Pat Connolly, a Williams-Sonoma spokesperson, provided âRight Viewsâ a statement regarding the decision, including an apology to anyone who was offended:
âPressure cookers are available at all our stores nationwide.
âIn the days immediately following the tragic bombings in Boston a local decision was made to remove pressure cookers from the sales floor of the stores near where the bombing occurred. We apologize if we offended anyone by this action.â
Williams-Sonoma sells gourmet cookware and home furnishings. The company has said they will continue to offer pressure cookers on their website.
The bombs that shook finish line of the Boston Marathon were improvised explosive devices housed in pressure cookers.Â The force of the blast was so strong that the lid of one of the cookers was found on the 6th floor roof of a hotel, 35 yards away from the site of the explosion. Three people were killed, 14 people suffered amputations, and more than 260 people were treated for injuries sustained in the bombing.
Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said that Congress may need to step in on behalf of the American people due to âlegitimate concern about insufficient safeguards in place to make sure drones arenât used to spy on American citizens.â
Grassley, who is currently Iowaâs senior senator, has beenÂ quite critical of drone use in the United StatesÂ in the past, saying that the governmentâs use of drones for domestic surveillance âruns contrary to the nation of what it means to live in a free society.â
âThe prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent ofÂ governmentÂ surveillance authority and privacy in the digital age,â theÂ reportÂ from Grassleyâs office stated.
However, according to Adam B. Sullivan ofÂ the Press-Citizen, âGrassley has made clear he doesnât oppose the use of drones outright, saying he supports the technology for certain military and police operations.â
Yet still, Grassley said, âThereâs legitimate concern about insufficient safeguards in place to make sure drones arenât used to spy on American citizens, perhaps unfairly enforceÂ criminal law, and unduly infringe on individual privacy.â
âCongressional action may be needed to reconcile privacy and legitimate domestic drone use,â he added.
âAs this technology develops, theÂ skyÂ is the limit on how drones could be used in our society, so itâs important that Congress be vigilant in addressing the balance of legitimate drone use and drone use that unduly interferes with private lives,â Grassley said.
In the past, Grassley has pointed out that when he asked the Attorney General last June if the Justice Department was using or planned on using drones for law enforcement purposes, he never received an answer.
He didnât receive an answer âeven after another appearance before us earlier this month,â GrassleyÂ saidÂ in March.
âIt is very important that the American people know whether or how the Justice Department is using drones,â Grassley said. âAnd failing to provide answers about the use of this technology is concerning. It may well be a necessary subject for future legislation.â
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The LieÂ and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can findÂ HERE.Â If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him atÂ admin@EndtheLie.com
In aÂ letter to Barack Obama, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and ranking member John Conyers (D-MI) are threatening to subpoena the Obama administraton for access to its legal justification for killing U.S. citizens who are suspected as terrorists. The two congressmen are demanding that plans to view the documents be finalized by Thursday evening or they will issue a subpoena.
The panel requested access to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos more than two months ago. These memos allegedly lay out legal support to target U.S. citizens who are suspected of being terrorists, that pose an âimminent threatâ to national security and for whom capture is not an option.
âIf arrangements for our review of these materials are not finalized by COB tomorrow (Thursday, April 11, 2013), the committee will have no choice but to move forward with issuance of subpoenas for the documents,â wrote Goodlatte and Conyers.
On Wednesday, the administration allowed members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to view some of the memos, after the panelâs chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), had waged a similar campaign for access to them, telling Attorney General Eric Holder that he would consider issuing a subpoena if left with no other alternative.
Both Judiciary committees have fought to gain access to the memos since February, arguing that they are tasked with overseeing the Justice Department (DOJ) and have a congressional right to see the legal analysis.
Until recently, the administration had only provided the OLC memos to the House and Senate Intelligence committees, which it did ahead of a hearing to consider confirming John Brennan as director of the CIA.
âMembers of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been provided an opportunity to review at least some of these opinions,â wrote the congressmen on Wednesday.
âToday, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were also given access to some, but not all, of the documents that we have requested,â they continued. âThere is no reason why a similar bipartisan request from the House Judiciary Committee continues to go unanswered.â
All of this is tied to the confidentialÂ Justice Department memoÂ whichÂ readÂ in part, âThe condition that an operational leader present an âimminentâ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.â
Concern over the targeting of American citizens was made even more public when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)Â conducted a filibusterÂ to raise the American peopleâs awareness of the domestic threat they possibly face from the Executive Branch. That finallyÂ resulted in an answer of sortsÂ from the Obama Justice Department.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who served as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee,Â isnât worried at all about drone strikes.Â In fact, he says that Barack Obamaâs âkill listâ is âtotally rightâ and âtotally constitutional.â When asked about the murder of 16 year old U.S. citizen all King could say was, âthatâs the breaks.â
Whatâs particularly amusing about this response to the White Houseâs continued refusal to permit HJC to oversee DOJ is the scope of HJCâs request: Since last December, theyâveÂ been askingÂ for the broader backup,Â including the memos authorizing signature strikesÂ explicitly. As a result, the Administrationâs refusal to share even what theyâve shared with the other oversight committees puts that signature strike request on the subpoena table where it otherwise might not be.
Given Jonathan LandayâsÂ reportingÂ showing the extent not just of strikes where we donât know the targetâs identity, but also the number of side payment strikes weâre conducting, seeing such memos are even more urgent.
Iâm guessing the timing gives the White House new-found interest in negotiating sharing those other memos.
Almost seven months have passed since the attack on the Benghazi consulate building and nearby CIA annex by al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, in which four Americans were murdered, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.Â Despite demands for further information into why the Obama administration and the military failed to act to defend and protect the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya even as they had intelligence of increasing Islamic violence, no answers have been given. Â Many Americans rightfully wonder whether or not the truth will ever come out about the murders at the American diplomatic mission in Libya.
The American public, in fact, has been shamefully left before without answers in the face of obvious government failures, as illustrated by the shoot-down 17 years ago by Cuban military jet fighters of two civilian planes and the deaths of four Cuban-Americans rescue pilots.Â Like the Benghazi attacks, no answers were ever given about the murder of four members of the activist group Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR), and the lack of action by U.S. military and government authorities to defend and protect them.
According to an in-depth interview with Jose Basulto, BTTR founder, and the examination of official documents and other sources, here is what occurred in that earlier example, on Feb. 24, 1996, of governmental failure.Â It serves as a reminder that until we demand a full accounting and require action on the part of our government and military, Americans will be left unprotected and vulnerable, even in mortal danger, by government authorities who fail in their duties to protect and defend while, in effect, even engaging in deathly complicity with our own enemies.
Brothers to the Rescue
In 1991, after learning of the death of a 15-year-old Cuban rafter who died following his rescue by the U.S. Coast Guard, Cuban-American Jose Basulto decided that it was time to act.Â That same year, Basulto, well aware of the desperate situation faced by citizens of Castroâs repressive regime and their dangerous journey to freedom on flimsy rafts through the Florida Straits, founded Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR). Â The group, a humanitarian search-and-rescue mission, would directly save over 4,000 lives.
Basultoâs efforts to free his beloved Cuba date back to his return to the island from college in Boston to join pro-democracy groups opposed to Castro. Â Later, as a Cuban exile, he was part of the failed Bay of Pigs 1961 invasion of Cuba.Â Decades later, with the founding of BTTR, Basulto saw another avenue to help his beloved, besieged country of origin.
BTTR volunteer pilots, from 19 different nationalities, patrolled from the skies for desperate Cubans seeking to escape the brutal Communist government and risking their lives in makeshift rafts and boats without adequate food and water, exposed to the elements.Â Later, BTTR dropped leaflets over Cuba, sending messages of hope and information about peaceful resistance.Â Their activities embarrassed the Cuban government, puncturing the myth of a socialist paradise.Â Castro clearly worried about their potential to cause internal problems and, on occasion, threatened to shoot down BTTR planes.
Not surprisingly then, BTTR was infiltrated by a former fighter pilot and member of the La Red Avispa (âWasp Networkâ) Cuban spy network, Juan Pablo Roque, who staged his defection from Cuba in 1992.Â That year, Roque swam to the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) and sought asylum.Â Earlier, fellow La Red Avispa member and BTTR infiltrator Rene Gonzalez had âdefectedâ in Florida by âstealingâ a plane from a Havana airfield.Â At some point after his arrival, Roque became a paid FBI informant, although the Bureau was apparently aware of his membership in the subversive Cuban group, and his actions were suspect, viewed as an attempt to infiltrate the agency.
U.S. Political Situation
Around the same time as BTTR was active, President Clinton was ânormalizingâ the U.S. relationship with China â which included providing 11 million pages of classified data for the Chinese to modernize their missile and nuclear technology â and also trying to engage Castro. Â The president met in Marthaâs Vineyard with author and Castro emissary Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who relayed that the Cuban dictator wanted an end to negative publicity from the balsero crisis â the torrent of Cubans desperately taking to the high seas in barely seaworthy crafts to seek freedom in America. Â BTTR, which had a reputation of goodwill among Cubans, was viewed as a serious threat to Cuban government stability.Â Besides rescue operations, BTTR was introducing principles of strategic nonviolent action and attempting to unite Cuban citizens with Cuban exiles to overthrow the repressive regime and usher in a return to democracy.
Events Leading to Shoot-Down
In 1995, then-Clinton confidant and U.S. Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM), a frequent envoy for Clintonâs various foreign policy missions, was asked by Castro to visit Cuba. Â Richardson, following a briefing by Richard Nuccio, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Clintonâs adviser on Cuba, traveled there in January 1996.Â Richardson met Castro and other Cuban officials and, allegedly, negotiated the release of American political prisoners in exchange for a U.S. promise to end BTTR missions to Cuba.
AÂ CNN reportÂ published shortly after the incident stated that Castro issued the order to take action against Brothers to the Rescue after two anti-Castro leaflets drops over Cuba the month before.Â Castro admitted, âWe gave the order to the head of the air force.Â They shot the planes down.Â They are professionals.Â They did what they believe is the right thing.Â These are all people we trust, but I take responsibility for what happened.â Â Cuban MiGs began test firing air-to-air missiles and practicing attack maneuvers against slow-moving aircraft similar to the Cessnas flown by BTTR. Â Although U.S. government officials obtained radar evidence of these practice runs, BTTR was not informed.
In early February 1996, U.S. Navy Admiral (ret.) John Shanahan â who would later advocate reduced U.S. defense spending, including the demise of the F-22 program â hosted a delegation of diplomats and retired Pentagon officials to Cuba.Â The U.S. contingent was directly and shockingly asked by Cuban intelligence and military heads how the United States would respond if Cuba shot down BTTR planes.Â Upon their return here, the delegation discussed this threat with officials from the U.S. State department, the Center for Defense Information and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), but again neglected to inform BTTR.Â Allegedly, no U.S. response to Castro was given, which could have led him to conclude that no significant repercussions would be forthcoming.
The Day of the Shoot-Down
The BTTR flight of Feb. 24, 1996 began like most of their others, as a planned search-and-rescue operation in international airspace following all established protocols. Â On Feb. 23, the day before, double-agent Roque suddenly and suspiciously returned to Cuba.Â Although the state department was aware of his departure, it was never communicated to BTTR.Â Also, that same evening, U.S. radar and monitors had been placed on alert to follow the scheduled BTTR flights the next day.Â Local military had also been alerted to coordinate flight plans and departure times with the watch supervisor and to trace BTTR transponder codes for as long as possible.
On Feb. 24, BTTR flight plans filed for a 10:15 a.m. takeoff were transmitted to Miami and Cuba.Â Circumstances delayed the BTTR flight until the late afternoon, yet a Cuban military commander reported that Cuban MiGs were nonetheless sent out at BTTRâs anticipated arrival time to intercept three unidentified aircraft violating Cuban airspace.Â The U.S. commander in charge ordered a military aircraft response in accordance with standard operating procedures, and the MiGs returned to Cuba.
Inexplicably, however, U.S. reports did not show any unidentified aircraft or Cuban military aircraft activity during that time interval. Â As he flew his Cessna on that day, Basulto reported detecting aircraft north of the 24thÂ parallel, the line which marks the U.S. airspace boundary.Â He also crossed paths with a U.S. Navy Orion aircraft, something he had never seen before during any of his missions.Â Per protocols and well-established procedures followed over the previous five years and 1,800 search-and-rescue missions, Basulto notified Havana of a five-hour stay in the area once he arrived at his airspace destination.
Meanwhile, in California, senior detection systems specialist Jeffrey Houlihan, with the U.S. Customs Service Domestic Air Interdiction Coordination Center, saw something amiss as he read and interpreted information from multiple antennae and Aerostat balloons.Â A seasoned radar and air weapons control expert and former Air Force pilot, Houlihan became alarmed as he observed Cuban interceptors operating without transponders, flying at high speeds, and making rapid maneuvers in and out of radar range.Â Much to his astonishment soon thereafter, he detected Cuban MiGs far out in international airspace flying directly above BTTR.Â Armed with the knowledge that an emergency response could be forthcoming from Tyndall Air Force Base in South Florida, he made a frantic call for help. Â Momentarily satisfied by the information that the Air Force base had been briefed and was handling the situation, Houlihan returned to his watch. Â As he continued to monitor the situation, he was astonished to see that no American interceptor aircraft showed up in the area to protect BTTR from attack, which would have been in accordance with standard operating procedures.
Little did he realize at that time that he was to witness the senseless murder of four dedicated BTTR pilots.Â Houlihan later recounted that the Air Force Base had been on battle stations alert at the time of his â911âł call.Â The alert was inexplicably lifted at some point shortly thereafter.
The shooting down of BTTR planes without warning began with Cuban MiGs reporting visual contact and confirming planes registrations with Havana. Â As documented as part of an investigation conducted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), no warning passes or redirecting or escorting procedures, required by international law for civilian aircraft, were attempted. Â According to Basultoâs account, later denied by U.S. authorities, after shooting down the two planes of his fellow pilots, the Cuban MiGs chased Basulto for 53 minutes over the 24thÂ parallel within three minutes of U.S. airspace.Â Upon Basultoâs safe landing back in Florida, U.S. Custom officialsâ top priority was to obtain the video and audiotapes made by Basulto of his flight, which they demanded immediately.Â Later investigations revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Air Force and Navy were all on alert and had monitored the events of that fateful day.
For his humanitarian efforts, Basulto incurred accusations by Castro of âbeing involved in terrorist actsâ and âsubverting the internal order of the island.âÂ In an interview with television journalist Dan Rather, the Cuban dictator admitted to planning and ordering the shoot-down and misled the American public with false statements that BTTR had committed âserious terrorist actionsâ and had been warned on several occasions about flying in Cuban airspace.Â Basulto was punished by the U.S. government, losing his pilotâs license for six months.Â Plus, he was censured, discredited, and misrepresented as an agitator.
Following the BTTR shoot-down, U.S. policy on balseros underwent a dramatic change.Â In the year of the shoot-down, Clintonâs Attorney General Janet Reno warned that rafters discovered in the Florida Straits by the U.S. Coast Guard would risk being stopped and prosecuted by the U.S. government.Â A serious indictment of the Castro regime was that refugees reported preferring their internment at GITMO to the oppressive life in their native land.
By 1995, U.S. policy toward the balseros became more restrictive, and the Clinton administration began sending them back to Cuba if they failed to reach dry land. Â The U.S. resolved to curtail exile demonstrations thought provocative to Castro and sought a reduction of hostile rhetoric between the two countries.
In early 1998, the Pentagon released a report concluding that Cuba âdoes not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.â
Yet, later that year, a mere two years after the shoot-down, The Cuban Five, part of La Red Avispa, were arrested in Miami.Â Their arrests shed light on their activities: the successful infiltration of the U.S. Southern Command (SEADS) and Cuban-American groups.Â Their subversive activities contributed to the BTTR shoot-down, and the five were viewed as national heroes in Cuba.
It is also worth noting that on the day of the BTTR shoot-down, convicted Cuban spy Ana Montes was the senior intelligence expert on the Cuban military at the Pentagon.Â According to Scott Carmichael, a senior security and counterintelligence investigator for the DIA, military officials looked to Montes, as the designated Cuban expert, for answers on the day of the shoot-down.Â Thus, she was in a prime position to provide false information and pass military plans onto the Cuban government (True Believer:Â Inside the Investigation and Capture of Ana Montes, Cubaâs Master Spy,Â Scott W. Carmichael, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 2007).
According to a December 24, 2000Â articleÂ byÂ Knight RidderÂ reporter Gail Epstein Nieves, who reported on the spy trials of the five, â[t]he FBI intercepted clandestine communications between Havana and its South Florida intelligence agents that forecast a potentially violent confrontation between Cuba and Brothers to the Rescue more than a week before the planes were shot down[.]â
One of the intercepts instructed the two BTTR Cuba spies, Roque and Gonzalez, to refrain from flying on particular days.Â Former Clinton Cuba advisor Nuccio, although admitting to concerns about a shoot-down by Cuba, said there was no âhard evidenceâ of an impending attack and claimed ignorance on the intercepts.Â Yet Nuccio wrote an e-mail on the day before the shoot-down to Clintonâs national security adviser Sandy Berger warning of a possible incident.
Today and Conclusions
Â The events that took place around the shoot-down of two BTTR rescue planes on February 24, 1996 amounted to a cover-up of major proportions.Â Despite significant prior information and forewarning, the Clinton administrationâs failure to warn BTTR, a civilian search-and-rescue operation and peaceful advocate of democratic change in Cuba, was an unconscionable travesty resulting in the tragic loss of four lives.Â Furthermore, the decision not to initiate a defensive military response â the ordering of a military stand-down â smacks of complicity in this egregious incident.
This was indeed puzzling in light of previous U.S. government assistance to BTTR.Â During the Bush Sr. administration, the Coast Guard provided cover from above for a rescue mission in the water and, on another occasion, called on defense forces to rescue BTTR from a potentially dangerous situation.
Today, Obama has liberalized travel to Cuba and allowed religious, university, and cultural groups to visit the island. Â He has lifted restrictions on remittances to the island.Â In addition, he has failed to challenge efforts by the successors and allies of Castro and Hugo ChĂĄvez, enemies of the free world, to expand their sphere of influence in Latin America.
Despite mainstream media portrayals that herald Cuba under Raul Castro as leading to economic reform and political liberalization, Cuba ranks next to last, just above North Korea, on the Heritage Foundationâs latest index of economic freedom. Â This is âexactly where Cubaâs has been since Raulâs âreformsâ commenced,â said Cuban-American author Humberto Fontova, who agrees with the ranking.
âIn fact, Cuba is currently undergoing a wave of terror, a 20-year high in political beatings and arrests.Â This wave of terror and repression coincides with record tourism to the island,â Fontova says.
The lack of action and the outright dissembling of information so prevalent in the BTTR shoot-down appear to have been at play in Benghazi. Â Although officials at the Pentagon, U.S. State Department, FBI, and other government agencies were almost immediately informed that the jihadist group had perpetrated the attack, the Obama administration initially credited it to a spontaneous eruption of anger against an anti-Muslim film posted on the internet. Â This charade was maintained for several weeks, with the U.S. government going so far as to place $70,000 worth of apology ads on Pakistani TV and for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to extend duplicitous words of comfort to the father of a fallen Navy SEAL with âWeâll make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.â
Following the attack, it was revealed that the late Ambassador Stevens repeatedly pleaded for extra security personnel, citing a âtroubling increase in violence and Islamist influence,â but was denied additional support by the state department.Â Tragically, American drones were overhead at the time but did nothing to stop the attack, in deference to the political expediency of Obamaâs pre-election portrayal of a successful U.S.-led operation toppling the Libyan dictator and furthering the âArab Spring.âÂ Later revelations uncovered that Stevens was aiding Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda operatives, and supplying them with weapons to fight Bashar al-Assadâs regime as part of a U.S.-sponsored operation.
Curiously, FBI investigators arrived at the attack site almost a month later and spent only three hours collecting evidence. Â At this point, 33 survivors have not yet been heard from, and some speculate that they have been silenced by threats.
The Benghazi attacks may well come to parallel the BTTR shoot-down. Â More than 17 years after that incident, the use of misinformation, the unavailability of potential witnesses, and the omission of vital evidence to perpetuate a cover-up of massive wrongdoing still haunt the survivors of this tragic event.
Before anyone gets in a tizzy at the title, this is not about all members of the Tea Party, but there are members of the Tea Party who are succumbing to William Coley, director of Muslims For Liberty and caving in some areas to prohibitions of implementing Sharia (Islamic law).
In December 2010, Will Coley, director of Muslims for Liberty â a group that decries American exceptionalism, accuses the United States of war crimes, and espouses ostensibly anti-Israel ideology â joined the Knoxville Tea Party.Â Coley had been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliatedÂ Muslim Student AssociationÂ at the University of Central Florida in Valencia, where he converted to Islam. His stated goal in joining the Tea Party was to educate people about Islam and sharia doctrine and counterÂ âmisinformationâ and âIslamophobia.â But his disingenuous statements and faulty interpretations of Islamic doctrine appeared to suggest otherwise.
In Tennessee, Coley expressed concern about proposed legislation to prohibit sharia in the state. According to a Tennessee Tea Party activist,Â Coley stated that he was working with a local Islamic school to eliminate sharia prohibitions from the Tennessee statute.Â He characterized the legislation as a freedom-of-religion issue and claimed that it was indicative of the hatred conservatives feel toward Muslims.
He gave local talks promoting the idea that sharia doctrine is compatible with the U.S. Constitution and went so far as to falsely proclaim that Islamic legal theory influenced American law.Â Coley obfuscated the truth about sharia, a comprehensive Islamic doctrine that controls every aspect of life and must be imposed on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Sharia mandates gender apartheid, religious apartheid, cruel punishments, the denial of free speech and due process, and many other such incompatibilities with American constitutional law.
âdedicated to providing educational resources about Islam & Sharia (Islamic law), philosophical Libertarianism, and concepts of freedom. Using education and outreach, M4L highlights the striking parallels between Islam and Libertarianism.Â M4L seeks to develop a practical methodology for social, economic and political involvement based upon the overlapping principles of Islam and libertarianism. To put a stop to the division and religious prejudice being marketed to our populace. To reintroduce the Muslim community toÂ the Libertarian principles that not only exist, but originate with Islam.Â It is hoped that this will assist Americans (both Muslim and Non-Muslim) in rediscovering their ideals of liberty and justice.â
âMuslims4LibertyÂ is an organization primarily of American Muslims who are committed to advancing the cause of liberty from an Islamic perspective. M4L combines activism, advocacy, community outreach, charity, voluntaryism and any other avenue that can be used to promote the message of Islam and liberty. M4L also supports the Liberty & Occupy Movements, and those who advocates for peace and justice.â
I ask you, is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution? Is the infiltration of Islam into the Tea Party good for it and good for America? Is it proper for those who speak of liberty to allow one whose stated goal is to educate and implement Sharia? Can the U.S., let alone the Tea Party, âdevelop a practical methodology for social, economic and political involvement based upon the overlapping principles of Islam and libertarianism? Is Islam in a place where it can seriously suggest that it has answers to stopping âdivision and religious prejudice?â I think not. Whatâs amazing is how many are willing to embrace Islam which has nothing but opposition in American history, including the example of Thomas Jefferson sending our ships to attack the Barbary pirates who were Islamists. These same people will reject Christianity and what the Bible says.
In fact, while pushing his âreligiousâ agenda, Coley wrote a piece titled âDear Religious Rightâ in which he slams the âevangelical and conservative Jewish block (sic)â as what is destroying the GOP. No, the problem is not that. The problem in the GOP is that there is rhetoric coming from many of its leaders that is not backed by their actions. That, is what is destroying the GOP.
Coleyâs piece also defined the above âblocâ as âa portion of our country that wants to legislate its own moral views on the rest of us and outlaw or stifle the rights of other religious traditions in the name of âpatriotismâ or ânational security.ââ
The radical left Center for American Progress, or CAP, actually promotes Muslims4Liberty as a small organization of supposed tea-party activists âfighting against the right wingâs Islamophobia,â according to a CAP description.
Think Progress,Â the CAPâs official blog, noted howÂ Illume MagazineÂ documented the efforts of Will Coley, a self-proclaimed Tea Party member and Islam convert who co-founded Muslims4Liberty to confront âanti-Islam activists head on.â
Illume quotes Coley describing how he started going to tea-party events in Florida in 2009 but was concerned about the emergence of âIslamophobiaâ in the movement.
âI was watching the neocon takeover happen,â said Coley. âLiterally overnight I saw groups devoted to economics and constitutional limits turn into something else. Suddenly there were invites to see anti-Islam speakers. This crazy anti-Islam message was taking over.â
After moving to Tennessee, Coley said he began outreach to local tea-party groups to explain how Islam and Shariah Islamic law is compatible with tea-party principles.
Illume reports that after speaking with 14 tea-party chapters about Shariah, 12 agreed to reject so-called anti-Muslim appeals.
The chapters even supported a petition opposing a proposed âShariah banâ in Tennessee.
How can the Tea Party allow for Islamic law in America? Are things like this popping up in your local Tea Party? Are you standing against it or are you embracing it?
I want to be clear that I do not think everything put out by William Coley or Muslims4Liberty is wrong. In fact, there are many good points made on several occasions, but with that said, Islam and its teachings are absolutely incompatible with liberty, Christianity and the U.S. Constitution. This is an infiltration just as there are neo-cons infiltrating the Tea Party as well.
As a final note, consider the flags that were flown over Libya after al-Qaeda toppled Muammar Gadhafi, and thenÂ flags the M4L present on their Facebook pages. First they display a jihadist flag reminiscent of theÂ one waved about in Benghazi. They then presentÂ a flag reminiscent of the Stars and Bars of the Confederate States, only they use black and yellow instead of red.Â This flag on one side has the rattlesnake coiled around what appears to be an AR-15 type rifle with the word âVigilanceâ beneath it and on the other side is the Islamic symbol for âAllah,â not Jehovah, not Yahweh, and not Jesus, on the other side with the word âConscience.â Now friends with this kind of display being propagated do you really think they have the idea of coexisting? If you do, you should really look at the history of Islam. These people are not the friends of liberty.
A collection of Liberal Hand-Wringers (LHW) directed from the White House and extending down to the sewers of Chicago and many other cities now infects all levels of the Democratic Party. These LHW folks listen to the White House lies and misdirections on every topic, then they pass them along as though they were etchings on granite tablets. This is tearing the fabric of American character in ways that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. A few examples of this phenomenon are in order.
Where to start? How about Gun Control.
Joe Biden burnished his image among the anti-gun zealots with âshotgun pronouncementsâ that were idiotic enough to make a sane person cringe. Putting a double-barrel 16-gauge gun in the hands of a 120-pound wife and Mom in a stressful situation and then telling her to fire each barrel into the backyard sky or through a closed door is an invitation for disaster. Most weapons of this class will be too heavy for a small lady to handle safely, and the kick might well knock her over. Still more problematic, those noises at the side door she just blasted might be a pizza delivery guy or an intoxicated neighbor fumbling at the wrong home. But Democrats assume arrogantly that they know best on all topics, especially when it makes them look âsnarkyâ to their Chablis-swilling, lift-pinky buddies.
Please, Joe, just shut up. Youâre a national embarrassment, and no help whatsoever to either side of any issue.
Sadly, Obama himself is even worse. He does not discuss firearms with Joeâs zeal for detail. Instead, he makes carefully-worded and completely empty promises for citizen safetyÂ if only Congress will pass his legislative proposals. Obamaâs use of Newtown parents of massacred children as stage props makes his unsupportable promises all the more heinous. Nothing proposed in any gun control legislation will guarantee any child or teacher protection from another shooter exactly like Newtownâs Adam Lanza. In fact, more than three months after Sandy Hook, NRA President Wayne LaPierreâs admonition to put armed and trained guards in every school is still the only concrete measure to provide real security. Interestingly, while LHWs and various pundits have been wailing over the prospect of more guns in schools, a few school districts areÂ quietly adopting Mr. LaPierreâs recommendation. For their own personal protection, law-abiding Americans should have the right to select whatever firearms and ammo magazines work best for them, with virtually no government interference. The key words in that sentence are âlaw-abidingâ. They make all the difference.
Whatâs the underlying theme? LHWs want someone else, someoneÂ competent, to âmake it all betterâ while relieving them of any need to take personal action. But LaPierreâs prophetic words demand that someone take personal responsibility: âThe only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.â In fact, to this point exactly, a proper government shouldÂ wantÂ a significant majority of Americans to be armed, trained and ready to help defend the homeland at a momentâs notice. This is exactly the âwell regulated militiaâ envisioned by our 2nd Amendment. LHWs donât get it.
We have also seen articles describing how we are becoming wimps and crybabies, folks who are generally unable to take care of themselves. One article by Sean Aland âAre We A Nation of Crybabies?â questions the debate in Congress over the propriety of the name âRedskinsâ for the DC football team. What, they got nothing else to do in Congress? Mr. Alandâs article also notes the political correctness flowing sanctimoniously around Sandra Fluke, public symbols of Christianity, and satanic TV characters that look like Barack Obama. None of these compare favorably to the âfresh airâ we enjoy from Allen West and Dr. Ben Carson. All of this beg the question, âWhereâs the beef?â They are issues trumped up by thoroughly incompetent, wimpy, LHW fools with a political axe to grind and nothing productive to do. Perhaps worst of all, we could talk for hours about NYC Mayor Bloombergâs nanny-state edicts on big drinks, trans-fats, cigarettes, Styrofoam cups, and on and on. But do we really need someone to hold our hand as we cross the streets of our daily lives? Are we that incompetent? Will we ever solve any problems withoutÂ expecting moreÂ from citizens?
Then there is this example of LHW idiocy from New Hampshire. In the Windham school district, the game of dodgeball has been redefined as âbullyingâ and âcreating human targetsâ. So they haveÂ banned dodgeball. Apparently there was only one school board member, Dennis Senibaldi, who saw this ban in the proper light: âWe have rules that are set in place to deal with bullying,â he said. âWe donât need to ban an entire round of games just to enforce those rules.â Duh! Thanks, Dennis.
Those of us who played dodgeball as kids recall it as an exciting, competitive game that enhanced oneâs agility, reaction time, circumspection, and physical fitness. Bullying was kept out by the teacher or camp counselor who simply accepted the responsibilities of a normal adult. Again, LHWs want someone else, someoneÂ competent, to absolve them of any personal action.Â Doggone it, grow up! Take charge! Do your job!
But there is no more fitting example of LHW wussification than the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadians are our friends. They are far more trustworthy business partners than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. A Canadian company, TransCanada, will investÂ theirÂ money to build the pipeline. It will either be routed south to serve us, or west to support sales to China. Either way, their oil will be produced, shipped and usedÂ somewhere. Without the Canadian oil, we will buy oil from Saudi Arabia. So there is no difference in the environmental impact of producing the oil, either way. Right now, oil is already being shipped south by rail. AndÂ pipelines already exist in this region. The total cost of production is surely much lower to pump it down from Canada than to ship it here from overseas on supertankers. Labor unions are desperate to see the tens of thousands of jobs the XL project will bring, and towns along the pipeline route would be delighted to have construction workersâ paychecks spent in hotels, stores and restaurants.
But no, Obama owes favors to his enviro-fanatic, tree-hugging, CO2-hating, Hollywood-gushing, LHW supporters. So heâs dragged his feet again and againâŠ and again. Until recently he could blame Nebraskaâs governor Dane Heinemann for draggingÂ hisÂ feet to get the routing done to everyoneâs satisfaction. But now Obama gets to blame the State Department for the latest delay, as though they donât work for him.
Unfortunately weâve had no real leadership on any energy projects of strategic national importance throughout the Obama presidency. This is especially true for projects involving energy from fossil fuels. Obamaâs team has spent billions on shaky green-energy companies with hardly two seconds of analysis, especially when it benefits donors to his campaign. But production of oil, natural gas or coal? No, they fall into the category of âkill them any way you canâ, especially if Obama can claim credit for doing something beneficial or can blame someone else for doing something painful. During WWII, how long did we delay getting the Alaska-Canadian highway built? All 1700 miles were completed during March thru October of 1942. How long did we delay the Trans-Alaska Pipeline when it was so obviously needed? After the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, this 800 mile pipeline was built through arctic tundra in three years, 1974-1977. Proper leadership got these mammoth projects done expeditiously, and the country benefited greatly. And here we are on the verge of America leading a new world energy order: oil from sands, from shale and from fracking, natural gas from fracking, and still a bazillion tons of coal available- if we canÂ onlyÂ find the political courage to develop them!
Traditional American values are being lost as incompetent, Liberal Hand-Wringers look for someone else to take action. Equally problematic, the logic skills of these LHWs are as undeveloped as their values. This means it is almost impossible to explain to most Democrats why they are wrong on any given issue without on-the-spot training in American history, civics, and logic. But these same LHWs have elected a Senate and a President who are no more competent than the LHW voters, themselves. Obama in particular was elected with no resume, no life skills in the military or business, and apparently no history of dirt ever getting under his fingernails. He himself greatly prefers campaigning and golfing to actually working- even though his job only requires a suit, a tie, and shiny shoes.
God, please help us regain our traditional American âgo get âemâ spirit in January of 2017.
A federal district court judge in San Francisco has ruled that National Security Letter (NSL) provisions in federal law violate the Constitution. The decision came in a lawsuit challenging a NSL on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company represented by theÂ Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
In the ruling publicly released today, Judge Susan Illston ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stop issuing NSLs and cease enforcing the gag provision in this or any other case. The landmark ruling is stayed for 90 days to allow the government to appeal.
“We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”
The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative letters — on its own authority and without court approval — to telecommunications companies demanding information about their customers.
The controversial provisions also permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying either their customers or the public. The limited judicial review provisions essentially write the courts out of the process.
In today’s ruling, the court held that the gag order provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment and that the review procedures violate separation of powers. Because those provisions were not separable from the rest of the statute, the court declared the entire statute unconstitutional. In addressing the concerns of the service provider, the court noted: “Petitioner was adamant about its desire to speak publicly about the fact that it received the NSL at issue to further inform the ongoing public debate.”
“The First Amendment prevents the government from silencing people and stopping them from criticizing its use of executive surveillance power,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “The NSL statute has long been a concern of many Americans, and this small step should help restore balance between liberty and security.”
EFF first brought this challenge on behalf of its client in May of 2011.
The thought police are watching you.Â Back in the 1990s, lots of jokes were made about “political correctness”, and almost everybody thought they were really funny.Â Unfortunately, very few people are laughing now because political correctness has become a way of life in America.Â If you say the “wrong thing” you could lose your job or you could rapidly end up in court.Â Every single day, the mainstream media bombards us with subtle messages that make it clear what is “appropriate” and what is “inappropriate”, and most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code.Â But just because it is not written down somewhere does not mean that it isn’t real.Â In fact, this speech code becomes more restrictive and more suffocating with each passing year.Â The goal of the “thought Nazis” is to control what people say to one another, because eventually that will shape what most people think and what most people believe.Â If you don’t think this is true, just try the following experiment some time.Â Go to a public place where a lot of people are gathered and yell out something horribly politically incorrect such as “I love Jesus” and watch people visibly cringe.Â The name of “Jesus” has become a curse word in our politically correct society, and we have been trained to have a negative reaction to it in public places.Â After that, yell out something politically correct such as “I support gay marriage” and watch what happens.Â You will probably get a bunch of smiles and quite a few people may even approach you to express their appreciation for what you just said.Â Of course this is going to vary depending on what area of the country you live in, but hopefully you get the idea.Â Billions of dollars of media “programming” has changed the definitions of what people consider to be “acceptable” and what people consider to be “not acceptable”.Â Political correctness shapes the way that we all communicate with each other every single day, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead.Â Sadly, most people simply have no idea what is happening to them.
The following are 20 outrageous examples that show how political correctness is taking over America…
#1Â According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” and to avoid criticizing “anything related to Islam”.Â The following is from a recentÂ Judicial Watch article…
The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of âtaboo conversation topicsâ that soldiers should avoid, including âmaking derogatory comments about the Taliban,â âadvocating womenâs rights,â âany criticism of pedophilia,â âdirecting any criticism towards Afghans,â âmentioning homosexuality and homosexual conductâ or âanything related to Islam.â
#2Â The Obama administrationÂ has bannedÂ all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism.Â In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorismÂ from hundreds of old documents.
#3Â Authorities are cracking down on public expressions of the Christian faith all over the nation, and yet atheists in New York City are allowed to put up an extremely offensive billboard in Time Square this holiday season that shows a picture of Jesus on the cross underneath a picture of Santa with the following tagline: “Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!”
#4Â According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a “disproportionate” impact on minorities.
#5Â Down in California, Governor Jerry BrownÂ has signed a billÂ that will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California driver’s licenses.
An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.
Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.
#7Â More than 75 percentÂ of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be “politically correct” to suggest that there is anything wrong with that.
#8Â The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about “white privilege“.
#9Â At one high school down in California, five studentsÂ were sent home from schoolÂ for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.
#10Â Chris Matthews of MSNBCÂ recently suggestedÂ that it is “racist” for conservatives to use the word “Chicago”.
#11Â A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say “Choose Life” on them.
#12Â The number of gay characters on television is at anÂ all-time record high.Â Meanwhile, there are barely any strongly Christian characters to be found anywhere on television or in the movies, and if they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light.
#13Â House Speaker John Boehner recentlyÂ stripped key committee positionsÂ from four “rebellious” conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives.Â It is believed that this “purge” happened in order to send a message that members of the party better fall in line and support Boehner in his negotiations with Barack Obama.
#14Â There is already aÂ huge pushÂ to have a woman elected president in 2016.Â It doesn’t appear that it even matters which woman is elected.Â There just seems to be a feeling that “it is time” for a woman to be elected even if she doesn’t happen to be the best candidate.
#15Â Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police DepartmentÂ have been bannedÂ from using the name of Jesus on government property.
#16Â Chaplains in the U.S. militaryÂ are being forcedÂ to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs.Â The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.
#17Â All over the country, the term “manhole” is being replaced with the terms “utility hole” or “maintenance hole”.
#18Â In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic “privacy screens” on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their “right” to watch pornography at the library without children being exposed to it.
A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a womenâs locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.
#20Â All over America,Â liberal commentatorsÂ are now suggesting that football has become “too violent” and “too dangerous” and that it needs to be substantially toned down.Â In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that footballÂ should be bannedfor anyone under the age of 14.
Either way this election turns out, American jobs are going to continue to get slaughtered by the millions.Â During this campaign, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have both attempted to portray each other as the “outsourcer in chief“.Â Unfortunately, they are both right.Â Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both participated in the outsourcing of American jobs, and both are openly admitting to the American people that they favor the emerging one world economic system which will continue to destroy millions of American jobs.Â In fact, they argue with each other about which of them will be more aggressive in pursuing more “free trade” agreements over the next four years.Â Unfortunately, the “free trade” agreements that the U.S. government enters into are never “fair trade” agreements.Â As a result, over the past decade we have lost tens of thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of national wealth.Â This year alone, we will buy about half a trillion dollars more stuff from the rest of the world than they will buy from us.Â This trade deficit will be about 7 times larger than the trade deficit of any other nation on earth.Â Our economy will continue to bleed jobs at a horrifying pace, but Obama and Romney insist that the answer to our problems is even more “free trade”.Â What makes all of this even more dreadful is that most Americans continue to fall for this nonsense.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that merging our labor pool with the labor pools of nations where it is legal to pay slave labor wages was going to kill American jobs and drive down wages for the jobs that remain in the United States.
Why should some giant predator corporation pay you 15 dollars an hour plus benefits when they can pay a worker on the other side of the planet a dollar an hour with no benefits to do the same job?
During the second presidential debate, when Obama was asked why high tech products such as the iPhone could not be made here in the United States, Obama openly admitted that there are some jobsÂ that aren’t ever going to come back.
But why does that have to be so?
Why can’t those jobs come back to America?
It seems to me that if you cracked down on nations that are cheating such as China, imposed a system of common sense tariffs and cut the corporate tax rate to a level more consistent with the rest of the world that you could get a lot of those jobs flooding back in by the end of next year.
But Obama is so blinded by his faith in the emerging one world economy that such measures are unimaginable to him.
In recent years, the Obama administration has entered into new “free trade” agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia.Â In addition, the Obama administration is making the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“the NAFTA of the Pacific“) a very high priority.
Considering what a nightmare the first NAFTA was, do we really need another one?
The Trans-Pacific PartnershipÂ is a treaty that would essentiallyÂ ban all “Buy American” laws.Â It is being touted as one of the most comprehensive “free trade” agreements in history, and it would open up the door for millions more good jobs to be shipped out of the country.
The workers of America simply cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama.
In fact, the Obama administration has actually spent billions of taxpayer dollars to create jobsÂ in other countries.Â The following is fromÂ a pro-Republican website…
Over his four years in office, Obama promised that he would focus on creating “jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.” However, as he racked up trillions in new debt, billions of dollars did go to create jobs that were outsourced or spent overseas. Whether it is electric cars made in Finland or solar panels in Mexico, taxpayers would be astonished to learn that their hard earned money went abroad for jobs that weren’t created in the United States.
You can get all the detailsÂ right here.Â Needless to say, the Obama administration has been an absolute disaster on these issues.
So would Romney be an improvement when it comes to trade?
That is very doubtful.
The truth is that Mitt Romney was involved in outsourcing jobs while he was at Bain Capital.Â The following is from a recent article postedÂ on Forbes.com…
David Corn of Mother Jones reports that âaccording to government documents . . . Romney, when he was in charge of Bain [Capital], invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profitsâand that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.â
This didnât happen after 1999, when Mitt Romney says he left Bain Capital to run the Salt Lake City Olympics (Corn was one of the first reporters to raise questions, now gaining wide exposure, of whether Romney really left Bain then), but the year before. On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate of which Romney was the sole shareholder, sole director, president, and chief executive, invested an estimated $14.2 million in Global-Tech, an appliance maker in Dongguan, China. Global-Tech made products for American companies like Sunbeam, Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, and Proctor-Silex. In September 1998 Global-Techâs CEO announced that the company was postponing a factory expansion because Sunbeam was slowing its rate of outsourcing, and said, âAlthough it appears that customers such as Sunbeam are not outsourcing their manufacturing as quickly as we had anticipated, we still believe that the long-term trend toward outsourcing will continue.â
Since Romney left, Bain Capital has become even more aggressive with outsourcing jobs.Â In fact, Bain Capital has been forcing American workers to train their Chinese replacements even in the midst of this campaign.Â Aren’t they concerned that they are making their former boss look bad?Â The following is from an article writtenÂ by an American workerÂ that is having his job shipped to China by Bain Capital…
On Monday, November 5th Bain Capital is outsourcing my job to China. On Tuesday, November 6th I’m casting my vote against Mitt Romney.
Yes, I blame Mitt Romney for the loss of my job. Here’s why.
I’ve worked at the same factory in Freeport, Ill. for thirty-three years, making sensors and controls for the auto industry. It’s tough work, but it pays a living wage with health benefits that folks can count on, and it fuels our town’s economy and tax base.
That’s been changing since Bain Capital came to town. Two years ago, our factory was sold to Sensata Technologies, a company created by Bain Capital, and they told us that by December 2012, all 170 of our jobs would be shipped to China. They even made us train our Chinese replacements.
Layoff notices have been sent out, and some folks have already been laid off. Where there was once lots of people and energy and life, now there’s only the discoloration on the floor where the machinery used to be. It’s depressing. They’re not just dismantling the equipment and the plant; they’re dismantling our community.
All of this outsourcing is killing America.
Back in 1950, the population of this country was less than half of what it is now, and yet there were more Americans working in manufacturing back in 1950 than there are today.
The decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States has been really dramatic since the year 2000.
I think that it is interesting to note that China joined the WTO in 2001.Â Since that time we have been losing jobs to them at an astounding pace.Â According to a new reportÂ by the Economic Policy Institute, U.S. trade with China “cost more than 2.7 million jobs between 2001 and 2011″.
The Chinese slap huge tariffs on many of our goods, they manipulate currency rates to make sure that U.S. companies cannot compete, they steal our intellectual property and they deeply subsidize their own businesses.
And yet Obama and Romney insist that this is “free trade”.
What a joke.
And our tax structure is absolutely killing us as well.Â The following is from a recent articleÂ by Ernest F. Hollings…
A U.S. manufacturer exporting to China pays the 35% Corporate Tax and a 17% VAT when its exports reach Shanghai.Â A China manufacturer exports tax free to the U.S.
Are you starting to get the picture?
Our trade policy is a complete and total disaster, and yet Obama and Romney continue to insist that we just need to become even more integrated with the emerging one world economic system.
Well, in aÂ previous articleÂ I listed 22 statistics which prove that the current path that we are on has been absolutely disastrous for American workers…
#1Â One professor has estimated that cutting the U.S. trade deficit in half would createÂ 5 million more jobsÂ in the United States.
#3Â Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the globe since 1975.Â That 8 trillion dollars could have gone to support U.S. businesses and pay the wages of U.S. workers.Â Federal, state and local taxes would have been paid on that 8 trillion dollars if it had stayed in the United States.
#4Â When NAFTA was passed in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars.Â In 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico ofÂ 61.6 billion dollars.
#5Â In 2001, American consumers spent 102 billion dollars on products made in China.Â In 2011, American consumers spentÂ 399 billion dollarsÂ on products made in China.
#6Â The Chinese undervalue their currency by about 40 percent in order to gain a critical advantage over foreign competitors.Â This means that many Chinese companies are able to absolutely thrive while their competition in the United States goes out of business.Â The following is from a recentÂ Fox News article….
To keep Chinese products artificially inexpensive on US store shelves, Beijing undervalues the yuan by 40 percent. It pirates US technology, subsidizes exports and imposes high tariffs on imports.
#7Â According toÂ the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United States costs about $85,000 in China thanks to all the tariffs.
#8Â The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 wasÂ 295.4 billion dollars.Â That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
#9Â Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was only aboutÂ 6Â millionÂ dollarsÂ (million with an “m”) for theÂ entireÂ year.
#10Â U.S. consumers spendÂ about 4 dollarsÂ on goods and services from China for every one dollar that Chinese consumers spend on goods and services from the United States.
#11Â The United States has actually lost an average of aboutÂ 50,000 manufacturing jobsÂ a month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
#12Â According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing aboutÂ half a million jobsÂ to China every single year.
#13Â The United States has lostÂ more than 56,000Â manufacturing facilities since 2001.
#22Â In recent years the U.S. economy has embraced “free trade” and the emerging one world economy like never before.Â Instead of increasing the number of jobs in our economy, it has resulted in the worst stretch of job creation in the United StatesÂ in modern history….
If any single number captures the state of the American economy over the last decade, it is zero. That was the net gain in jobs between 1999 and 2009ânada, nil, zip. By painful contrast, from the 1940s through the 1990s, recessions came and went, but no decade ended without at least a 20 percent increase in the number of jobs.
It appears that Barack Obama is ready to let Secretary of State Clinton take the fall for the failure in security in Benghazi. During the vice-presidential debate on Thursday it became clear that is what the agenda was.
The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad. This mission is executed through the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). Personal and facility protection are the most critical elements of the DS mission abroad as they directly impact upon the Departmentâs ability to carry out its foreign policy. With terrorist organizations and coalitions operating across international borders, the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests remains great. Therefore, any U.S. mission overseas can be a target even if identified as being in a low-threat environment.
As a result, DS is more dedicated than ever to its mission of providing a secure living and working environment for our Foreign Service colleagues as they implement foreign policy and promote U.S. interests around the world. Nearly 800 DS special agents serve in regional security offices at over 250 posts worldwide. The DS special agents, also called regional security officers (RSOs) when serving abroad, manage security programs and also provide the first line of defense for our personnel, their families, U.S. diplomatic missions, and national security information. RSOs serve as the primary advisor to the COM on all security matters by developing and implementing security programs that shield U.S. missions and residences overseas from physical and technical attack.
It seems that there is a legitimate reason for the Obama administration to throw Clinton under the bus on this one and it seems that everyone is on board with it, including Vice President Joe Biden.Â Foreign Policy reports,
Vice President Joseph Biden speaks only for himself and President Barack Obama, and neither man was aware that U.S. officials in Libya had asked the State Department for more security before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a top White House official told The Cable.
Biden has come under fire for saying at Thursday nightâs debate, âWe werenât told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.â
The Cable asked Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes whether Biden was speaking for the entire Obama administration, including the State Department, which acknowledged receiving multiple requests for more Libya security in the months before the attacks. Rhodes said that Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time.
The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issaâs panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
But, if you think that Hillary Clinton is going down without a fight, you would be sorely mistaken. Already former President Bill Clinton has stepped in to give his wife some aid in the matter.
My sources tell me that Clinton is working on a strategy that will allow Hillary to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.
Bill Clinton has even gone so far as to seek legal advice about Hillaryâs liability in terms of cables and memos that might be subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which this week launched an investigation into the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The committee will also examine the apparent Obama administration cover-up that followed the Benghazi attack.
Finally, Iâm told that Bill is playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary should consider resigning over the issue if the Obama team tries to use her as a scapegoat. That seems unlikely to happen. But if relations between Obamaâs White House and Hillaryâs State Department rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal, that could damage the Democratic ticket and dim Obamaâs chances for re-election.
Barack Obama has taken some initiative to protect his Attorney General Eric Holder, though it is possibly because of his own involvement in Operation Fast and Furious. Itâs quite possible that Clinton is the one that not only knew of the need for extra security for the Libyan ambassador, but that she made the decision to not provide it.
About Tim Brown: Â Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty. Follow Tim onÂ Twitter.
“If you would have served our country better you would not be a disabled veteran living off Social Security while the rest of us honest Americans work our asses off.Â Too bad, you should have died.â
Those were the words heard by disabled veteran Michael Collier when he answered a phone call from a bill collector, set on recouping a $6000 outstanding student loan.
The Minnesota-based debt collection agency, Gurstel Chargo, is facing a major lawsuit for an agent’s abuse towards a United States veteran. Collier sustained severe head and spinal injuries when in the Army, and receives a disability pension from the Social Security Administration, which is exempt from garnishment orÂ seizureÂ from collection agencies.
Illegally, the collection agencyÂ had the Collier’s bank account frozen and the couple had to go to court, who came to the decision the funds were exempt from the seizure. When the company defied the order to return the funds, Collier called to attempt to get his money back. He reports that an agency paralegal said, “âF–k you!Â Pay us your money! You canât afford an attorney. You owe us. I hope your wife divorces you.â
The collection agents are paid on a commission basis of 20%, giving impetus to their extreme efforts to collect the funds.
The Colliers areÂ suing the collection agency for actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), privacy invasion, malicious infliction of emotional distress and conversion.
We learned late last week of the lawsuit filed by Michael Andrew Collier and Kim Collier-Dingman. Gurstel Chargo takes the allegations made in the lawsuit very seriously and we have immediately launched an internal investigation to determine the facts. We are extremely disturbed by the allegations stated in the Complaint, as they are contrary to the policies, practices and values of our firm. We expect that all Gurstel Chargo employees fully comply with all state and federal laws, and we thoroughly train our employees to perform their job in a lawful and respectful manner. Under no circumstances does our firm tolerate the type of conduct alleged in the Complaint.
The Complaint states that the wrongful remarks were made during a telephone call. We have requested from the attorney that filed the Complaint the phone number of the phone that Mr. Collier was allegedly on, an approximate date on which the call occurred, whether the person who made the alleged wrongful comments was male or female, all in order to help us to get to the truth about what occurred. We have been informed by Mr. Collierâs attorney that he is unaware of any of this information. To date, we have discovered no information to substantiate the allegations, but our investigation continues. Should these allegations prove to be true, we will take immediate corrective and disciplinary action.
In an America that seems intent on passing laws to limit 2nd Amendment rights, several states are taking steps to proactively protect those rights.
The state of Kentucky is asking voters to approve an amendment to the state constitution that would protect their right to hunt and fish.
“Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky constitution to state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing?”
The amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association, who fearsÂ that “anti-hunting extremists” Â might one day lobby the Kentucky legislature to outlaw or restrict hunting and fishing. Â They are pushing similar amendments to the state constitutions ofÂ Idaho, NebraskaÂ andÂ Wyomingon the 2012 ballots.13 states have already added these amendments:Â Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,Â andÂ Wisconsin.
In 7 states, the amendments were considered, but defeated:Â Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi,Â New Jersey, New Mexico, New YorkÂ andÂ Pennsylvania. Â Mississippi will be reconsidering the amendment on 2014 ballots.
No one is currently threatening the right to hunt or fish, but the NRA wants legislatures to guarantee these rights before the threat occurs. Â NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford stated,Â ”The NRA doesn’t wait for problems to arise to address them. Â We’re constantly being proactive on our Second Amendment rights.”
Legislators who sponsored the amendment also believe that the right to hunt and fish could be threatened. Â State Representative Leslie Combs,Â a Democrat, commented,Â ”There’s always a concern that someone could work to take away your right to hunt using firearms
The National Conference of State Legislatures website discusses both sides of the argument regarding constitutional protection:
Well-organized animal rights groups and limitations on methods, seasons and bag limits for certain game species have provoked many hunter advocacy groups to lobby for hunting and fishing as a right, and their call is being heard in statehouses across the country.Â Twenty-two states, includingÂ 12 in 2008 alone, have introduced legislation or ballot measures on this issue, with Oklahoma and Tennessee’s measures passing in 2008 and Oklahoma’s headed to the ballot in November (it later passed). Senator Glen Coffee, sponsor of the Oklahoma resolution, noted that hunting and fishing have “Historically been unfettered rights,” and “Oklahoma was formed by populist people and our constitution is very long already, so I think people do think it is the appropriate place to address this.” Senator Coffee feels good about the referendum’s chance of success in November. Opponents state that these provisions clutter a constitution and overstate the threat to these activities, while possibly limiting or increasing the amount and severity of restrictions that can be placed on sportsmen activities. The Humane Society states, “The constitution should guarantee fundamental democratic rights, not provide protection for a recreational pastime.”
Maybe somebody inside Obamaâs re-election campaign is spreading disinfo about the president giving away free cell phones, but if so, it isnât true.
Poor people arenât getting free phones or discounted service fees from the Obama administration.
People voting for Obama because they have a free cell phone are way off. They should try voting instead for a giant telecom companyâonly that company isnât running for president.
Since 1997, people below the poverty line have been getting discounted phone service, because big telecom companies have been making it possible, by charging everybody else a few bucks extra on their monthly phone bills. Thatâs how it works.
The basic program is called Lifeline, a branch of a non-profit company, Universal Service Administrative Company, set up by the FCC in 1997, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. Thatâs how the poor get discounted phone bills.
The Constitutionality of the federal government setting up a non-profit company is another story for another time. Suffice it to say, it should be illegal.
Free cell phones for the poor come from SafeLink which, according to FactCheck.org, is operated by America Movil, a giant wireless company. SafeLink, however, is paid for by that non-profit the FCC set up, Universal Service Administrative Company, which in turn gets its money from the big telecoms, who charge everybody who isnât poor a few extra bucks on their phone bills. Got it?
Nothing to do with Obama. There is no Obama Phone.
But what a windfall for the Obama campaign when poor people believe the president gave them their phones. In Ohio alone, a key election state, there are now a million people who have some kind of discounted phone service.
Are government-funded community groups and community organizers out there, across America, recruiting poor people and telling them they can get Obama Phones? There are now 16.5 million people in the US receiving discounted phone services. Between 20 and 30 million Americans are eligible. Thatâs quite a nice election-vote bump.
âObama re-elected! It was the phones, pollsters say.â
The author of an explosive collection,Â THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thÂ District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
It is called the American dream because youâve got to be asleep to believe it. Meanwhile, truth and reality are ridiculed, opposed and then accepted before they are beaten to death. The time it takes the average American to realize itâs all a dream â the big house, the corner office with glass windows, the managerial position, the six digit salary and the recognition â is the same time it takes him to wake up. The problem is, not many Americans actually wake up.
Before every single Americanâs eyes, the Republican Party shamelessly erased from all records the choices made by hundreds of delegates all over the country who did not support Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. The corporate board of the party simply decided that in order to smooth out Romneyâs entrance into the race for the presidency, its handlers had to change the way delegates were chosen and counted.
I would love to explain it to you, but it is easier if you watch it and understand the level of fraud, hubris and disregard for the voters that now fills the foundation and core of the Republican Party. Letâs just say that after the Republican National Convention of 2012, never again will people who support this party and any candidate that is not backed by the establishment of this corrupt organization, be able to actually elect their representative to the convention; much less their man or woman to run for the presidency.
Please watch and listen with attention and try to strap yourself in. Believe me, you will need the straps.
I told you those straps would come handy.
In case you did not understand the reporter, let me explain it in laymanâs terms. The motion passed at the Republican National Convention of 2012 assures that only the establishment candidate of the Republican Party or the Republican president in office will decide who is named an official delegate to attend the National Convention and vote during that event. Forget about caucuses and primaries.
And you thought there was a choice, didnât you? Unfortunately, choice is just one of the most fashionable illusions that the average American believes in. The motion passed and adopted by the RNC is not only bad because it stole rightfully owned delegates from Ron Paul, who won enough of them to challenge Romney at the Convention this week, but also because, regardless of who the candidate is, it is clear that the establishment politicians and media feel threatened by a kind of man that only comes around once every century or so. Perhaps less often.
Why do they feel threatened? Because despite the circus put together by both the Republican Party and the corporate media, Mr. Paul was able to get his message through to millions. But the threat grew bigger, because all those millions of people, even outside the United States, actually listened and began the largest and most important liberty movement in recent history.
Unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, things are not well either. Obama is the other side of the illusion coin, the second face of the fake choice that the owners of the United States of America â and large portions of the rest of the planet â chose to deceive the gullible members of the uneducated, clueless population. To say that the Barack Obama phenomenon is a deception would be short of what needs to be said about him and his corporate supporters. But to be fair, letâs compare the two men who are now in the race to govern over the United States.
What do these two men support and what do they oppose?
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama support, as their voting record and public statements show, the following policies:
1. Bailouts, âtoo big to failâ concept, stimulus packages, quantitative easing and deficit spending.
2. Sending troops to protect others borders and sending our money to foreign dictators.
3. Interventionist foreign policy from Bush era.
4. Federal restrictions on gun ownership.
5. Patriot Act.
6. Spying on American citizens without warrants.
7. Indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial or lawyer.
8. Assassinations of American citizens or anyone else without due process.
9. Socialized Healthcare
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama oppose, as their voting record and public statements show, the following policies:
1. Balancing the budget in less than 30 years.
2. Paying down the national debt.
3. States rights to make their own laws.
4. Sound fiscal and monetary policies.
5. A policy of non-interventionism.
6. Freedom to choose by entrepreneurs and consumers.
Although for many years Americans were seen abroad as uneducated arrogant people, that opinion has now changed. The best description of the average American abroad is now that of an uneducated, arrogant plantation slave who for a long time â even today â enjoys and rejoices with the prison he lives in. While most of the world has been devoid of opportunity and resources to succeed by the same forces that control the American way of living, American citizens have been acclimated with the benefits that a nationâs artificially strong currency has been able to provide.
The unlimited plentifulness reinforced the illusion of the American Dream and that alone blinded roughly 99% of the population. It was due to the rise of people like Ron Paul and his grassroots movement composed by genuinely concerned people that the 99% shrank to 95% or so. Members of that vociferous minority were the ones who elected enough delegates in at least 5 states where Ron Paul beat Mitt Romney by a long shot. By changing the rules on how delegates are chosen, the Republican Party has assured its establishment core that never again will a grassroots movement challenge the election of a candidate that does not accept the imposition of the Partyâs official platform.
With the political landscape sorted out, one must take a look at the other illusion.
Even though the state of the economy has made it more apparent that things are not going well for the American people, it is not uncommon to read, hear and watch reports about fat bonuses being paid to corporate leaders and bureaucrats with taxpayer funds. Needless to say that the US sponsored bailouts of American and European banks have pushed the country that much closer to the deep and dark cliff of insolvency and bankruptcy. But if you ask the average American about it, he just canât see it or feel it.
From the American lack of real education, little perspective on history and zero understanding came the illusion of prosperity. Having the worldâs reserve currency, which enabled Americans to enjoy artificially low prices, permitted politicians to adopt and advance the debt-based economic and financial systems. The collapse of the American way of living did not start in 2008, 2007, or 2006, but in 1913.
That collapse was incrementally pushed through the years at a very slow pace, so âthe frogsâ wouldnât notice the heat of the boiling water. The supposed prosperity was a smoke screen that led to the United Statesâ precipitously approaching collapse. The financial bankruptcy of the US has gone from being a conspiracy theory, to becoming a mathematical certainty. The United States is drowning in debt and so is the rest of the world. But contrary to what the corporate media, main stream liberals and socialists believe, there is no way in the world to pay that debt off. No amount of raised taxes, no money printing scheme, not even if all of theÂ GDP money was used to attempt to pay the debt could the US eliminate its heaviest burden.
Right now, the United States is suffering from two incurable problems: National Debt and Federal Deficits. Although they are separate issues, they are indeed interconnected. The debt is created as the Federal Government is unable to keep its spending in check and limited to the production of the country. This creates a need for borrowing money from the FED or China or whoever is crazy â or smart â enough to lend the US. The national debt is the sum of all debt owed by the US Federal Government including borrowed money and the interests it has to pay on it.
The deficit on the other hand, is the difference between the budget the US has and what it actually spends in a specific year. So, for example, if in 2012 the US had a budget of $ 100 but spent $130, the deficit for 2012 would be of $30. Since the US has no way of paying the $30 difference, it puts the $30 as debt to be paid in the long-term; say 50 years. During that time, the US as whole â its citizens â will have to pay interests on that debt, while the original $30 remains unpaid. Because the original debt goes unpaid for decades, it continues to accrue interests over interests, which then become impossible to pay as well.
The problem is that the deficit is not as little as $30 and therefore the debt is not small either, so the interests have been exploding over the past century or so. Today, the US National Debt sits atÂ $ 16,001,431,267,262.98.Â With an estimated population ofÂ 313,431,758Â in the US, each citizenâs share of this debt isÂ $51,052.36. Got some spare change? Donât worry, because this is not your debt. It is the debt generated by the out-of-control Federal Government that illegally mortgaged the lives of generation after generation to pay for its limitless bribery schemes such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; to finance wars in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world, as well as to give bailouts to American and European banks.
Although you didnât exactly approve of the creation of this debt, you did indeed enable the crime of indebtedness if you supported either political partyÂ and voted for any of their corporate creations such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama. So yes, you have been an instrument to the crime; knowingly or not. Also, please realize that the debt will continue to grow as it has always have. For the period of 2007 through 2012, the US National Debt grewÂ $3.88 billion per day. (conservative estimate).
Please see the graph below for a historical perspective on US debt since 1940 until 2011:
That is what I mean when I say Americans are seen as uneducated, gullible people. The system used by the corporate-owned US government is an example of what we call today a Ponzi scheme. That is how the US Federal Government intends to run the debt up to $20 trillion by 2016 and $70 trillion in the years after that. It doesnât matter whether Obama is re-elected or Romney takes his place. Business will continue as usual.
Although some economists would like to continue enjoying the benefits of the illusion, by continue to borrow to fund government liabilities and social programs, the truth is that the limit on how much the US can borrow is rapidly approaching its end. Why? Because in order for this Ponzi scheme to work, there have to be crazy investors who agree to bailing out the US every time it raises its debt ceiling. If the investors slow down or stop the flow of cash, Ponzi scheme collapses. That is where we are today.
The financial collapse of the US is a great segway to learning how the US government has for many years attempted to prevent this very same collapse and how it will continue to prevent it in the future. That is theÂ third component of the illusion.
War and conflict have always been multi-headed monsters. For one, they are responsible for destroying lands and murdering innocent people, but they also accomplish a second goal: justify the existence of the military industrial complex. However, a third goal is often overlooked. Wars and conflict are excellent tools to keep populations distracted, while financial and political crimes are committed. The current unrest in the Middle East that just so happens to coincide with the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression is not a coincidence at all.
The people who control western governments â including the US â know this. In fact, theyâve used wars and conflict abroad to carry out radical changes at home. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Pinochet did it, and so has every single US president since at least 1929.
Whenever the United States runs out of lenders, or it publicly recognizes it cannot longer meet its obligations, who exactly will come to its rescue? No one. The only two choices that the US will have then are two visible ones and one card in the sleeve. The US will have to either declare itself bankrupt or exponentially hyper-inflate its currency, a policy it has been incrementally employing since 1913.
It seems very clear that the US government will not declare itself bankrupt, because it would mean that its creditors â China, the centralized banking system, Saudi Arabia and so on â will seek to claim their piece of the American pie. So, it is likely the US will continue hyper-inflating its currency, but at a faster speed. This will not be a solution, but a strategy to delay the collapse. Either way the country will collapse. The difference will be something like what is explained on CrisisHQ.com.âEconomically, the first option would feel like a heart attack and the second option like terminal cancer.â
Once the hyper-inflation smokescreen no longer works, the US managers will resort to the plan theyâve been tuning up for at least half a century: open-ended war. The scenario of perpetual war as a tool of control was exploited throughout the 20th century in every single corner of the planet. From the Balkans to Nicaragua to the Middle East. The result is always the same: the confused sheeple support the candidate that shows a stronger position towards the âforeign threatâ; that imaginary aggressor that seeks to destroy their imaginary lives.
Hitler was able to gain almost total support from the German people after fabricating the Reichstag fire. In 2001, the US government did the same. It lit up two landmarks of the American tragedy and with that opened the door to the perpetual state of war into the 21st century. That state of war gave way to the Homeland Insecurity and the growing Police State. As Saman Mohammadi puts it in his articleÂ 7 Reasons Washingtonâs Grand Counter-Terrorism Myths Persist In The Face of Evidence, âthe doctors of reality construct mental traps and dead-ends in order to contain the conversation of contested political events and issues within the parameters of the U.S.-Israeli counter-terrorism paradigm.â The American Reichstag worked just fine.
So what to do about all this? First, understand thatÂ there is no political solutionÂ to this illusion. As shown at the beginning of this article, the establishment political parties will always find a way to rig the rules to impose their will. If government were really a solution or part of the solution, we would all be much better off than we are today. Voting for the lesser of two evils will not do anything to improve things. As long as there are public servants who do not fear the people, but who feed on them, there wonât be a solution to the problem. Second, the real solution starts with education, and then with involvement of those who saw the light and decided to walk towards it. It is necessary that the 5 percent multiplies 10 fold.
Education takes time and so does a mass awakening. Unfortunately, sometimes only a ground-shaking collapse like the one we are about to have is able to wake large masses of people up. Since the collapse seems almost inevitable, it is everyoneâs duty to continue educating family members, neighbors and friends so the collapse can be prevented by exercising massive pressure over the political class. At the same time, those who are awake must prepare themselves for the collapse by becoming independent from the controllers who have been increasing the heat under all of us for the last century.
The meaning of preparing will vary depending of who you are and where you live. The common denominator for being prepared is self-reliance. Being able to determine oneâs own present and future is the strongest weapon against the collapse and against the ruling class. Help your relatives and neighbors to leave the mass mind control plantation system and to become intellectually and physically independent. Help them wake up from the illusion they live in.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.
Somebody please tell President Obama that he may not want to cite one of the most violent cities in America when he’s trying to convince us how great things are:
In campaign remarks yesterday at the Bridgeport Art Center in Chicago, Illinois, President Barack Obama praised his adopted city, where he lived before becoming president of the United States. “Chicago is an example of what makes this country great,” Obama said. His audience applauded.
President Obama’s proof for his assertion? The donors in the room, who had given to his reelection campaign. “Witness this room,” Obama said. And he elaborated: “[W]e’ve got everything we need to make things work here in America. We still have the best workers in the world. (Applause.) We’ve still got the best entrepreneurs in the world. We’ve got the best colleges, the best universities, the best scientists, the best researchers. We’re a young nation, and we’ve got the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity from every corner of the globe.”
But what President Obama did not address is Chicago’s homicide rate, one of the highest in the nation.
It is rather ironic that Barack Obama would hold an Iftar Dinner at the White House with a room full of Muslims and declare, âOf all the freedoms we cherish as Americans, of all the rights that we hold sacred, foremost among them is freedom of religion, the right to worship as we choose.â This comes just as his signature healthcare mandateâs demand that even religious institutions provide abortions, contraceptives and sterilizations free of charge even though their would have to violate their religious conscience to do so. The regulation took effect August 1, 2012. Many lawsuits have been filed against it.
âItâs enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitutionâthe law of the land, always and forever,â Obama continued. âIt beats in our heartâin the soul of the people who know that our liberty and our equality is endowed by our Creator.â
One wonders how much Barack Obama cares about the law of the land when his own administration will not uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the Immigration laws of the land.
Interestingly enough the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about the âright to worship as we choose.â What it does state is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Not once in his entire speech, at a dinner which was in part an Islamic celebration being endorsed by the President of the United States as part of Ramadan, did he mention what the First Amendment actually teaches and that is that the federal government is not to create any law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of that religion.
Iâm wondering where all the liberals are and ACLU on this. Here, in the highest office in the land is Barack Obama participating in a religious festival at taxpayerâs expense with Muslims in the peopleâs house. Who would have thought? Even the founders would be rolling over in their graves at this!
Contrast Obamaâs words though with his health care program and ask yourself if he really believes what he is shoveling? I would say he doesnât not.
The Roman Catholic Church has filed several lawsuits because, in effect, in implementing Obamacare Obama has done the exact opposite of what the First Amendment protects against. We are seeing clearly now that the Constitution is not being followed at all and that the consciences of many religious
About Tim Brown
Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.
If you are an American, your freedom of speech is under attack.Â Over the past week, remarks made by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy defending traditional marriage have sparked controversy all over the nation.Â Many Americans have expressed support for his remarks and many have expressed disdain for his remarks.Â And all of that is fine, because in the United States people are supposed to be able to express their opinions.
But in Chicago, Boston and other U.S. cities, politicians are actually promising to keep any more Chick-fil-A stores from opening because their CEO does not support gay marriage, and that crosses the line.Â When politicians threaten to ban a business from their cities just because the CEO does not hold the “politically correct” position on a social issue that is an attack on the freedom of speech of every American.
0You see, the truth is that the enforcers of political correctness in America are very “tolerant” except when somebody disagrees with them.Â The politically correct control freaks that are trying to ban Chick-fil-A from their cities would try to ban Chick-fil-A from opening any more restaurants in the entire country if they had the power to do so.Â The goal of these politically correct control freaks is to intimidate.Â They want to end debate on these social issues by shutting down the free speech of the opposition.Â In the end, if America continues to go down this path it will end up looking just like many of the other totalitarian regimes throughout history where free speech has been banned.
Once again, in America everyone has the right to say whatever they want to about Chick-fil-A.
However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the “correct” political view about an issue that is a major problem.
This week, Chicago alderman Joe Moreno wrote a piece for the Chicago Tribune in which he explained why he is going to refuse to allow Chick-fil-A to open a new restaurant in his ward….
There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.
Apparently he has the power to single-handedly block the new restaurant that Chick-fil-A was hoping to open up….
Home Depot in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue wants to sell a piece of its land so that a Chick-fil-A restaurant can open in the 1st Ward, where I am alderman. It would be the fast-food chain’s first “stand-alone” Chicago restaurant. But to subdivide the land, the companies need my approval.
Because the CEO of Chick-fil-A will not conform to Joe Moreno’s social values, Chick-fil-A is now essentially banned from that entire section of Chicago.
Not that Chick-fil-A will be able to open up new stores in other areas of Chicago either.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is promisingÂ to do what he canÂ to keep Chick-fil-A from expanding any further in Chicago….
“Chick-fil-Aâs values are not Chicago values. Theyâre not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if youâre gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values”
Apparently anyone that does not believe in gay marriage does not “reflect Chicago values”.
But this is just the beginning.Â One group is trying to have Chick-fil-A kicked off of college campuses all over America.Â The following is from a recentÂ CBS News article….
The gay rights group Equality Illinois is launching a campaign against Chick-Fil-A â petitioning universities and lawmakers to evict the fast food restaurant from their campuses and planning a âkiss-inâ campaign by gay and lesbian couples outside Chick-Fil-A restaurants.
The message is clearly one of intimidation.
Either conform or suffer the consequences.
Sadly, politicians all over America are reacting just like politicians in Chicago have done.
The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, has pledged to do all that he can to keep Chick-Fil-A out of the entire city of Boston.Â The following is what he told the Boston HeraldÂ on Thursday….
“Chick-fil-A doesnât belong in Boston. You canât have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. Weâre an open city, weâre a city thatâs at the forefront of inclusion”
But Chick-fil-A does not discriminate.
They serve anyone that wants a chicken burger and they are open to hiring anyone.
It is just that the CEO of the company does not think gay marriage is a good idea (along with half of the rest of America) and this absolutely infuriates the politically correct crowd.
On Thursday Mayor Menino also added the following….
“Thatâs the Freedom Trail. Thatâs where it all started right here. And weâre not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
In addition, he penned a furious letter to Chick-fil-A headquarters that you can readÂ right here.
The town of Mountain View, CaliforniaÂ has also blockedÂ a new Chick-fil-A restaurant from opening up.
In the months to come we will probably see much more of this.
And Chick-fil-A is probably going to get booted off of a whole bunch of college campuses.
In February,Â Northeastern UniversityÂ refused to allow a Chick-fil-A store to open on their campus, and student groups around the country are already mobilizing to oppose Chick-fil-A on more campuses.
This is the kind of religious fervor the politically correct crowd has.Â You are either with them or you are dog manure.
For example, Roseanne BarrÂ wished cancerÂ on those that eat at Chick-Fil-A on Twitter the other day.
So what were these supposedly “bigoted” comments that started this uproar in the first place?
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.Â We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that”
Wow, that is some pretty controversial stuff, eh?
Certainly this could not be enough to spark a nationwide protest.
“I think we are inviting Godâs judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, âWe know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ I pray Godâs mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Is that statement really worth going crazy over?
To the politically correct crowd it is.
They simply cannot tolerate a major public figure such as the CEO of Chick-fil-A saying that gay marriage is wrong.Â Plus they are always looking for more ways to chill the free speech of others that would speak out against gay marriage.Â The following is what John Hayward of Human EventsÂ said about all of this recently….
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. Itâs a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game.”
The politically correct crowd does not want a debate about gay marriage.
What they want to do is to completely intimidate the other side and shut down the debate completely so that they can win by default.
Wednesday, August 1st, has been designated as “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”.Â I encourage all of you to go out and buy a chicken burger that day to show your support of free speech.
If we don’t stand up for free speech now, soon it will be totally gone.
Already, the name of Jesus is becoming a forbidden word all over America.Â Just consider the following examples….
-All over the United States chaplainsÂ are being bannedÂ from praying in the name of Jesus.
-You can say just about anything you want in U.S. public schools these days except for anything having to do with Jesus.Â In fact, if you are a public school student and you try to talk about Jesus with your fellow classmates there is a good chance that you willÂ be suspended from school.
-In many areas of America today, if you want to go out on a public sidewalk and discuss your faith with others there is a good chance that you willÂ be arrested.
-If you are anti-abortion, if you have “radical theology” or if you are against “the New World Order”, there is a chance that you will be labeled as a “potential terrorist” by the Department of Homeland Security.
In North Korea, if you say something that is not “politically correct” you and your entire extended family could literally be on the next train to a concentration camp.
Today it is estimated thatÂ 70,000 ChristiansÂ are being held captive in concentration camps in North Korea.Â Many of those believers are likely to spend the rest of their lives toiling in conditions that are absolutely nightmarish simply because they believe the “wrong thing”.
If you don’t think that such a thing could ever happen in America, you are dead wrong.
We are moving a little bit more in that direction every single day, and this latest attack on Chick-fil-A is another example of this trend.
When you attack the freedom of speech of one group of Americans, you attack the freedom of speech of every American.
Once our freedom of speech is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to ever get back.
Stand up for freedom of speech while you still can.
So what do you think about the attacks on Chick-fil-A?Â Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….
The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.
âUSDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,â the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on their âReaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistanceâ web page. âMexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.â
The partnership â which wasÂ signedÂ by former USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista in 2004 â sees to it that the Mexican Embassy and Mexican consulates in America provide USDA nutrition assistance program information to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals working in America and migrant communities in America. The information is specifically focused on eligibility criteria and access.
The goal, for USDA, is to get rid of what they see as enrollment obstacles and increase access among potentially eligible populations by working with arms of the Mexican government in America. Benefits are not guaranteed or provided under the program â the purpose is outreach and education.
The Obama Campaign rolled out some new fonts on the campaign last week. Â The typeface chosen for the word âAmericaâ was starkly different that anything we had seen before.Â BuzzfeedâsÂ Zeke Miller reported that the font was named âRevolutionÂ Gothicâ and that according toÂ myfonts.comÂ the typeface origin is seeded in Cuban Communist propaganda.
âThe original font is inspired by retro propaganda posters and wallpaintings in Cuba from the 60s to 80s.â
Betting on America? With this guy in charge we really don’t like the odds.
America’s Founding Fathers, as well as other historical figures and dates will be restored in proposed new Nebraska social studies standards, a state official leading the rewrite said Tuesday.
Their absence from an earlier draft, which focused instead on broad concepts and themes, drew criticism from the public and some members of the Nebraska Board of Education when released in April.
âWe will definitely be adding historical figures back in there,â said Donlynn Rice, administrator of curriculum, instruction and innovation in the Nebraska Department of Education. âWe listened to the input.â
However, fresh concerns about the draft standards were raised Tuesday as Rice briefed state board members on the progress of the rewrite.
Board member John Sieler of Omaha, a former Republican Party official, expressed concern that the draft standards suggest that manmade global warming is fact, not theory; advocate for global government, which he said is not recognized in the U.S. Constitution; and fail to emphasize American exceptionalism.
In 2007, state lawmakers directed the Nebraska Board of Education to update the state’s academic standards â language arts, math and science are already done. This year, it’s social studies.
In yet another absurd series of exchanges between a DEA agent and a sitting Congressman, the top DEA agent in America refused to say that crack or heroin are worse for someones health than marijuana.
The exchange, filmed during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on June 20th, took place between Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis and Drug Enforcement Agency administrator Michele Leonhart.
The DEA administrator, who was either directly lying our lives in an alternative reality, refused to answer the obvious and documented fact that drugs such as crack, heroin, or meth are much worse than marijuana which is a âdrugâ with a long history of medicinal purposes that have literally helped hundreds of thousands of people.
Polis:Â âIs crack worse for a person than marijuana?â
Leonhart:Â âI believe all illegal drugs are bad,â
Polis:Â âIs methamphetamine worse for somebodyâs health than marijuana?â
Leonhart:Â âI donât think any drugs are good.â
Polis:Â âIs heroin worse for somebodyâs health than marijuana?â
Leonhart:Â Again, all drugs.â
Polis:Â âYes, no, or I donât know?ââIf you donât know this, you can look this up. You should know this, as the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency. Iâm asking a very straightforward question.â
America’s First Amendment affirms it. So does Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It states “(e)veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
In December 1993, the UN General Assembly declared May 3 World Press Freedom Day. Following the recommendation of UNESCO’s General Conference, it did so to:
“celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom;
assess the state of press freedom throughout the world;
defend the media from attacks on their independence; (and)
pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.”
From April 30 to May 3, 1991, UNESCO’s “Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press” seminar issued a Declaration of Windhoek. It called for “protecting fundamental free expression principles.”
They’re fragile and threatened, even in so-called democratic societies. Journalist AJ Liebling (1904 – 1963) once said “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” Conditions are much worse today than decades earlier.
At issue is repressive police state legislation. HR 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) provides the latest example. It’s more about destroying personal freedom than cybersecurity.
It reveals the hypocrisy of a May 3 State Department statement, saying in part:
“On World Press Freedom Dayâand every dayâthe United States honors and supports media freedom at home and abroad. Press freedom is a key element of the freedom of expression, which is a foundation for other universal human rights.”
“We call on all governments to protect the universal human right to freedom of expression.”
Calling on its own would be a good place to start.
In recent years, journalists exposing sensitive truths and whistleblowers have been targeted. Obama’s Justice Department used the 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute a record six whistleblowers for revealing what everyone needs to know. Doing so exceeded all previous administrations combined.
The Espionage Act was enacted during WW I. It was about interfering with military operations, supporting enemies, promoting insubordination in the ranks, or challenging military recruitment.
In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court ruled that free speech of those convicted under its provisions weren’t violated. Thereafter, the law’s constitutionality was repeatedly challenged.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled government can’t punish inflammatory speech unless directed to incite lawless action.
In Texas v. Johnson (a 1989 flag burning case), Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, saying:
“(I)f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
Other challenges won and lost. Winning today is harder than ever. Free expression in America’s on the chopping block for elimination. Without it all other rights are jeopardized.
Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning exposed war crimes. Soldiers and witnesses are obligated to do so. Others revealed CIA torture, NSA warrantless wiretapping, and other constitutional violations. Doing so is heroic, not criminal.
Justice Hugo Black once said: “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.” America fails the test.
A US grand jury reportedly continues investigating alleged WikiLeaks Espionage Act violations. Revealing vital truths is constitutionally protected speech. Investigative journalists do the same thing.
Former State Department spokesmanÂ PJ CrowleyÂ said investigating WikiLeaks undermines Washington’s credibility to pressure other countries to address press freedom.
In recent years, anyone publicly supporting WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, or other whistleblowers risks harassment when traveling. Police state tactics confront them. They include strip searches, confiscation of laptops, cellphones and cameras, and arrests.
Dual US/French citizen Pascal Abidor was targeted. In 2011, traveling from Montreal to New York on Amtrak, he was confronted at the border, questioned, handcuffed, taken off the train, and kept behind bars for hours before being released. His laptop was also seized, kept 11 days and searched before being returned. Many others face similar treatment.
At the same time the State Department piously “advocates for freedom of expression,” it’s egregiously violated at home and abroad.
On March 16,Â ABC NewsÂ reported that Obama officials pressured the Yemeni government to keep journalist Abd al-Ilah Al-Shai’i behind bars “for alleged terrorist ties.”
At issue is heroic investigative journalism. Al-Shai’i revealed civilian deaths and injuries from US drone attacks. Washington wants them suppressed.
Dozens of journalists covering Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have been harassed, assaulted and arrested from New York to San Francisco. Societies committing these offenses aren’t free. One abuse follows another. Freedom’s eventually lost. America is racing toward it. Bipartisan complicity backs it.
America a Total Surveillance Society
Post-9/11, spying on ordinary Americans became policy. Telecommunication companies cooperate. Phone calls, emails, and other communications are monitored.
In 2005, it was learned that the National Security Agency (NSA) lawlessly intercepts phone calls and Internet communications. AT&T actively cooperates without informing customers. Privacy rights are violated.
In October 2001, George Bush issued a secret presidential order. It’s in force today. It authorized warrantless NSA surveillance without statutory or court authorization.
Doing so violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It covers prescribed surveillance procedures relating to “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers.”
It restricts surveillance of US citizens and residents to those engaged in espionage in America and territory under US control. No longer. AT&T and other telecommunication companies work cooperatively with Washington.
Millions of customers are monitored. Sophisticated data-mining follows. Everyone potentially is vulnerable. Few know what’s going on. Many fewer protest against it.
Post-9/11, warrantless spying became policy. Even secret videotaping monitor people at home. On May Day, EFF submitted an amicus curiae brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It relates to United States of America v. Ricky S. Wahchumwah.
EFF challenged lawless warrantless home video surveillance. It violates Fourth Amendment rights. It states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Wahchumwah’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. An undercover US Fish and Wildlife Service agent secretly recorded information inside his home on a concealed video camera in his clothes.
Wahchumwah was charged with violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Lacey Act for allegedly selling bald and gold eagle feathers. He moved to disallow lawlessly obtained video information. His motion was denied. He appealed. EFF supports him.
In United States v. Jones (January 2012), the Supreme Court ruled the Fourth Amendment prohibits using warrantless GPS surveillance to monitor a person’s car on public roads for 28 days.
The decision applies to video surveillance at home. Wahchumwah let the agent enter his home. He didn’t agree to videotaping, especially doing it secretly.
EFF said “intensive video surveillance” previously “was reserved for serious, violent crimes.” Now it’s possible for any reason targeting anyone, including secretly at home.
A Final Comment
A 2008Â ACLUÂ report titled “American Surveillance Society” said:
Post-9/11, mass surveillance became policy. Ordinary Americans are watched intrusively. Their “telephone calls and e-mails, web browsing records, financial records, credit reports, and library records” are monitored.
“(P)eaceful political and religious activities” are watched. Everyone is swept up in national dragnet to monitor virtually everything about everyone secretly “with little or no oversight by the courts, Congress, or the public.”
Big brother arrived with electronic ease. Constitutional rights are violated. Freedom is slipping away fast. A 2003 ACLU report saidÂ “Big Brother is No Longer a Fiction.”Â America is a “total surveillance society.”
Today everyone is unprotected. Washington takes full advantage. Surveillance grows like a “monster.” Unknowingly, ordinary people are lawlessly targeted.
Unchecked government power threatens freedom. In America, it’s perilously close to life support.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.Â Â
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”Â
Visit his blog site atÂ sjlendman.blogspot.comÂ and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.Â
President Obama stands to rake in some $6 million in campaign donations next month when actor and White House regular George Clooney hosts a fundraiser at his home for 150 of the President’s supporters.
ET can exclusively reveal that George Clooney is hosting a fundraiser for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign…
Clooney will host the president and about 150 supporters at the event on May 10 at his home in Los Angeles, California. If you think it will be cheap to get a chance to hobknob with an Oscar winner and a president, though, think again — tickets will run $40,000 each, with proceeds going to the Obama Victory fund, a joint fundraising committee of Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee and several state Democratic parties.
On Tuesday, February 14th, the Virginia House of Delegates voted in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160). The final vote was 96-4.
The legislative goal of HB1160 is to codify in Virginia law noncompliance with what many are referring to as the âkidnapping provisionsâ of section 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). The official summary of 1160:
âA BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.â
HB1160 is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It previously passed out of Sub-Committee #2 Civil, by a vote of 6-3 and the Courts of Justice Committee by a vote of 16-0. After a series of action alerts by the Tenth Amendment Center nationally, and a number of supporting groups locally â Courts of Justice committee members heard from the people they represent that a full house hearing and vote to reject the NDAA is what they wanted. With a 96-4 vote, the Virginia House sent a message on indefinite detentions â a resounding NO!
âUnder the recently passed 2012 federal Defense Authorization Act American citizens may be indefinitely detained, incarcerated, not presented with charges and denied counsel based on an accusation by federal agents of collaboration with or support of terrorists,â said Marshall. âWhile Virginia cannot directly undo this purported law which undermines the Sixth Amendment, I introduced HB 1160 which will prevent the use of any Virginia agency or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force to assist in any way to unlawfully detain a citizen of Virginia on behalf of the United States Government in violation of the Constitution of Virginia,â he continued.
Marshall previously reported that Governor Bob McDonnell is opposing this legislation. Residents all over Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their Delegates AND the Governorâs office in support of this legislation now.
Jay Leno thought he was poking gentle fun at the lifestyles of rich and famous Republican presidential candidates â Mitt Romney in particular. But last Thursday when Lenoâs slide show came to a location cited as Mitt Romneyâs summer home â in reality an image of the Sikh holy shrine Golden Temple in Amritsar, India â it sparked a diplomatic incident. And now, a lawsuit charging Leno and NBC with libel.
Dr. Randeep Dhillon of Bakersfield filed the suit today in Los Angeles SuperiorÂ Court. On behalf of himself and Bol Punjabi All Regions Community Organization, the suit charges that the broadcast was libelous on its face and exposed Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt and ridicule because it portrayed the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh. The suit charges that Lenoâs use of the photo of the temple was intentional, deliberately false and âhurt the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to those of the plaintiff.â The suit seeks general, special and punitive damages as well as court costs.Â It appears that video of the segment in question has been removed from NBCâs website.
Separately, Sikh leader Dalbeg Singh said today community leaders would seek an apology from Leno. Indiaâs foreign ministry said a formal complaint had been lodged with the State Department in Washington.
House Judiciary Committee uncovers that head of the Department of Homeland Security â Janet Napolitano â has given top secret security clearance to members of the Muslim Brotherhood. And not only does she appear largely uninformed, she looks like she doesnât really care.
I am quite sure that when the log is removed off of the Janet Napolitano-run Department of Homeland Security, the amount and number of creepy, crawling things that will come to light will tantalize and disgust even the most jaded Washington watcher.
From Jihad Watch:Â Homeland Security is on the hot seat. Back in October 2010, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano named the devout Muslim Mohamed Elibiary to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. The Texas Department of Public Safety now says that Elibiary may have been allowed to gain access to a highly sensitive database of intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of the material he found in that database to a media outlet for a story about âIslamophobiaâ in the Public Safety Department.
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower courtâs decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
âThis kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,â Jordan said today from his Waterford home. âI maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.â
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.