Creepy Abandoned Haunted Hospital: Soon to House Senior Citizens

How do you tell grandma or grandpa that you love them? Certainly not by putting them in a formerly abandoned and haunted hospital! Facepalm, you’ve got to be kidding me? That is just so wrong in so many different ways! The six-story Linda Vista Community Hospital, which has been abandoned since 1991, is an infamous Hollywood favorite for filming super scary movies. It also has a notorious reputation for all kinds of paranormal phenomena. After some serious renovations, the supposedly haunted hospital will be revamped into about 100 single-bedroom ‘affordable housing’ apartments — Linda Vista Senior Apartments. Do you still dispute it’s haunted after viewing the 70 photos and 5 paranormal investigation videos as ‘proof’? Even skeptics, would you want your grandma to live anywhere within the top 5 floors of these future senior living apartments? About 42% of the U.S. population admits to believing in ghosts and the decaying and creepy hospital is a hotspot for urban explorers, paranormal investigators and the curious in Los Angeles. And then there’s all those animal sacrifices and allegedly satanic rituals which leave some people asking does the devil live inside Linda Vista Hospital?

While HDR sparked epic complaints on the illegal Six Flags tour, it is an art that we especially appreciate when it comes to enhancing extremely eerie, abandoned places . . . especially ‘haunted hospitals.’ If you’d rather see an abandoned place without HDR, here is Nara Dreamland, a derelict knock-off Disneyland in Japan. Otherwise, photographers, paranormal investigators and urban explorers take us on an urbex tour of this creepy ‘haunted’ hospital. Welcome to Linda Vista, future housing for grandpa and grandma. [70 photos and 5 paranormal investigation videos]

Dear “low income” senior citizen of Los Angeles, to reward you for all your struggles in life, Hollywood’s most beloved haunted hospital filming location is being refurbished so you can live there. The creepy idea is the facepalm of the day! The 88 year old hospital has been abandoned for 21 years. It’s supposedly and “scientifically” proven to be haunted. Here you see a ray of light in the former maternity ward of abandoned and eerie Linda Vista Community Hospital. Photo #1 by Neil Kremer

Railroad Hospital aka Linda Vista in LA, abandoned in 1991, is reportedly documented as a place with paranormal phenomena, and it’s the future home for grandma and grandpa. The original 150-bed hospital called ‘Santa Fe Railroad Hospital’ was built for railroad employees and opened in 1904. To provide patients with the best and freshest food, the complex kept cows for milk, butter and beef, and kept chickens for eggs and poultry, and even had a huge garden for fresh vegetables. In 1924, the hospital was razed and rebuilt. In 1937, it was renamed the Linda Vista Community Hospital. In 2013, AMCAL plans to reopen it as “affordable housing” for seniors.Photo #2 by Neil Kremer

Read more and see more pictures HERE.



Economy Grew 2 Percent In 3rd Quarter? Don’t Believe What They Tell You!

Fri, 10/26/2012 – 15:58 Rooster

“The U.S. economy expanded at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed by an uptick in consumer spending and a burst of government spending.”

“Growth improved from the 1.3 percent rate in the April-June quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday“.

And, you can bet the “good news” will be touted by the Obama Campaign every chance they get until the election.

But, as with the dubious unemployment numbers presented last month (where they inadvertently forgot to report first time unemployment filings from California), these numbers bear some explanation as well.

First, it’s important to remember that even with the third quarter uptick, annual growth for 2012 stands at 1.74% which is lower than the 1.8% growth in 2011.

A 3% growth rate is necessary to create enough jobs to just keep up with population growth. 4% will begin to put the 23 million unemployed/underemployed Americans back to work.

But, 2% will be touted as great news by the Obama Campaign and the main stream media they hold in their pockets. The country is going in the right direction, so why change course?

We change course because much like Obama’s assertion that he did in fact classify the recent Benghazi attack as an act of terror, you have to look closely at the wording of the press release to find the real truth.

Yes, the economy grew at 2% in the third quarter but the number is skewed by:

“…a burst of government spending”

Forget the uptick in consumer spending. Housing starts are slightly up, and the iPhone 5 was released, but the .7% increase in growth is due mainly to the “burst in government spending.” The same burst in government spending that occurs at the end of each fiscal year, across all agencies.

Read it all HERE.


Well, looks like obama and his regime do not like Texas messing with their useless nations!

International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.

“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, R-Texas, warned OSCE that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” as The Hill noted.

Keep reading



Ex-SEAL’s Father: Hillary Blamed the Movie

The father of Tyrone Woods, the ex-Navy SEAL who died while trying to defend Ambassador Chris Stevens in the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, made the rounds of some radio shows yesterday, and the tale he told of his meetings with top administration officials doesn’t put any of them in a flattering light. Speaking to radio talkers Glenn Beck and Lars Larson, Charles Woods expressed his belief that, given the revelations about real-time intelligence about the attack being funneled to Washington, it’s clear that someone gave an order not to save those trapped in the consulate by the terrorists.

But as upset as he is about the failure of the administration to come clean about what happened, his account of his personal contacts with them is just as bad. He described President Obama’s condolences as insincere, said Vice President Joe Biden made a wildly inappropriate remark about his son and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that, “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”
Woods’ account of the president’s attempt to condole him may be put down as the angry reflections of a grieving father, but it does dovetail with much of what we know about the president’s personality.
On Beck’s show, Woods described the encounter in this manner:

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

As for Biden, the blundering veep’s attempt to praise the slain ex-SEAL did not go over very well:

Woods said Biden came over to his family and asked in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

“Are these the words of someone who is sorry?” said Woods.

But perhaps most damning of all were the words of Clinton, who not only attempted to promote the story of the video being the cause of the attack, but went so far as to promise to have the man who produced it jailed. While the White House has been furiously trying to persuade the country that it always knew that what happened was a terrorist attack, Clinton’s comments are another reminder of the administration’s effort to falsely blame it all on the video. That Clinton would go so far as to push for the man’s arrest for exercising his free speech rights is chilling, especially given the State Department’s prior and subsequent efforts to appease radical Islamists.

Woods’s complaint is especially heart-rending because he knows that his son was not at the consulate at the time of the attack, but rather a mile away in a safe house, yet responded to calls for help. As Alana reported yesterday, the latest revelations about real-time information coming in about the attack makes the failure to respond adequately even more puzzling. Woods is demanding answers that have not been forthcoming:

I want to honor my son, Ty Woods, who responded to the cries for help and voluntarily sacrificed his life to protect the lives of other Americans. In the last few days it has become public knowledge that within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied. Apparently, C-130s were ready to respond immediately. In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision. This has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with integrity and honor. My son was a true American hero. We need more heroes today. My son showed moral courage. This is an opportunity for the person or persons who made the decision to sacrifice my son’s life to stand up.

The administration’s apologists have told us that it is too soon for us to expect answers about a complicated matter. It is true that the fog of war made it difficult for the president and his team to respond effectively. But we also know that they seized upon a lie about the video and promoted it relentlessly for as long as they could get away with it. They were determined to do anything to suppress the facts about the revival of al-Qaeda-related groups in Libya. Rather than Woods or Republican critics speaking out of turn, it was an administration that was campaigning on the idea that the death of Osama bin Laden ended the war on terror that was playing politics. Charles Woods’ testimony only adds to the justified anger that many Americans feel about the president’s handling of the tragedy in Benghazi.

Read more.



Did Obama Watch While They Fought for their Lives?

They fought for their lives for seven hours. 9/11/ 2012. Benghazi. The White House watched. No help was sent and they died.

Four Americans died in the jihadi attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, two retired SEALS who were working as civilian security specialists in Benghazi, learned that Ambassador Stevens and nine other people at the consulate were under attack and rushed to their defense. The fourth man was Sean Smith, father of three, an Air Force veteran, working for the State Department in Libya.

The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our military monitored the battle in real time starting with the first phone calls directly from Benghazi.

A small military force from Tripoli was dispatched and was able to rescue some personnel hiding in other buildings. Ambassador Stevens remained missing, as did these three men. The fire-fight raged on.

The shocking news of October 22 was that a drone ordered in from Tripoli sent back images of the attack in real time. The battle was sent on streaming video direct to the Situation Room in the White House. Within two hours, emails from Benghazi reported that Al Qaeda in Libya was claiming responsibility.

President Obama, our Commander-in-Chief, had military options available to try and save our men. He could have had the drone armed with Hellfire missiles. He could have scrambled fighter jets from Sicily to drive off the attackers. He could have dropped in Special Forces. He had seven hours to take action.

He did nothing. Doherty and Woods died in the last hour of the attack.

RUSH: It’s so devastating you can’t find it anywhere. You can’t find it outside of a little blurb on CBS. You can’t find it anywhere after Reuters publishes it. Fox has got it. I’ve got it. Fox had it last night. This whole Benghazi thing is blown wide open, and nobody’s talking about it.

The U.K. Daily Mail, unlike most of our politically corrupt media, is not working for Obama’s re-election, so it is still reporting news:

It is the latest development on the deadly attack on September 11 after it was revealed that American drones were in the skies above the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Defense department officials considered sending troops in to rescue the ambassador and staff, according to CBS News, but ultimately decided not to. They would have been able to watch the attack on-screen as it unfolded.

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS: “Sending the military into another country can be a sensitive and delicate decision. CBS News has been told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did seek clearances from Libya to fly in their airspace, but the administration won’t say anything further about what was said or decided on that front.”

Former Assistant Defense Secretary Bing West told America Live:

For the United States military to say that they were 480 miles away and they couldn’t do anything, and they couldn’t move one aircraft in 8 hours? I’d say it’s time to relieve a lot of people in the chain of command… If your ambassador has been either killed or captured, and is missing at the hands of terrorists, you do not ask any country for “Mother may I?” before you come across the border to save your own.

Bing West has more to say, on the pages of National Review:

At 5 p.m., President Obama met with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the Oval Office. The U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, was 480 miles away from Benghazi. Stationed at Sigonella were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft – a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy….

Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours. If the attackers were a mob, as intelligence reported, then an F18 in afterburner, roaring like a lion, would unnerve them. This procedure was applied often in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Conversely, if the attackers were terrorists, then the U.S. commandos would eliminate them. But no forces were dispatched from Sigonella.

By about two in the morning, the American embassy received word that the ambassador was dead….The fight began at 10 p.m. and petered out at dawn when the Libyan militia came to the aid of the Americans.

Bing West concludes: “It is bewildering that no U.S. aircraft ever came to the aid of the defenders. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites. For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve.”

At some point, President Obama went to bed. Whether it was before or after the last men died, we don’t know. He had a fundraising trip to Las Vegas to get up for the next morning. In the morning, President Obama skipped his national security briefing, as he had skipped so many others, forty percent of them to be exact. Then President Obama flew off to do his primary job – fundraising.

Read more.



Obama’s Fog of War

There’s been a whole lot written and said about Benghazi, but in my view, few are hitting the nail on the head.  What is really going on is that President Obama’s worldview is collapsing in the face of reality, and even he can’t prevaricate enough to sustain that view in the public’s mind.

Despite using both the words “terror” and “Benghazi” somewhere in a long speech on September 12, Obama later blamed the Benghazi attack on “the video” — first on Letterman on September 16 and then at the U.N. on September 25.  Anyone with eyes and ears knows that Obama and his people were blaming the attack on “the video” for days and weeks after the attack.  If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Chris Matthews or the newspaper he tells us to read.

How many times do we have to hear that some attack by jihadis is a reaction to something we did?  Did we allow someone to post a video on YouTube?  Did we allow someone to draw a cartoon?  Did one of our infidel Marines touch a Koran with an ungloved hand?  Did we let girls go to school?  How many ways are there to offend these people?

These jihadis tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.  While not totally successful, that attempt killed six people and injured more than a thousand.  Osama bin Laden wrote his first fatwa, declaring war against the U.S., in 1996 — during President Clinton’s first term.  In his second fatwa, written in 1998, he said this:

On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it[.]

And don’t forget Black Hawk Down in Mogadishu (1993), Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (1998), and the USS Cole in 2000.

All that, all that, was during Bill Clinton’s presidency.  Before George W. Bush was president.  Before we went to Afghanistan or into Iraq.  Before Abu Ghraib.  Before Gitmo.  Before waterboarding.  Before any cartoons or videos.  And then we got 9/11, which had been planned since about 1996, eight months into Bush’s presidency.

Get it?  Jihadis need no excuse.  It is beyond stupid to credit recent attacks and protests to a YouTube video.  There will always be a YouTube video that “offends” Muslims.  How about this one?  Rest assured: every time jihadis kill more Americans, they’ll have some “insult to Mohammed” they can blame it on.  And also rest assured that American liberals will swallow that excuse.
The reality is that jihadis kill Americans because that is what jihadis do.  To them, it is a Muslim’s duty.  It is “in compliance with God’s order” and has been since 1998 at least.  No new excuses needed.

The question we should have is, how much of the Muslim ummah shares Osama’s sentiments?  Obama’s answer to that question is “only al-Qaeda.”
That is why liberals thought we shouldn’t be in Iraq.  If Osama bin Laden was not in Iraq, why should we be?  Saddam didn’t plan 9/11; Osama did.  Why weren’t we tracking down Osama in Afghanistan or Pakistan, instead of “nation-building” in Iraq?  (As it turned out, AQ was in Iraq, and there was “a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”  But never mind that for now.  Those are mere facts.)

As recently as the October 22 presidential debate, Obama was still harping about AQ, to the point of berating Mitt Romney for not calling AQ “the biggest geopolitical threat facing America.”

We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated[.] … Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida.

I therefore infer that Obama considers AQ “the biggest geopolitical threat facing America.”

President Bush explicitly rejected this view.  The War on Terror was not simply about AQ.  It was not even solely about the 9/11 attacks.  The 9/11 attacks were a wake-up call that we need to take terrorists generally much more seriously, and that we really could not let WMD get into their hands.
The law authorizing the use of force in Iraq said this (my emphasis):

… the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001[.]

If you buy the view that the only real enemy in the so-called War on Terror is AQ, a tiny group of crazies in the AfPak mountains who follow some nut named Osama, Obama’s policies make total sense.

(1) We should not have been in Iraq; instead, we should have gone after Osama bin Laden and AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(2) The only problem is AQ and not Saddam, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezb’allah, the Muslim Brotherhood, or anyone not explicitly in AQ.
(3) Killing Osama was all-important, since he was the leader of AQ, our only threat.
(4) We have nothing to fear from the “Arab Spring” because those Muslims are not AQ — just people who want freedom and democracy.

On the other hand, if you believe that the “enemy” is a strain of radical Islam that goes well beyond a group called AQ, then the opposite of those points makes sense: we should have stopped Saddam.  We should fight against all radical Islamic terrorists.  Killing Osama was not all that strategically important.  And we have much to fear about the Arab Spring.

In short, the “it’s all about AQ” theory was a convenient excuse to do nothing other than the occasional drone-kill or SEAL-kill of an identifiable AQ operative and then “Disneyfy” all other Muslim movements as people who yearn only for freedom and democracy — even people who killed Gaddafi by “bayonet stab to the anus” or sexually assaulted Lara Logan.

And here is how much the “it’s all about AQ” crowd wanted that worldview to be true.  They claimed that killing Osama turned the corner on terrorism.  Here are the words from the State Department, just this July.

The death of Usama bin Ladin, al-Qa’ida’s founder and sole leader for the past 22 years, highlighted a landmark year in the global effort to counter terrorism[.] … The loss of bin Ladin and these other key operatives puts the network on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse.

Remember that phrase: “a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse.”
And do you know what that State Department statement was based on?  A report by the National Terrorism Center that said this:

Attacks by AQ and its affiliates increased by 8 percent from 2010 to 2011.

In what universe does an increase of attacks indicate “a path of decline”?  In the same universe where an attack on a U.S. embassy in a Muslim country on September 11 was motivated by a YouTube video that no one saw.

Read more.



For your eyes only….