It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terrorist Sympathizer Obama Has DHS Delete Terrorist's Records!

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Finally...so back to the subject. If it turns out the whistle-blower is correct and can substantiate his position, what should be done to punish the administration? Is this grounds for impeachment...is this an act that falls under the definition of a "traitor"?


According to his own statement, he delivered this information to Congress in December 2015. Have we heard anything from a Congress that investigates for political gain at the drop of a hat? Nope.

According to his own statement, Mr. Haney was ordered by his superiors at DHS to drop the particular line of "investigation" against al-Huda and Tablighi Jamaat ... and he refused this order. He took his case to the DHS Inspector General. Have you heard anything from the IG? Nope.

What exactly would anyone, including President Obama, be impeached for?
edit on 8-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: cavtrooper7

Dissolve them and put that cash to the military budget.


The U.S. military budget is already obscenely overblown.
That is part of the whole problem, for those that can't see...

Ah, the ever present "those that can't see".

Seems that their only consistent feature is that they don't agree with you.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray


It's pretty obvious, when you open your eyes and look at it: America has been stirring the war pot for years.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

Finally...so back to the subject. If it turns out the whistle-blower is correct and can substantiate his position, what should be done to punish the administration? Is this grounds for impeachment...is this an act that falls under the definition of a "traitor"?


Economic Insurrection

Political Insurrection




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

Finally...so back to the subject. If it turns out the whistle-blower is correct and can substantiate his position, what should be done to punish the administration? Is this grounds for impeachment...is this an act that falls under the definition of a "traitor"?


Economic Insurrection

Political Insurrection



Can you be more clear or expand your thought?

How do those relate to "grounds for impeachment"?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I seem to recall Dubya telling the FBI to "back off" the Bin Ladens the summer before 9/11.
It gives me hope that there's still good people who work inside US intelligence who have the countries best interests at heart.
The idea of any President ordering the destruction of such material constitutes treason - a certain conviction if there is an attack as a direct result of said intelligence being scrubbed.


Once upon a time, a sitting President was brought down over 18 minutes of blank tape. Now, even lesser-placed mortals in the Administration are untouchable despite email servers filled with classified information.

Conviction? Not a chance. President Jarret will never be seriously challenged over any of her decisions made while in the Oval Office.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Agreed! The lunatics are running the asylum. This administration, and others, are corrupt criminals.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Haney's claims go unproven and there is no interest evident even though he, by his own statement, took the matter through his chain of command at DHS, on to the Inspector General, and from there on to Congress (and then of course, and this is one of the only things we know for certain) to Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox News, et. al. He's now trying to rekindle his 15 minutes with yet another article in The Hill.

There is absolutely zero corroborating evidence for his claims, from any one or anywhere. Further, it absolutely boggles the mind that, if he had evidence that 300 terrorists (as one part of the wild claims go) had been absolved directly by Barack Obama, this would not have prompted at least 20 different investigations by Congress by now. Even wild accusations clearly suffice to inspire these interminable Congressional investigations that have, here to date, turned up no wrong doing.


edit on 8-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Really, post a citation for him before December 7, 2015. I'd be glad to see it.

Also, looking on the Federal Employee Database ... here's a weird thing ... the only Philip B Haney was employed by the Department of Agriculture.
...


humm... First you ask to post any evidence that could verify what Philip/Phil Haney states. When that information is given you try to deny it, and now you are asking for any paperwork presented by Haney right before December 7th?... You have got to wonder why you keep changing goal post, and why exactly you are giving a "very specific date" in your request?

If i knew any better... nvm.

You know full well Haney was still working for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, and his investigation was still secretive. Until then he had only shared this information with Congress back in 2012 because he was still employed working for the DHS/U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

Not to mention that Philip Haney went on Fox News television and stated all of this two months ago. You know full well that if he had been lying, the Feds, and the DHS would have arrested him already and would have been stamped all over the news... But instead of admitting this you keep trying to make us go round in circles trying to find information that is not public at least yet.

Tell you what. It's been two months since his television interview. When the DHS, or the FBI present a case against Philip Haney and state that he was lying, only then you can prove that he was lying.



edit on 8-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You haven't provided any factual or corroborated evidence. Shame on you for saying so.

I haven't moved any goalposts, in fact, I tried honestly to discover as much factual evidence as possible in support of your claim, the OPs claim.

What evidence do you have (I'd love to see some, and I've looked!) besides an anonymous letter uploaded to a file sharing site a few days after Haney's first appearance in the right wing media?

Where is the evidence that he shared anything with Congress in 2012?

Oh the fallacies. If the Feds were keeping up with all the lies told on Fox News there wouldn't be anything else for them to do. Also, by the same logic, your statement is that Haney delivered this information to Congress in 2012. Are they ignoring him? Doesn't your own logic say that if he had taken them anything actionable, we would have had 50 or so House Investigations by now???

Beyond that, if the "letter" you linked to is real, the first time Haney communicated with Congress was December 2015. Did you read the supposed letter? He's "introducing" himself to them.

Tell you what ... I've done my homework and provided sources and corroborating sources for everything I could find. LInk after link after link to primary sources, that can be verified with other primary sources.

You will notice that you provided nothing to back up any of these comments.

Prove that Mr. Haney worked for Customs, any actual verifiable proof. I can prove that Director Conroy works for Customs and have. Are you saying that Mr. Haney, entomologist and boll weevil expert, is a more critical asset than Director Conroy?

I'd love to see that proof as well. I'd love to see ANY proof actually.

Prove that any of these ego aggrandizing allegations have been taken seriously by ANYONE ... Customs, DHS, the DHS IG, Congress, etc.




edit on 8-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

BTW, here is a link to the Congressional Record in which Phil/Philip Hanley is mentioned as working for the DHS...


...
Of course, we had a great, valiant patriot in the person of Phil Haney, in his working for the Department of Homeland Security, who was cited for his brilliance in finding over 300 of 400 people who were looked at, on whom he had entered data, and who should have been added to the terrorist watch list from an organization called Tablighi Jamaat. Since there are, apparently, ties with people in that organization to this administration--perhaps it is CAIR--they complained, and he ended up being chastised and put off, away from the ability to enter data.
...

link


edit on 8-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
I haven't moved any goalposts, in fact, I tried honestly to discover as much factual evidence as possible in support of your claim, the OPs claim.
...


You have not, and it's ironic that you now try to shame me when it should be you who should be shamed. Now, instead of going off like a drama queen how about you tell us how Phil/Philip Hanley was lying when he has been mentioned in the Congressional Record doing exactly what he has stated he had been doing?...
edit on 8-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Looking at the NTC-P (National Targeting Center - Passenger) more in depth:



Originally, the NTC grew out of federal efforts to develop targeting practices to protect ports from drug and currency smuggling. But after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, targeting techniques were re-focused on anti-terrorist concerns. NTC began 24/7 operations on November, 2001, tasked with supporting CBP’s mission to prevent terrorists and their weapons from crossing US borders—while also enabling public travel and international trade. In 2007, NTC was divided in two: NTC-Passenger and NTC-Cargo. NTC-P screens inbound and outbound commercial airline passengers to spot potential high risk individuals, while NTC-C focuses on high-risk cargo that might conceal ingredients for weapons of mass destruction, chemical precursors of illegal drugs or conventional weapons or explosives.


Formed in November 2001, whereas Philip B Haney was still publishing on the boll weevil in 2002.



NTC has not been immune from criticisms. Many objected in 2007 when a Federal Register notice revealed that the NTC’s program for tracking cargo would also be used to generate ratings on human travelers. The Automatic Tracking System began to scrutinize volumes of data for each person who crosses a U.S. border, as well as for container cargo, and the Bush administration excepted the procedures from the 1974 Privacy Act. But despite privacy concerns, comparing government watchlists, lost passport reports, criminal activity and other data, has allowed NTC-P to issue 3,181 no-board recommendations to airlines in FY 2011. Proponents point out that the program saves money as well as lives by improving operating efficiency for commercial airlines.


So, NTC-P issues the notorious "No Fly List" ... well, we all know how accurate that is ...

National Targeting Center to Consolidate- Capitol Markets



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
I haven't moved any goalposts, in fact, I tried honestly to discover as much factual evidence as possible in support of your claim, the OPs claim.
...


You have not, and it's ironic that you now try to shame me when it should be you who should be shamed. Now, instead of going off like a drama queen how about you tell us how Phil/Philip Hanley was lying when he has been mentioned in the Congressional Record doing exactly what he has stated he had been doing?...


Going off like a drama queen? Because I've provided factual evidence? Okay.

Link the Congressional Record that Philip B Haney is listed in. Does the idea of backing up your claims totally elude you?

Also, where's your proof that Philip B Haney worked for NTC-P or Customs? You speak so certainly so surely you can back that up.

Here:

Search Page for Congressional Record

I've checked the Congressional Record back to 2000. No Philip Haney, Philip B Haney, or any variation.

Back it up.
edit on 8-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That was deep cover protection measures.

They use those methods when sensitive assignments are involved.




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

That was deep cover protection measures.

They use those methods when sensitive assignments are involved.





How convenient.

Did he wear a mask when he appeared before Congress?

Come on. Evidence? These are data analysts not field operatives.
edit on 8-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're doing fine.

I told you your work was cut out for you.




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're doing fine.

I told you your work was cut out for you.



You don't know anything.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
Going off like a drama queen? Because I've provided factual evidence? Okay.
...


All you have done is trying to defame Phil Hanley and post video links which are not related whatsoever to the topic of this thread... Trying to derail much?...

...Let's continue...


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Link the Congressional Record that Philip B Haney is listed in. Does the idea of backing up your claims totally elude you?

Also, where's your proof that Philip B Haney worked for NTC-P or Customs? You speak so certainly so surely you can back that up.

Here:

Search Page for Congressional Record

I've checked the Congressional Record back to 2000. No Philip Haney, Philip B Haney, or any variation.

Back it up.


Excuse me?... I gave a direct link three posts above this one to one of those records. Check the url, it comes directly from the Congressional Record, and I even put in bold one of the parts that talks about Phil/Philip Haney and his work tracking Islamic terrorists...

Since you are too lazy to read it all, just go halfway in that page to find Senator Gohmert talk about Phil Haney and his work at the DHS...

Link




edit on 8-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I'll be danged, I did miss that post.

Here is the only information in your link that refers to "Phil Haney"



Of course, we had a great, valiant patriot in the person of Phil Haney, in his working for the Department of Homeland Security, who was cited for his brilliance in finding over 300 of 400 people who were looked at, on whom he had entered data, and who should have been added to the terrorist watch list from an organization called Tablighi Jamaat. Since there are, apparently, ties with people in that organization to this administration--perhaps it is CAIR--they complained, and he ended up being chastised and put off, away from the ability to enter data.


This is NOT Philip Haney appearing before Congress in 2012.

What is the date on this entry? Why it's DECEMBER 17, 2015 ... a few days after "Philip Haney" did the rounds of the Right Wingnut Echo Chamber.




ISSUES OF THE DAY -- (House of Representatives - December 17, 2015)
[Page: H9687] GPO's PDF
---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, here is an article just in Politico by Burgess Everett. It is today. It concludes with a quote from Senator Charles Schumer of New York:



Gohmert repeating what he read on Breitbart is your PROOF?????

This is getting more pathetic as we go along. Why are you spreading lies and misinformation?



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join