s car loan practices. Within six months, Chrysler began supporting Sharpton's NAN conferences.
    • Also in 2003, Sharpton complained that American Honda had too few blacks in management positions. Company executives met with Sharpton, and within two months they began to sponsor NAN events.
    • According to one General Motors spokesman, NAN repeatedly asked his company for contributions every year from 2000 through 2006, and GM each time declined to pay anything. Then, in December 2006 Sharpton threatened to call a boycott to protest the carmaker’s closing of an African American-owned GM dealership in the Bronx. In 2007 and 2008, General Motors made monetary donations to NAN.
    Violating Federal Election Laws

    In April 2009, Sharpton and his NAN were fined $285,000 for having violated election rules during Sharpton's 2004 presidential bid. According to the Federal Election Commission:

    The National Action Network's Overdue Payroll Taxes

    Though Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN) owed some $1.1 million in overdue payroll taxes as of 2009, Sharpton at that time began collecting a salary of $250,000 from the organization. An August 2014 Treasury Department report indicated that only 1,200 groups in the United States owed more than $100,000 in unpaid payroll taxes, meaning that NAN ranked among the most delinquent nonprofits in the country.

    Calling for Economic Equality


    On May 2, 2010, Sharpton addressed a church congregation in Danbury, Connecticut, where he said that the late Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream "was not to put one black president in the White House," but rather "to make everything equal in everybody’s house."

    The Trayvon Martin Case

    Sharpton reacted passionately to a February 26, 2012 incident in Sanford, Florida, in which a "white Hispanic" neighborhood-watch captain named George Zimmerman shot and killed a 17-year-old African American named Trayvon Martin. When subsequent reports suggested that Martin had merely been in Zimmerman's neighborhood to purchase a bag of Skittles at a local shop, Sharpton said:
    “It is an unbelievable burden, and hard to articulate, that [if you are black] you’re born automatically a suspect, and you have to operate and behave in a way that does not exacerbate or incite someone’s paranoia. We have come so far in this country that we can put a black man in the White House, but we can’t walk a black child down the neighborhood street to get a bag of Skittles.”
    When Zimmerman was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges in a July 2013 trial, Sharpton blasted the verdict as an “atrocity” and “a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.” Moreover, Sharpton announced that he and his National Action Network would soon be "mobilizing" protests in 100 U.S. cities.

    Likening Republicans to Hitler

    On May 25, 2012, Sharpton told a radio audience that Republicans view black people as subhumans, much as Adolf Hitler saw Jews:
    "It seems like they [some of the right wing] act as though some wiping out of people ... is alright. It's not alright to do to any innocent people.... [T]o wipe out innocent people just 'cause of who they are, like was done in Hitler's Germany, or was done to Native Americans, is not justified." 
    Strategizing with Obama to Push Tax Hikes on the Wealthy

    On December 4, 2012, Sharpton and several other "influential progressive" advisors (as described by White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest) met with President Barack Obama to strategize on how to best sell the American public on the need to raise taxes on people earning $250,000 or more, while extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all other U.S. residents. Also in attendance at the meeting were MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz, and Arianna Huffington.

    Gun Control

    Later in December 2012, Sharpton spoke out publicly about a recent incident where a deranged gunman had shot and killed 26 people (including 20 children) at a Connecticut elementary school. Calling for stricter gun control measures, he said: "In any civilized society, you do not see massacres continue to happen ... and you keep the same laws when clearly they're not working." A questioner then asked Sharpton, "What happens when the criminal goes to knives?" Sharpton replied: "Then you deal with knives. The same thing you do if you have a head cold, and the cold is gone and you have a headache. Then you take headache medicine."

    Claiming that President Obama's Likeness Belongs on Mount Rushmore

    In January 2013, Sharpton stated that Barack Obama was at least as deserving as President Theodore Roosevelt of having his likeness appear on Mount Rushmore: "[Obama] stopped two wars and the whole question of finance reform on Wall Street and health care. I mean, he has done some concrete things.... [A] lot of people could say that Teddy Roosevelt was more of a character than a transformative president. I can name, literally, things that President Obama has done. Now, I’m going to say that if Teddy Roosevelt is the measure, I think it strengthens the case for President Obama."

    Addressing the "Knockout Game"

    In the fall of 2013, media outlets like Breitbart News, Truth Revolt, and Fox News reported extensively on the growing prevalence of the so-called "knockout game," whereby groups of black teenagers were targeting defenseless and unsuspecting white, Jewish, and Asian pedestrians and blindsiding them with roundhouse punches designed to render the victims unconscious. Accomplices to the perpetrators commonly captured these attacks on video and posted them, as a form of celebration, to the website YouTube. Hundreds of these knockout-game incidents had occurred in cities nationwide since 2010. Many had resulted in serious injuries, and in several cases the victims had died.

    On November 22, 2013, former U.S. Congressman Allen West, a black conservative, publicly criticized Sharpton for his silence on the knockout game. The very next day, Sharpton spoke out against the violence, saying: “If someone was running around talking about knocking out blacks, we would not be silent. We cannot be silent.” Two days later, Sharpton penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post denouncing the "racist" and "inhumane" behavior that "in many cases specifically target[s] Jewish folks" and "has no place in our country or the world." He further condemned the practice as a "deplorable, reprehensible and inexcusable" form of "insane thuggery."

    Sharpton Embraces Convicted Voter-Fraud Perpetrator at Anti-Voter ID Rally
    Sharpton was the keynote speaker at a March 2014 event condemning Voter ID laws and honoring Melowese Richardson, an Ohio poll worker convicted of voter fraud, as what one Democrat executive called "a martyr." Firmly convinced that Barack Obama had earned the “right to sit [a second term] as president of the United States,” Richardson in 2012: (a) voted twice in her own name and three times on behalf of her comatose sister; (b) filled out and mailed an absentee ballot on behalf of her granddaughter, who subsequently voted in person on election day; and (c) was likely responsible for three additional absentee ballots generated from her home address, all of which bore similar handwriting. (Richardson was originally sentenced to a five-year prison term for these crimes, though that punishment was later reduced to mere probation after Democratic activists pressed for leniency.)

    Sharpton's Reaction to the Death of Eric Garner

    Sharpton became deeply involved in the protests that followed a July 17, 2014 incident where a 43-year old African American named Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after having resisted several white police officers' efforts to arrest him for illegally selling “loosies,” single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps. One of the officers at the scene put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck and took him down to the ground with a headlock/chokehold. While lying facedown on the sidewalk surrounded by four officers, Garner repeatedly said, "I can't breathe." A black female NYPD sergeant supervised the entire altercation and never ordered that officer to release the hold. Garner was pronounced dead approximately an hour later at a local hospital. City medical examiners subsequently concluded that he had died as a result of an interplay between the police officer’s hold and Garner’s multiple chronic infirmities, which included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease.

    On August 24, 2014 in New York City, Sharpton led at least 2,500 marchers in a rally condemning “a society where police are automatically excused” for wrongdoing.

    Chaos after White Police Officer Kills Black Teen in Missouri

    Shortly after a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri had shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old black male named Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 in circumstances that were not yet clear, violent riots and looting erupted in that town for a number of days and nights. On August 12, Sharpton himself arrived in Ferguson and demanded that the officer who had shot Brown be brought to justice.

    Noting that a witness had stated that Brown had his hands raised above his head just prior to being shot, Sharpton said on August 17: "We know that this was an execution. This [hands up] means 'Surrender! Don't shoot!' And the most hardened criminals in history, when they put their hands up, we didn't execute them."

    In a speech that same day at Greater Grace Church in St. Louis, Sharpton emphasized, “We…have…had…enough!” And he urged people who agreed with him to make their feelings known at the ballot box in November. “Nobody can go to the White House until they stop by our house!” he thundered.

    Also on August 17, Sharpton addressed a large gathering at the Greater St. Marks Family Church, where he condemned the police department's recent release of a store surveillance video showing Michael Brown forcibly robbing a convenience store just minutes before he was fatally shot. Said Sharpton:
    "Michael Brown is gone. You can run whatever video you want. He is not on trial. America is on trial! I have never in all my years seen something as offensive and insulting as a police chief releasing a tape of a young man, trying to smear him before we even have his funeral.

    "America as a nation, Missouri as a state, Ferguson as a city, is at a defining moment on whether or not we know and are mature enough to handle policing — whether it goes over the line or not. We cannot lecture nations around the world about how they handle policing and we have an inability of handling it in our own nation. All policemen are not bad; most policemen are not bad. But all of them are not right all the time. And when they're wrong, they must pay for being wrong just like citizens pay when they're wrong....

    "Looting is wrong. We condemn the looters. But when will law enforcement condemn police who shoot and kill our young people? We got to be honest on both sides of this discussion."
    When compelling ballistic, eyewitness, and forensic evidence eventually (in late October 2014) indicated that Michael Brown in fact had assaulted the officer and tried to steal his gun just prior to the fatal shooting, Sharpton's outrage over the incident—and his determination to make it the focal point of a civil-rights crusade—was undiminished.

    And when a grand jury announced on November 24, 2014 that it would not indict the officer who had gunned down Michael Brown—because of overwhelming evidence indicating that the shooting was done in self-defense—Sharpton denounced the entire grand jury process and condemned the prosecutor for trying to "discredit a young teenager [Michael Brown] who can't speak for himself." Charging that police brutality "is a problem all over the country," Sharpton announced that he would soon be convening an "emergency civil rights leadership meeting" in Washington; that he and other activists would devise "a plan that will constructively help to change this nation"; and that he would pursue an "ongoing strategy" of "mass and regular marches, legislation, and economic boycotts" to keep the issue of police misconduct against African Americans in the public spotlight. Stating that "Michael Brown has lit a new energy for police accountability" in the United States, Sharpton added: "We may have lost one round, but the fight is not over."

    Sharpton Is Outraged by the Grand Jury Decision Not to Indict the Officer Who Had the July 2014 Altercation with Eric Garner
    On December 3, 2014, a grand jury decided not to indict the police officer who had been involved in the aforementioned altercation that ultimately resulted in the death of black New Yorker Eric Garner more than four months earlier. In response to that decision, an outraged Sharpton said: "We want the justice department and the federal government to deal with the fact that the grand jury systems on a state level are broken."

    Sharpton Is Rebuffed by the Grieving Family of Another Black New Yorker Who Died As a Result of Police Gunfire
    In late November and early December 2014, Sharpton put out press releases indicating that he would deliver the eulogy at the funeral of the late Akai Gurley -- a 28-year-old African American who had been shot and killed on November 20 by a rookie NYPD officer who fired his gun blindly into the darkness of an unlit stairwell in a Brooklyn housing project.

    But Sharpton never consulted Gurley's family regarding the matter. Then, on December 5, the family instructed Sharpton to keep his “circus” and “chaos” away from the funeral altogether. “It’s been a nightmare,” Gurley’s aunt told the New York Post. “He just wants to take credit for this when he’s never even contacted my sister [Gurley’s mother]. Who made you [Sharpton] the spokesperson of our family? We just want to bury our nephew with dignity and respect.... How can you do a eulogy for someone you don’t even know? It’s heartbreaking.” Depicting Sharpton as a publicity hound who felt no genuine concern for her dead nephew, the woman also said, “There is no piece of the pie for Mr. Sharpton here.” She then added that whenever Sharpton becomes involved in tragic cases, “It’s not pretty — there’s confusion.... It’s about control and power. We’re not here for that.”

    Sharpton's Status As President Obama's Chief Advisor on Racial Issues


    In August 2014, Politico.com published a feature story titled, “How Al Sharpton Became Obama's Go-To Man on Race.” The piece stated that “Sharpton not only visits the White House frequently, he often texts or emails with senior Obama officials such as [Valerie] Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder.” It quoted Jesse Jackson saying, “I’ve known Al since he was 12 years old, and he’s arrived at the level he always wanted to arrive at, which is gratifying. He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House, he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” Sharpton himself, meanwhile, offered his own assessment of how he had bonded with Obama: “The relationship evolved over time.... The key for him was seeing that I wasn’t insincere, that I actually believed in the stuff I was talking about.”

    Sharpton Advises Obama on Naming Replacement for Eric Holder

    On September 24, 2013, Eric Holder announced that he would be resigning from his post as Attorney General as soon as a successor could be named and confirmed by the Senate. Immediately after Holder's announcement, Sharpton said that his own civil rights organization, the National Action Network, was already "engaged in immediate conversations with the White House on deliberations over a successor whom we hope will continue in the general direction of Attorney General Holder." "The resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder is met with both pride and disappointment by the Civil Rights community," added Sharpton. "We are proud that he has been the best Attorney General on Civil Rights in U.S. history, and disappointed because he leaves at a critical time when we need his continued diligence most."

    TV and Radio

    In addition to his social activism, Sharpton is also a broadcaster. In July 2011 he replaced Cenk Uygur as the host of a nightly MSNBC news/talk television program titled Politics Nation. Moreover, he hosts his own daily radio program, Keepin' It Real with Al Sharpton, which began airing in January 2006. And he hosts a weekly radio show titled Hour of Power on Sunday nights.

    Sharpton's Wealth

    As of 2013, Sharpton earned an annual salary of just over $241,000 from the National Action Network (NAN), even while the organization was $1.1 million in debt. His exact MSNBC salary has not been publicly disclosed, but it is believed to be a six-figure sum that exceeds his income from NAN. In August 2014, CelebrityNetWorth.com listed Sharpton's net worth as being $5 million.

    $4.5 Million in Tax Liens

    In November 2014, a New York Times investigation reported that Sharpton had more than $4.5 million in tax liens against him and his businesses. His National Action Network, for instance, owed approximately $1.1 million in overdue payroll taxes. Moreover, Sharpton had repeatedly failed to pay money that he owed to hotels, travel agencies, and landlords. Indeed he had been sued twice by his landlord for a cumulative $98,000, and had relied on friends and his nonprofit to pay his daughter’s education expenses.

    NOTES:

    [1] Sharpton was not the only person involved in the Brawley case to be required by a court to pay restitution to Pagones. Indeed, Alton Maddox was found liable for $97,000, C. Vernon Mason for $188,000, and Ms. Brawley herself was ordered in 1998 to pay Pagones more than $190,000 plus 9 percent annual interest. The woman, however, made no payments at all on that debt until 2013, at which time a Virgina court forced her to begin paying Pagones $627 each month in garnisheed wages. By then, she owed the former district attorney a total of $431,492. Notably, Pagones indicated that he would be willing to forgive the debt if Brawley were to publicly admit that her 1987 accusations against him were fabricated.

    [2] Sharpton himself eventually (in 2011) acknowledged that during the 1991 riots, he had not made any statements to indicate "that there was no justification or excuse for violence or for the death of Yankel Rosenbaum."

    [3] Jonathan Mahler, “Sharpton’s Image As New Moderate Dimmed by Video,” Forward (December 22, 1995), p. 4. (Click here for audio.)

    [4] Ibid.

    [5] Ibid.

    [6] Ibid.

    [7] Ibid.

    Saturday, December 20, 2014

    Insanity: The Obama Cabal Rules of Engagement Against a Terrorist "NO RULES" ENEMY.. Training our Military to lose!

    YES ITS THE ART OF TRAINING A GENERATION OF SOLDIERS HOW TO DIE QUICKER AND FIGHT SOFTER AND LOSE MORE BATTLES.

    PATRIOTS READ AND SHARE THIS WITH MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN WHO MUST BE EDUCATED ABOUT THE FACTS. THEY ARE BEING TRAINED TO ACCEPT DEFEAT. THIS IS PSYOPS  !! ITS SCARY!!


    ITS A LONG TERM PLAN TO DEMORALIZE AND DECIMATE OUR FIGHTING FORCES SO THAT WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT.. AMERICA'S MILITARY WILL SURRENDER IN CONFUSION.

    ( They are doing the same thing with the Police Forces in Country!)


    THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED HOW TO LOSE!!


    THE Insanity OF The Rules of Engagement.

    IN BATTLE .. SOLDIERS ARE TRAINED BY THE OBAMA CABAL NOT TO TOUCH A KORAN... ( WHICH COULD BE BOOBY TRAPPED!!


    What are the Rules of Engagement (ROE)? These are the military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces.

    New rules of engagement were put into place by the Obama administration starting in 2009 and 2010, which has most certainly caused hesitation and confusion for our military.

    In an article for the Washington Times, Rawan Scarborough interviewed Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S intelligence office from NATO headquarters who said:

    “It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement] casualties more than doubled. The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”


    Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerne said:
    “We have handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of.”

    In 2010, the first full year of the troop surge, there was five times the annual death toll compared with 2006-2007  and three times the number in 2008.

    What do the rules of Engagement say about collateral damage?
    “Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on non-combatant persons and structures.”

    What does this mean to the soldiers on the ground who are in an intense fight with the enemy? All attacks with the possibility of harming 30 or more civilians need approval from the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in writing before they can be carried out?  Is this reasonable?

    An article published in 2009 in the Washington Times was able to piece together specific components of the new Rules of Engagement:

    • No night or surprise searches.
    • Villagers must be warned prior to searches.
    • Afghanistan Army or police must be present on U.S. searches.
    • U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless they fire first.
    • U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy of civilians are present.
    • Only women can search women.
    Troops can fire at insurgents placing an IED but not if walking away from the area were IED’s are placed.

    What kind of war are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do the bad guys wear uniforms? Do the bad guys hide guns? Do the bad guys commit suicide by carrying bombs covered by civilian clothes? Do the bad guys use women and children to carry out killings of soldiers? The problem is soldiers cannot tell who the bad guy is, and this is definitely an advantage for the enemy.

    Marcus Luttrell, of  "Lone Survivor" said:
    “Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan specified that we could not shoot, kill, or injure unarmed civilians. But what about the unarmed civilian who was a skilled spy for the forces we were trying to remove? What about an entire secret army, creeping through the mountains in Afghanistan pretending to be civilians?  These terrorists/insurgents know the rules… They’re not their rules. They’re our rules, the rules of the Western countries, the civilized side of the world.  The rules are unworkable because half the time no one knows who the goddamned enemy is, and by the time you find out, it might be too late to save your own life. Making sense of the ROE’s in real-time situations is impossible.”

    Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance, 28,  was found guilty of 2 counts of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison, forfeiture of pay and dismissal from the military,  when he returned home from two combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was his crime? In July 2012 Lorance ordered the engagement of three Taliban scouts who were tracking his platoon’s movements. His men opened fire immediately  and two of the men were killed while one ran away. Lorance said he was trying to protect his unit. The previous platoon leader of the unit had recently been killed.

    The government prosecutor said, “Lt. Lorance used his rank and position to harass, intimidate, threaten and murder Afghans.”
    In an interview on NPR, Tom Bowman, a National Desk reporter,  told his firsthand experience while in Afghanistan:

    “[W]e were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb. They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. there was another combat outpost not too far away. the problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gum and the guys planting the bomb. So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machine guns to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug - and that’s become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw the jug into a haystack.”

    The Marines no longer had the authority to engage the enemy.
    An article in Breitbart by Billy and Karen Vaughn, told the story of an Army Ranger who recently left the military and said, “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”

    According to the article:
    “This decision came after he lost a friend to the Rules of Engagement. He explained how the Taliban had attempted an ambush on his friend’s squad but quickly realized they were in a battle they couldn’t win and began retreating. While chasing them, the U.S. soldiers were ordered not to engage due to the slight chance the Taliban had laid down their arms as they ran through some type of shack. While arguing with leadership at the Joint Operations Center, his friend was shot and killed.”

    Recently Captain William Swenson was given the Medal of Honor.  Swenson spoke of his frustration when he repeatedly called headquarters to request airstrikes but was denied for hours as more than 150 Taliban fighters attacked his position. He said:
    “It’s not JAG’s [military attorney] responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building.’”
    “I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”
    “I just get the craziest thing across the radio sometimes. Just people second guessing.”

    Another soldier in the same report said  there was a dwelling used by the Taliban, including women, as a safe haven from which to fire rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. Yet the command would not target the building. He said:
    “Let’s focus on [rules of engagement] because there is no reason you can’t level a house if they are shooting from it. I’ve never heard of a rule that would not allow  [you] to fire on a house. They always teach you that you always have the right to defend yourself. Let commanders on the ground make decisions. We are using lawyers to make tactical decisions.”

    Is this how we treat the heroes that have volunteered to fight for our country? How can we allow politicians who have never been to the battlefield  or officers sitting at a desk in Washington to decide at what moment a soldier is able to defend himself or his unit in wartime? When a soldier is faced with a split second decision, should they be forced to hesitate and potentially lose their life or be prosecuted when they return home for committing a crime?
    New rules instituted by the current administration demand that no military attack via air or ground can be launched unless it can be guaranteed that no civilians will be killed, no collateral damage will occur. Airstrikes cannot be launched unless the person authorizing the strike is willing to declare on the record that there will be no collateral damage or face prosecution.

    The Rules of Engagement, since Vietnam, used to be about doing whatever it takes to win. Now, soldiers must adhere to rules made by politicians who have never seen the battlefield, attempting to be politically correct and by the media who demonize any soldier that is involved in a battle where there is collateral damage. Are these the rules of a Nation who is concerned about protecting the lives of our soldiers or the rules of the few who are looking to keep their cushy government jobs by pacifying the public to ensure their re-election?
    It is time to bring common sense back to government. Collateral damage, and unintentional killing of civilians is a consequence of war. But the question is are our soldiers lives more important than the inevitable collateral damage? Should our soldiers be forced to defend their wartime actions, in the middle of a battle,  to the government of the United States while they are fighting for the people of the United States?

    It sounds like pure Insanity. WE ARE TRAING OUR FIGHTERS TO LOSE!!


    READ THIS


    Rules of engagement limit the actions of U.S. troops and drones in Afghanistan

    Say dwellings now virtual safe havens for terrorists

    The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.
    The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.
    The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.
    “U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.
    afgan cartoonRyan Zinke, who commanded an assault team within SEAL Team 6, said of the security deal: “The first people who are going to look at it and review it are the enemy we’re trying to fight. It’s going to be a document that can be used effectively against us. This is where we either fight or go home. What’s happening is we’re losing our ability to fight overseas.”
    Mr. Karzai wants to defer the document’s signing to his successor in April’s presidential election, but Afghan legislators are pressing him to sign the deal now.
    Even before the security agreement’s rules of engagement were drafted, troops complained about meeting the requirements of an increasingly burdensome checklist before they can fire. The rules grew stricter in 2010 after a series of mistaken U.S. bombings killed civilians and special operations troops raided villages and homes at night.
    The rules of engagement today also place restrictions on dwelling assaults, but Mr. Obama’s language of “extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb” sets the bar much higher.
    Said retired Army Col. Ken Allard, now a military analyst: “Call me crazy, but what on earth is the point of remaining there under these [rules of engagement], much less subjecting American soldiers to another set of restrictions that make sense only in proportion to your distance from the combat zone?”
    The security agreement lays out the legal status of U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, when all international combat forces are set to leave the country. As many as 18,000 international troops — including 8,000 from the U.S. — will remain for 10 years to train and assist Afghan security forces and hunt terrorists.
    Terrorist-hunting missions will require U.S. personnel to engage in combat by accompanying Afghans on counterterrorism raids and supplying close-air support. That is why the rules for when U.S. troops can and cannot fire on the enemy or enter a dwelling remain important.
    A rare look at today’s classified rules of engagement is contained in the huge investigative file on the Afghan Taliban’s downing of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year that killed 30 U.S. troops, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. The report notes service members’ frustration at seeing people they knew were Taliban fighters during the August 2012 operation in Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley, but they were denied permission to shoot.
    An AH-64 Apache gunship pilot said he saw the spot from where Taliban operatives fired the rocket-propelled grenade that felled the chopper.
    “Due to [rules of engagement] and tactical directives, I couldn’t fire at the building where I thought the [shooter] was, so I aimed directly to the west of the building,” the pilot testified, according to transcripts obtained by The Washington Times.
    During the battle that preceded the shootdown, the crew of an AC-130 gunship spotted two armed Taliban fighters who were moving into new positions.
    “There were several opportunities where we could have engaged with 40 mm ensuring zero [collateral damage estimate] on any buildings,” the navigator testified. “The opportunity was definitely there for us to engage those two guys or even provide containment fires to try to slow their movement.”
    Investigator: “Did you ask to engage them?
    Navigator: “Yes, sir.”
    Investigator: “And it was denied, right?
    Navigator: “Yes, sir.”
    AC-130 commander: “I think he spoke with the Ground Force Commander and he said, ‘No. No-go. Just maintain eyes-on.’”
    Mr. Zinke, the former SEAL, said he talks to guys coming back home who are frustrated because the rules of engagement “are too restrictive.”
    “I’ve always been a champion of, if we are going to fight, fight to win,” said Mr. Zinke, a candidate in the Republican primary for a House seat in Montana. “And you’ve got to give our troops that are in harm’s way every tool and every advantage that is possible.
    “And when you start restricting [rules of engagement] — when you limit our ability to fight at night, where you restrict the ground commanders’ ability to react quickly without having to go up the chain of command and also when you’re forced to bring along the Afghan forces who are notorious for the lack of security — then I think it puts troops in greater risk.”
    Mr. Kerry said last week that the security deal demonstrates to Mr. Karzai that Washington is listening to his concerns about civilian deaths.
    “It’s very important for President Karzai to know that the issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed, and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed,” the secretary of state said.
    Lisa Curtis, a foreign-policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said there are some pluses. Mr. Karzai is agreeing to some night raids, and Mr. Obama’s language “does leave room for the U.S. to conduct counterterrorism missions against high-value targets,” she said.
    Left unsettled is Mr. Karzai’s call for a delay in signing the agreement until the spring.
    “That would almost certainly be a deal-killer from the U.S. perspective, as the U.S. needs to begin planning for any residual force presence no later than January 2014,” Ms. Curtis said.


    *****************************

    READ MORE...

    “In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan (October 2001 – December 2008) we lost 630 U.S. soldiers. In early 2009, this administration authorized the implementation of the COIN strategy. Over the next five years, the U.S. death toll skyrocketed to 2,292.”
    COIN – the failed Counterinsurgency strategy also known as “winning the hearts and minds of the enemy.” This and “our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), have made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.”
    The Obama Administration is telling our young men to win a war with their hands tied behind their backs. Slaughtering them. Unbelievable. Our Commander-in-Chief is aiding and abetting the enemy. Impeach Obama.
    “Seventy-three percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have taken place since 2009.”
    “In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan, 2,638 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action. In the next forty-five months (2009 – 2012) an additional 15,036 suffered the same fate.”
    Excerpts are from an article written by: Billy and Karen Vaughn who are Gold Star parents of Special Operations Chief (SEAL) Aaron Vaughn, KIA 6 Aug 2011. Billy is the author of “Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17.” Read more or schedule the Vaughns for a speaking event at http://www.forourson.us.
    Related article here about our troops being at greater risk since Obama’s new Rules of Engagement.
    It mentions the situation under investigation where Aaron Vaughn was needlessly killed…”the Afghan Taliban’s downing of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year that killed 30 U.S. troops, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. The report notes service members’ frustration at seeing people they knew were Taliban fighters during the August 2012 operation in Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley, but they were denied permission to shoot.”

    WHAT DO YOU THINK ??




    WATERBOARDING IS NOT "TORTURE" ... DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND JOHN MCCAIN ARE DEMAGOGUES!!

    Waterboarding: Tens of Thousands of US Military Personnel Go Through it as part of SERE



    Democrats and some Republicans continue to demand that water-boarding should be statutorily defined to be torture and thus outlawed. We believe this would be a terrible mistake.


    WE CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT US TO PROTECT THEM BUT CUFF OUR HANDS DOING IT AND HAVE HEARINGS WHEN WE DON'T!!

    ITS TIME TO SECEDE!!

    Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques,  as the following article demonstrates -- can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots.Thousands of Military Personnel have experienced Waterboarding as part of training.

    SO HOW COME DIANE FEINSTEIN AND JOHN MCCAIN (Songbird)  Never complained about the Military Men being "tortured" by waterboarding?? BECAUSE IT IS NOT!!
     

                            THEY WOULD PREFER TO CODDLE THE ENEMY



    Read this Article"
    “Spig” Wead is the pseudonym of a retired Naval aviator who served in the post-Vietnam era.]

    “Train like you Fight, Fight like you Train” is the motto of the world’s most elite pilots, the US Navy’s. Based on lessons learned from survivors of the brutal North Korean and North Vietnam torture of US military prisoners of war, the Department of Defense ordered all branches of the services to implement comprehensive Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs. Every member of Congress should be extremely well versed on the military S.E.R.E. programs since they have had direct oversight and funding of these programs for over 40 years. Viewing the most recent Congressional hearing, one must assume that they are ignorant of or intentionally misrepresent the very programs that they fund and support.

    My personal experience with S.E.R.E. training came as a junior pilot flying the F-14A “Tomcat” at NAS Miramar, California. The US Navy S.E.R.E. program requires all Aircrew Members and members of Special Operation Teams (SOF) to undergo both classroom and field experience in these vital techniques. Classroom and field training was accomplished by a cadre of highly trained and disciplined personnel, many of whom had been held as POW’s and tortured by the North Vietnamese.

    What actually happens in S.E.R.E. in the field? Classes of 40 or more “students” are put through beach and water (swimming) survival techniques, similar to the TV show “Survivor” but without the rewards challenges. The class is then moved to a remote location to survive and evade prior to entering the US Navy run POW camp. The operation of the evasion complex is based on the trainee being briefed on the enemy position and the location of friendly forces. The object, “to make like a bush”, be patient and deliberate and use all your new taught skills to evade a large contingent of simulated enemy combatants in uniform. They speak like the enemy, act like the enemy, and most importantly train you on how to react to the enemy. While they fire AK-47’s over your head, and search for the ugly “American War Criminals” (thanks Jane), you spend agonizing hours crawling and hiding in an attempt to reach safety. As in real life, few if any make it to safety when behind enemy lines. 

    When captured you are brought to an initial holding facility. Hands and feet bound and hooded you are thrown into a barbed wire holding cell. As a former football player and wrestler I felt confident that I had that “John Wayne” attitude, Name, Rank and Serial Number….nothing more. Life and the Navy were about to teach this million dollar trained, blond headed, college, Fly Boy a new and most important lesson. 

    When brought into the first “interrogation”, hooded and hands bound, I was asked the basic questions, no problems…then I was asked a question — the first among many not permitted under the Geneva Convention. Congress, the media and some of the public have forgotten a very basic and important tenant of the Geneva Convention. Terrorists, insurgents, IED Specialists, Suicide Bombers and all those not wearing a uniform in war are not in any form protected by the Geneva Convention. I did not answer the interrogators’ questions: then the fun and games began.
    Carefully using a technique of grabbing your shirt at the pockets and wrapping his fists so that his knuckles pressed into the muscles of my breast plate, the instructor flung me across the room karate style and into a corrugated wall. No more questions; around and around the room I flew, a dance which while blind folded and hooded made me feel like “Raggedy Andy” in a tug of war with two bullying kids. Following the first interrogation we were loaded into trucks, bound and hooded, head to who knows were…for the first time real fear starts to set in and you look for inner strength in your heart, training and comrades.

    Arriving at the POW Camp I was kept hooded and placed in a small box, 2 feet wide, 3 feet long and maybe 3 feet high. I was left the fetal position, sitting on my butt, stripped nearly naked (just week old BVD’s) and left sealed with your defecation can inside your box. Heat, cold, isolation, no communications, and constant noise, music, propaganda, coupled with verbal abuse by your captors is the norm, 24/7. Every twenty minutes or so the guards come by your box and rattle it, sneaking up and demanding to hear your War Criminal Number (thanks again, Jane, for the classification). No more name, rank or serial number, they want some real answers to real security questions. You agonize in your isolation as your hear other members of your group being pulled out for more “personal one on one interrogation”. Then it’s your turn. Pulled from your box you are again brought in for questioning. If unhappy with your answers or no answers, the “Raggedy Andy” dance began again with vigor in the cold night air. 

    Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.
    Scared, alone, cold and in total lack of control, you learn to “cooperate” to the best of your ability to protect your life. For each person that level of cooperation or resistance is different. You must be tested and trained to know how to respond in the real combat world. Escape was the key to freedom and reward. 

    Those students escaping would be rewarded with a meal (apple, and PB&J sandwich) was what we had been told by our instructors. On my next journey to interrogation I saw an opportunity to escape. I fled into the woods, naked and cold, and hid. My captors came searching with AK-47’s blazing, and calls to “kill the American War Criminal” in broken English. After an hour of successfully evading, the voices called out in perfect English. “O.K., problem’s over…you escaped, come in for your sandwich.” When I stood up and revealed my position I was met by a crowd of angry enemy guards, “stupid American Criminal”! Back to the Waterboard I went. 

    This time we went right to the water hose in the face, and a wet towel held tightly on my forehead so that I could not move my head. I had embarrassed my captors and they would now show me that they had total control. The most agonizing and frightful moments are when the wet towel is placed over your nose and mouth and the water hose is placed directly over your mouth. Holding your breath, bucking at the straps, straining to remain conscious, you believe with all your heart that, that, you are going to die. 

    S.E.R.E. training is not pleasant, but it is critical to properly prepare our most endangered combat forces for the reality of enemy capture. Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. Was I trained in an effort to protect my life and the lives of other American fighting men? Yes! Freedom is not Free, nor does it come without sacrifice. Every good American understands this basic principle of our country and prays for the young men and women who have sacrificed and are out on the front lines protecting us today.

    Now, let’s see Congress: Maybe forty or so students per week, let’s say 100 minimum per month, 1,200 per year for over twenty or thirty years? It could be as many as 40,000 students trained in S.E.R.E. and “tortured” at the direction of, and under the watchful eye of the Congressional Majorities on both sides of the aisle. Be careful that the 40,000 of us who you have “tortured” don’t come after you today with tort claims. I heard it pays about $3 million per claim. 

    Congress, you need to get the politics out of the war zone and focus on your job. Gaining information in non-lethal interrogations against non-uniformed terrorists is what is protecting our country today. If you had done your job the past twenty years perhaps one of my favorite wingmen in the F-14A would be alive today. 

    Lt Tom “Stout” McGuinness of the VF-21 “Freelancers” went through S.E.R.E. training during my tenure. But when it came down to the crisis moment, his “interrogators” did not give him the waterboard. They merely went into the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 11, slashed Tom’s throat, and flew the first aircraft into the North Tower of World Trade Center on 9/11.
    Congress, let me ask you a very simple question about your leadership and your sworn responsibility. It is a yes or no question, and you have a personal choice to make. 

    Would you endorse the use of a waterboard interrogation technique against a terrorist like Mohamed Atta al Sayed, the leader of the highjacking of American Airlines Flight 11 or not. The answer for me is simple: “turn on the hose.” If you answer anything else, then God help America because Tom died in vain.

    **********************************************************

    While much is being made of the CIA’s destruction of videotapes depicting the use of waterboarding during the interrogation of terrorists, the technique has actually been little used as a means of extracting information.

    Only three terrorists have been subjected to waterboarding, and the technique has not been employed since 2003.

    Furthermore, waterboarding should not be considered torture, as some are claiming. Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain.

    In fact, U.S. special forces are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training in case they are captured and experience the procedure.
    Waterboarding was used only when the CIA believed a second wave of terrorist attacks was imminent. But once the media began disclosing that the CIA was using the technique, it became useless, because if terrorists know they will be subjected to fake “drowning,” they will not respond to it.

    And when it comes to outright torture, the CIA does not believe it produces reliable results and has never used it, reports Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.
    The three terrorists who were subjected too waterboarding are Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole; and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
    In these cases waterboarding and other coercive techniques, such as forcing prisoners to stand for hours, succeeded in extracting intelligence that led to the capture of key al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attack against Americans.



    “Waterboarding was employed on only three terrorists who were not cooperating, and the information they ultimately provided helped stave off attacks that could have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.”


    THIS IS AL QAEDA TORTURE