One of the four State Department employees, who was recently disciplined by their former boss Hillary Clinton, has broken his silence concerning Benghazi and has leveled some very big charges at the former Secretary of State. He is now indicating that the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff were the ones that led the review of the Benghazi attacks by perpetrating the flaws in the process of the review, not an independent board.
Raymond Maxwell was placed on forced âadministrative leaveâ after the State Departmentâs own internal investigation, conducted by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) led by former State Department official Tom Pickering. Five months after he was told to clean out his desk and leave the building, Maxwell remains in professional and legal limbo, having been associated publicly with the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American for reasons that remain unclear.
Maxwell, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from August 2011 until his removal last December, following tours in Iraq and Syria, spoke publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast.
âThe overall goal is to restore my honor,â said Maxwell, who has filed grievances regarding his treatment with the State Departmentâs Human Resources Bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the interests of foreign-service officers. The other three officials placed on leave were in the Diplomatic Security Bureau, leaving Maxwell as the only official in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job.
âI had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,â he said.
While he was removed from his position on December 18, 2012, the day following the ARBâs report, no reason was given him and the others being place on administrative leave. Jne Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said, ââAs a matter of policy, we donât speak to specific personnel matters.â
However, now he is coming out and has stated that not only did he didnât have anything to do with Benghazi, but that Clinton made him the Benghazi scapegoat.
âThe overall goal is to restore my honor,â Maxwell told the Daily Beast.
Maxwell is the former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs has filed legal grievances because of the treatment he received from the State Department, as well as the American Foreign Service Association. He is also the only official in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to lose his job over the September 11, 2012 attacks.
Although Maxwell had planned to retire in September 2012, he stayed on to assist the department in responding to the attacks in Benghazi, he says that he has never had an explanation given to him as to why he was put on leave and that he has never seen the classified sections of the ARB report.
âThey just wanted me to go away but I wouldnât just go away,â he said. âI knew Chris [Stevens]. Chris was a friend of mine.â
The Daily Beast continued to report that âHe is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave.â
âFor any FSO being at work is the essence of everything and being deprived of that and being cast out was devastating,â he said.
Maxwell even said that a State Department official came to his home, following his removal and wanted him to sign a letter that acknowledged his removal and forfeiting his right to enter the State Department building. He refused, claiming that it would have been an admission of guilt.
However, the question lingers; who put Maxwell and the others on leave?
âThe decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clintonâs chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events,â according to the report. âOn the day after the unclassified version of the ARBâs report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.â
Josh Rogin then points out why Mr. Maxwell, of all people, was removed following the release of the ARB report. HeÂ writes,Â âOne person who reviewed the classified portion of the ARB report told The Daily Beast that it called out Maxwell for the specific infraction of not reading his daily classified briefings, something that person said Maxwell admitted to the ARB panel during his interview.â
The person spoken of went on to say, âThe crime that he is being punished for is not reading his intel.â
Maxwell denies that charge stating that he has not been âofficially counseledâ about any wrongdoing on his part. However, he lands a serious blow to Clinton and her staff claiming that they were the ones heading the review of the Benghazi attack, not an independent review board.
âHe believes that Clintonâs staff, not the ARB, was in charge of the review of the attack that took place during her watch,â the report said.
Maxwell said, âThe flaws in the process were perpetrated by the political leadership at State with the complicity of the senior career leadership. They should be called to account.â
Is anyone surprised by this? Iâm not. Iâm just wondering how Hillary and company are planning on silencing this guy now.
Washington has suspended the debt ceiling, setting a date, and not a concrete dollar sum as a deadline, an unprecedented first in US history.
Citing âextraordinary measuresâ, the US Treasury has further delayed tackling Americaâs debt, and will wait until Labor Day, September 2nd, to revisit the burgeoning crisis. The ceiling has been lifted, and the Treasury has promised it will keep cash pumping into government spending programs beyond the debt limit through a series of emergency cash tools.
Until then, the Treasury will borrow money to mend any gaps between government spending and revenues, adding to the already $16.7 trillion debt.
On Friday, the Treasury Department announced it will suspend sales of State and Local Government Series loans (SLGS) until further notice. The suspension applies to demand deposit and time deposit securities.
In the last four months, the US has accumulated $300 billion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the federal deficit will be $642 billion in FY13.
The US economy has shown some promising signs of recovery. US consumer sentiment rose to its highest level in almost six years, jumping from 89.9 to 97.5, the highest post-recession consumer condition, the University of Michigan study found.
âThe global economic leadership position enjoyed by the United States rests on the confidence of Americans and people around the world that we are a nation that keeps its promises and pays all of its bills, in full and on time,â said Lew.
US lawmakers first agreed to raise the debt ceiling two years ago, following a long, drawn out stand-off between Republicans and Democrats, which prompted Standard & Poor to strip the US of their AAA rating. The failed super committee ushered in sequestration,
This time around, Lew has urged lawmakers to act more swiftly to not tarnish the reputation of the US economy.
“Congress should deal with this right away. The fact that they have more time should not put off dealing with this,” he said. “I don’t think that it’s in the interests of the U.S. or the world economy for Congress to wait until the last minute and create a sense of anxiety,â said Lew.
Lew hinted the debt ceiling is not up for negotiation, and that Obama would not bow to Republicans increase the debt ceiling but he does remain open for talks about a deficit deal.
Lew was sworn in as Treasury Secretary on February 28th, 2013, after Congress voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling in January to avoid a default on the debt.
Hidden amongst the reams of reports aboutÂ the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandalÂ is one little gem: in hisÂ testimony, the outgoing IRS Commissioner Steve Miller said that Americaâs tax system is âvoluntary.â
Now, whatever you do, donât take that to mean that it isÂ actuallyÂ voluntary in the way that the word voluntary is normally used.
While you might think that voluntaryÂ meansÂ something which is âdone without compulsion or obligationâ or âdone, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of oneâs own accord or by free choice,â when it comes to Americaâs âvoluntaryâ tax system, itâs quite the opposite.
If you freely choose not to voluntarily participate in the tax system, you will enjoy being raided by armed agents, prosecuted and sent to federal prison. Quite the voluntary system indeed.
Furthermore, there are some practices that are clearly in no way voluntary. When income taxes are withheld fromÂ paychecks, for example, there is nothing voluntary about it.
When Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said during the recent House Ways and Means CommitteehearingÂ on the IRS scandal that the U.S. tax system is âa voluntary system,â Stephen Miller said, âAgreed.â
In fact, Becerra said it is âa voluntary systemâ twice. Becerra said those exact words at one hour, twenty nine minutes and eight seconds and again at one hour, thirty minutes and thirty five seconds, according to the C-SPAN transcript.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the same thing in an interview with Jan Helfeld in 2008.
In the interview embedded below, Helfeld asked, âIf the government is in the business of forcefully takingÂ moneyÂ from some people in order to provide welfare benefits to others, how will the people whoseÂ moneyÂ is being taken feel about the government?â
âWell, I donât accept your phraseology. I donât think we force people,â Reid answered.
âQuite the contrary. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system,â Reid said.
âIf you donât want to pay your taxes, you donât have to?â Helfeld asked, to which Reid said, âOf course you have to pay your taxes.â
Intuit, the makers of TurboTax, wrote anÂ articleÂ (note: it heavily promotes TurboTax) about what âvoluntary complianceâ really means. It has nothing to do with the payment of the taxes. That is not voluntary. Instead, it speaks to âthe manner in which people submit their own taxes.â
The voluntary part only speaks to the fact that you âare responsible as an individual taxpayer tocalculateÂ what you owe. Youâre expected to voluntarily comply with the tax code by reporting what you owe to the government and paying the entire amount that you owe under the law.â
âAlthough the U.S. tax system is voluntary, failure to comply carries stiff penalties,â they note. âThe IRS also has the power to levy yourÂ bank accounts, garnish your wages and place a lien on your property if you donât voluntarily pay what you owe. In serious cases, you may even face criminal charges.â
Lysander Spooner, in âNo Treasonâ written from 1967-1870, writes of the notion of voluntary taxation, âthis theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: âYourÂ money, or your life.â And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.â
Calling taxation voluntary in the United States is like calling a prison sentence voluntary: you can voluntarily go to prison, or you can be hunted down like a dog and physically forced to go to prison.
If thatâs what you consider a voluntary system, I have several beautiful bridges to sell you.
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
The upward pressure of ongoing scandals is moving into the White House. Benghazi, AP, IRS.
The presidentâs surrogates are trying out their lying skills.
Jay Carney: The situation at the IRS isnât really a scandal, depending on what the definition of âisâ is. And if one uses the passive voice, thatâs acceptable, as in âmistakes were made.â
Hillary Clinton: It doesnât matter how and why Americans were killed in Benghazi. They died. Weâre alive. We move on.
Steven Miller, retiring/ousted head of the IRS: We gave bad customer service. Who at the IRS is guilty? I asked someone and they told me, but I donât remember what they said.
Eric Holder: If something bad happened at my agency in relation to spying on AP reporters, I donât know what it is, because Iâve recused myself. Other people under me are investigating the whole thing. I donât know who these investigators are. I have to remain ignorant, in order to be objective.
Inside the White House, key players are saying: âOkay, weâve deleted four thousand emails. That doesnât sound like enough. Keep looking. Keep deleting. Destroy the computers. And paper. Thereâs still paper. Order new shredding machines. Check everybodyâs schedules and logs of meetings. Make sure they donât overlap in suspect waysâŠâ
Remember the old phrase âplausible deniability?â The people around the president commit crimes and make sure the president doesnât know about them. Or if he does know, or if he ordered the crimes to be committed, his people erase the links that would lead to his exposure.
Itâs a game. Can the president be protected? Can he deny knowledge and make it stick? Can anyone prove heâs guilty? Can he fire a few underlings and make the whole thing go away?
Of course, the president chose those people around him. He chose criminals who will protect him. Thatâs true, but itâs not part of the plausible-deniability board game. It doesnât count.
Magically, the president is pure. He just happened to err in judgment and choose a bevy of criminals to work close to him. What was he thinking?
The president is innocent. Everybody else is guilty. Amazing.
The public (aka the television audience) waits with baited breath to discover what the president really knew and what he didnât know. Because thatâs the story line, and story line is, above all else, whatâs important.
The scandals are spreading like ink on a blotter. Gee, I wonder if the president knew about this? I wonder if he was part of this. How will it end? I have to keep watching, to find out. If I already know, thereâs no suspense. Thatâs no fun. I have to remain ignorant and follow the news. Thatâs exciting.
If it merely and magically turns out that the president chose 16 pathological liars and felons as his closest advisers, heâs off the hook. Heâs fine. If he actually took part in committing crimes, thatâs a whole different thing.
Not only is a sucker born every minute, the suckers that are already here are getting more stupid by the hour.
âIn retrospect, it may appear odd that I appointed Jack the Ripper as my national security adviser, but at the time I only knew him as a distinguished physician. His record was spotless. Yes, mistakes were made. But now the Ripper is no longer on my staff, and I pledge we will fix the damage he caused. Thatâs what important. Fixing it as we move forwardâŠand preventing it from happening again.â
So far, the press is circling the blood in the water like minnows. Theyâre sipping a bit here, a bit there. Benghazi, the worst of the crimes, is fading from memory. Itâs old news. âItâs already been covered.â
AP is claiming that the DOJ started spying on its reporters after AP was told by the White House that it, the AP, could run with the Yemen-CIA story, and therefore the spying op was launched for some other reason.
This is a potentially explosive revelation, but it hasnât become a major storyâeven though the AP itself is a consortium owned by major press outlets.
Fast&Furious? Deaths? Murders? Guns walked into Mexico? That happened light years ago. Itâs history. Let the scholars take care of it.
Thereâs a lever that could be pulled, at which point all these scandals will flood the Oval Office, but it hasnât been pulled yet. Itâs in the hands of the people who really run and own this country.
Theyâre counting their chips at the moment and deciding who should fall and who should remain standing. Theyâre the Trilateral Commission and the inner core of the CFR. They represent corporations and banks who calculate how much destruction they can wreak on America at any given moment, while still maintaining their profit margins and control.
They rely on the elite news media to dole out pieces of the story to eager millions, in the meantime. A piece here, a piece there. The AP has known about government spying on its reporters for months. CBS, NBC, and ABC have known about IRS diddling with non-profit status for months.
Television news is the moonscape where simulacra of truth are manufactured on call. It doesnât really matter when. Time as we know it no longer exists. Scandals are real when the networks say they are real.
High-IQ idiots like Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne âIâll cry for youâ Sawyer take their cues from sources who, themselves, are tuned up when the owners of the US are ready to go.
There is no authentic beginning, middle, and end of these scandal-stories. There are only fabricated time lines.
A great deal of mass mind control depends on public hunger for a traditional arc of plot. The public wants a shocking revelation (beginning), followed by an increasing tide of new evidence (middle), and judgment day (ending), when the suspects are declared guilty or sort of guilty, or innocent (ignorant).
It doesnât matter what the tale is or who is involved, as long as the transitions are managed and experienced, like porn.
Evidence of guilt leading to Obama? Thatâs relevant only in the context of the real decision-makers pulling the levers or not pulling them.
Every president knows everything. He knows it well before he takes his oath of office. Heâs the mouthpiece for a crime syndicate. Itâs point one in the job description.
Only little children would think otherwise. Fortunately for the high-level criminals, the world is populated with little children of all ages.
âThe buck stops hereâ was never descriptive of what a president does. The sign on his desk should read: âIâm a front man. Itâs all a mystery to you kiddies out there.âÂ
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.
Mike Kelly carried the frustration of Conservative America on his shoulders today as he grilled outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. Though his line of questions seemed like more of a âventingâ session, someone in the House needed to do a little venting for Conservative Americans today.
Right-wing Americans are sick and tired of being made out to be second class citizens because we believe in the principles on which this country was built. Those of us who have ever dealt with the IRS, and felt that we were wronged, would view Kellyâs rant as mild but itâs a start. Kudos to Mike Kelly.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., seemed to capture the angst against the agency toward the end of the hour-long hearing, as he described the ways its agents are capable of ruining lives.
âYou can put anybody out of business that you want. âŠ When the IRS comes in there, youâre not allowed to be shoddy,â he said, suggesting the agencyâs leadership was being held to a different standard now that it is coming under scrutiny.
âThis is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all Americans,â he said.
When he finished, the committee room erupted in cheers and applause that lasted several seconds.
The hearing, though, was more than just venting.
While Democrats voiced concern that the latest scandal would be used to score âpolitical points,â lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scolded the agency. And they made clear theyâd be pressuring the IRS in the weeks to come on several points â namely, who was responsible and whether lawmakers were overtly lied to last year.
In a related story, Representative Kelly also released a statement today to inquire if âAuto Dealership Closuresâ were also political.Â The letter was co-signed by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH) and Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA). Here is Kellyâs statement with a link to the letter he co-signed:
The IRSâs now-confirmed targeting of conservative groups is a frightening reminder that no branch or department of the federal government is immune from overstepping legal and ethical boundaries. Oftentimes holding government accountable means having to dig for the truth, which is exactly whatÂ this letterÂ is about. The Treasury Departmentâs Inspector GeneralÂ reportÂ from the aftermath of the auto bailouts indicated that âlittle or no documentation of the decision-making process to terminate or retain dealershipsâ exists, making it âimpossible in many casesâ to determine if decisions deviated from âsupposedly objective criteria.â In light of the departmentâs unthinkable breaches of public trust still being revealed by the IRS scandal, my colleagues and I have a duty to examine whether auto dealers across the country saw their businesses close as a result of similar political profiling.
In his recent testimony before Congress, US Attorney General Eric Holder, the so-called highest law-enforcement officer in the land, responded to questions about the AP scandal.
Holderâs Justice Dept. had secretly subpoenaed and seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters.
Holder stated he didnât know anything about anything, because he had recused himself from the issue and recused himself from the new internal DOJ investigation of the matter.
His own agency, the US Dept. of Justice, had spied secretly on reporters. But he, Holder, the head of that agency, decided to remain entirely ignorant about the whole fiasco, once he discovered the vague outline of what was going on.
This is like the manager of a car agency learning that 50 new cars in his lot have packets of heroin in their glove compartments, and immediately withdrawing to Bermuda for a fishing vacation.
The Congressional committee then asked Holder about the new internal DOJ investigation of itself vis-a-vis the AP scandal. Holder said he wasnât absolutely sure about that either, because, again, he had recused himself.
This is like that car-agency manager sitting in his boat in Bermuda and putting a blindfold over his eyes and plugs in his ears.
Why did Holder recuse himself? Unasked, unanswered. That in itself is staggering.
Possibly, he recused himself because he might be a target of the ensuing investigation into the scandal. In other words, he needed to avoid the appearance of being in charge of his own agency, from which position he could, theoretically, let himself off the hook?!?!
In that case, his power is decimated. Heâs a sitting duck. Heâs nobody.
Some unit of the Justice Department is tasked with figuring out how and why the DOJ spied on reportersâand who is to sayÂ thatÂ unit is automatically free from political influence and corruption? Who is to say that unit will do an honest job and indict employees of the DOJ?
In other words, itâs a no-win situation. Doesnât matter who, at the Dept. of Justice, does or doesnât recuse himself. Holder could have kept his head in the game and pushed the internal investigation himself. But he didnât.
Heâs the village idiot. He doesnât know anything about anything.
The press doesnât gang up and attack him hard.
âListen, Mr. Holder. Weâre not buying your recusal or your ignorance. Youâre the man in charge. Youâre the boss. If you donât know whatâs going on, what good are you?â
âMr. Holder, when exactly did you okay the secret seizing of AP reportersâ phone records? We know you did. When was it?â
âWhat? You never did okay the spying and seizing, Mr. Holder? You mean you, the boss, didnât know what was happening on your watch? Your people feel no need to get your approval for a major op like this?â
âWeâre camping out on your doorstep until we get some real answers.â
NONE of this has happened. The press has whined and complained, and thatâs about it.
âI donât know who put all those packets of heroin in the new cars, and I donât want to know. Maybe somebody thinks I OKed it, and theyâll investigate me. So itâs my duty to remain as ignorant as I can about the whole thing, to preserve neutrality and integrityâŠâ
Holder is saying that any knowledge he might have, but doesnât, about the original plan to spy on reporters, about the actual spying, about the aftermath of the spying, and about the new internal investigation into the spyingâŠany knowledge on these subjects could make him INFORMED, and therefore, better able to lie now to investigators, if he were so disposed, which of course he isnât.
Right? Got it? Makes perfect sense, doesnât it? Irrefutable logic. No problem. Letâs all take a nap.
Imagine if this happened. A few months after 9/11, the director of the CIA appears before 9/11 Commission and states the following:
âLadies and gentlemen, Iâve intentionally kept myself entirely ignorant about what the Agency knew leading up to 9/11, what the Agency found out on the day of 9/11, and what the Agency has learned since 9/11. I exist in a pristine state about all these matters, because if you investigate me for malfeasance, I want to be able to say, unequivocally, that I havenât been tainted by actual knowledge, which I could then twist to my own advantage. And I havenât covered myself with lies, because I have no idea what the truth is. I trust you understand this. I trust you understand the sacrifice Iâve made in order to help you arrive at the truth. It has not been easy watching sports 24/7 and keeping myself from the news of the day. I have suffered. But I do it because Iâm a patriot. Youâre welcome.â
Holder actually believes weâre buying his act?
Well, I hate to say this, but he does. He thinks he can get over. He thinks he can slither through and around and over the press.
And heâs probably right, judging by what the press has and hasnât done so far.
The man is a towering liar and fabricator. Heâs all lies all the way up and down.
Canât the committee before whom heâs testifying at least fall down laughing, because theyâre seeing a man like them working his act?
âWow, Eric, I thought Iâd been witness to some major bullshit in my time, but youâre in another league. Iâve told some tall tales, but this, this pose of see no evil, itâs championship material. Really. Youâve taken me to school. Iâm awed. Where do I sign up? I need what youâve got. I really do. Youâre pushing Bill Clinton for the heavyweight belt.â
Holder: âI canât comment on that comment or anything else. Iâm merely saying I have no knowledge or understanding of anything, and Iâve achieved this state of mind on purpose. Therefore, Iâm clean. Iâm a machine carefully built to specs of ignorance, a machine with no function. In that sense, Iâm perfect.â
We may be seeing the greatest bureaucratic ploy in the history of the democracy.
Imagine a million bureaucrats like him. Each one defers to the other, who in turn expresses the same across-the-board Zero. At the end of it, the apparatus spits out a blank piece of paper and everybody goes home.
Yes, government is wonderful. Itâs cosmically zen. Itâs what we all want.
Life without life.
To top it off, Obama, at his press conference yesterday, said he has full confidence in Holder. Meaning: Obama is sure Holder will remain a blank slate.
âI have full confidence that the man who is running the Department of Justice isnât running it. Heâs staring at the wall. Thatâs what I want him to do.â
Recusal, the actual version, works like this. A lawyer who once represented a client suing a chemical company for damage is now an appeals judge. Another case involving the same company comes up for review. The judge backs out. He says, âI once went up against the company in court, so I wonât get involved now.â
What Holder is doing is from another planet. Heâs found a way to take the Fifth without admitting he has anything to incriminate himself about.
âMr. Jones, were you at the restaurant on the night of the murder?â
âI recuse myself from answering that question.â
âI donât want to give the impression that I have any knowledge about the murder.â
âBut youâre on trial for the murder, sir.â
âYes, and that in itself is prejudicial. Do you see? Aspersions about my character and actions have been cast. I wish to remove myself from the possibility of such accusations.â
âYou canât. Thatâs why youâre here. We suspect you of committing murder.â
âI recuse myself.â
âAre you invoking your Fifth Amendment rights?â
âAbsolutely not. That would imply I have some knowledge about the crime. I reject that characterization.â
âYou Honor, the witness is unresponsive. Please instruct him to answer my original question.â
âAs a judge, I find the defendantâs posture of recusal interesting. I think weâll let him go with a warning and a small fine. Three hours of community service in the White House, for which heâll earn seven thousand dollars an hour. Court is adjourned.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.
When Chris Matthews files for divorce from Barack Obama, you know the world is upside down.
When the liberal online rag,Â Politico,Â features a clip of Matthews saying, â[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,â weâre through the Looking Glass.
Chris Matthews loses âthrill up legâ âŠ
The liberal jackals are stalking their own leader, the President. After making mind-bending excuses for Obamaâs disastrous presidency, theyâve suddenly heard a supersonic whistle, and theyâre out for blood.
Jonathan Turley, famous liberal constitutional lawyer, is counting Obamaâs sins, ranging far beyond the current IRS and AP phone-tapping scandals.
James Goodale, former lawyer for the NY Times, is writing, at the Daily Beast, âObama is fast becoming the worst national security press president, worse than Nixon, and it may not get any better.â
Liberal radio host Bill Press is calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder. Charley Rangel says, âNo one believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer [to the IRS and DOJ scandals].â
Representative Zoe Lofgren and NBCâs Brian Williams are down Obamaâs neck.
Just a few weeks ago, after the Boston bombing, Obama was unassailable. He was still the king with his own people. Now, heâs turning into lunch meat.
Liberals could be shouting and claiming that the IRS targeting of conservative, patriot, and constitutional groups had nothing to do with Obama, that heâs entirely innocent, that he just got rid of the IRS chief and all is wellâŠbut theyâre not saying it.
They could be insisting that the DOJ tapping AP phones was all on Eric Holder, and Obama had nothing to do with itâŠbut theyâre not saying it.
The current press virus is: Obama is Nixon.
Whatâs going on?
Whoâs giving liberals the order to go after Obama? Who shifted the political wind overnight?
Has Obama failed to live up to his promises to people far more powerful than he is? If so, what is his betrayal?
Is it simply the fact that the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have chosen Hillary Clinton as the next presidentâand in order to make that happen, major diversions have to guide the press and public away from her role in the Benghazi catastrophe? Is that why weâre suddenly seeing the IRS and DOJ scandals erupting?
Rockefellerâs Trilateral Commission (TC) certainly wields enough power to torpedo Obama, if they want to. And they surround Obama.
Patrick Wood, author ofÂ Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointedelevenÂ of them to posts in his administration.
Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create âa new international economic order.â Consider the following TC members, who have held Obama posts:
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The TC is the hand that feeds Obama. Has he bitten it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: â[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of manâs organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.â
A closer look at Tim Geithnerâs circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.
How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in hisMemoirs (2003):
âSome even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as âinternationalistsâ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structureâone world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.â
So yes, if the Trilateral Commission wanted to sink Obamaâs presidency, they could call that shot. They could radically influence press coverage of the president, they could pull strings and end the worshipful celebration of Obama as the great prophet. They could bring hard doom to him.
Nixon started imposing tariffs on imported goods. That was his Waterloo. He ran afoul of the massive Rockefeller free trade agenda. What has Obama done?
Is he stalling on war with Iran? Has he gone too far in his embrace of Islamic partners? Has he finally balked at continuing the war in Afghanistan?
Setting economic and political policy for the US is a prime operation of the Trilateral Commission. If Obama has crossed swords with the TC, he would be treading on very dangerous ground.
From the shadows of history, let me give you an illustration of how far and deep the TC can reach. It really does boggle the mind.
Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable momentâin the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.
The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carterâs administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. Itâs as if theyâre saying, âWhat weâre revealing is already out in the open, itâs too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, weâve already wonâŠâ
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize âthis function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.â Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess itâs the pressâ job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesnât President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
KAISER: It just hasnât become an issue.
Source: âTrilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,â ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasnât.
Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didnât become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.
If the mainstream press had made hay out of this interview, had reported it widely, and commented upon it with relentless fervor and disgust and shock (a pipe dream, to be sure); if the interview had been pushed and publicized as a scandal of the greatest depth; if ensuing denials and distractions had been cast aside; the exposure of the Trilaterals would have shaken the countryâs foundations, and the press would have had to admit all their coverage of government was a farce and a cartoon.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commissionâthe Commission had been been created in 1973 as an âinformal discussion groupâ by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carterâs National Security Advisor.
Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that, if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, âWeâve lost. And Iâll quit.â Lostâbecause both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and BrzezinskiÂ wereÂ appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didnât quit. He became Carterâs chief of staff. He gave up.
Thatâs the kind of power weâre talking about. Barack Obama would merely be a minor figure blowing in the wind, if the TC decided heâd betrayed them. Obamaâs administration is stacked with TC members.
They could foment the sudden liberal opposition to this president, which has bloomed overnight like a mushroom in the dark.
No one at the moment is playing the race card for Obama, which has been an effective strategy. No one in the press is claiming that Obamaâs Republican opponents are racists. Why not?
The IRS and DOJ scandals are manageable. By themselves, absent the press firestorm, they can be contained. Eric Holder can go. The IRS chief has already been dispatched to nowhere land. The president can claim immunity from these two doofuses. Indeed, he may try that.
As long as his liberal allies keeping pounding on the fact that heâs a great president who has been served badly by his inferiors, the ship could hold water. But right now, thatâs not happening. The sudden sea change is swamping the boat.
Remember, with Watergate, we saw a successful attack on the US Attorney General, John Mitchell, on the way to nailing Nixon and knocking him out of the box. That Rockefeller operation worked like a magic machine.
Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, has just testified before Congress that he doesnât know anything about anything. Heâs pretty much said, âAsk me a question about any scandal and Iâll plead vast ignorance. Thatâs my defense.â
Holder is ripe for a takedown. And then the press hounds would be that much closer to pinning blame on Obama himself.
Iâm not saying Obama will be impeached or will resignâalthough in politics, never say never. Iâm saying his presidency, such as it is, could be destroyed very quicklyamong and by his own supporters.
The clue here, again, is the sudden and boggling liberal press turnaround, their all-out assault on Obama. This kind of thing doesnât happen by accident. It certainly doesnât happen from the bowels of the presidentâs rabid worshipers. But it is happening.
That means marching orders. That means screws have been turned by people who expect and demand and can count on obedience. Those people are players who live far above government. Government is their mechanism, as is the press, when it needs to be.
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.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. Â was found guilty ofÂ felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of fakingÂ petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.
According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who pled guilty, Morgan orderedÂ Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race.
Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
If the scheme was exposed during the election it could have lead to Obama being removed from the ballet.
The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit.
He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest.
A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time, could have been bounced from the ballot.
The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.
âI think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,â Levco told Fox News.
Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
In an interview Thursday, on the Rusty Humphries Show, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) talked about the Benghazi cover-up and officially started the impeachment buzz.
Senator Inhofe proclaimed that âof all the great cover-ups in historyâ Benghazi âis going to go down as most serious, most egregious cover-up in American history.â
He later noted that,âWe may be starting to use the I-word before too long.â
âThe I-word meaning impeachment?â Humphries asked.
âYeah,â Inhofe responded.
When Rusty Humphries questioned the wisdom of impeaching Obama now, Inhofe noted it wouldnât be immediate.
âIâm not talking about it now, this is something that could endure until after the â14 election â this is not a short story, this is something that was re-discovered after eight monthsâŠthis is clearly an orchestrated cover-up,â the Senator responded.
Inhofe seemed to confirm what many are thinking. With a Democratic majority in the Senate (officially 53-45 with two independents who caucus with the Democrats) there is not much chance of obtaining a conviction at this point. However, with 35 open seats in 2014, there is a chance to swing that majority.
The House of Representatives impeaches a public official with a simple majority vote, but to obtain a conviction the Senate must concur with a two-thirds majority (67 votes).Â It is unlikely that 67 votes could be gathered to convict the President of any charges at this time, but it appears that the GOP is looking forward to the 2014 elections to try to gain momentum.
The 2014 class of newly elected Senators will begin their terms on January 3, 2015. Inhofe seems to hint that this is the date that Republicans are looking toward. It seems that impeachment proceedings for political posturing is not the goal, at least not for Senator James Inhofe. He echoes the sentiments of uncounted millions who want Barack Obama removed from office.
We would naturally assume that the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee is representative of other Republican Senators who look to him for leadership.
This is not what conservative Americans want to hear, but it is the only way to get a conviction. Party lines will be drawn and you will not find enough Democratic votes to convict, no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be. Not in 2013.
With new accusations from the families of Seal Team 6 and much to be learned about Benghazi, and other controversies, a little time might just do wonders for the chances of getting that conviction.
Let the impeachment talk begin! Jim Inhofe has just dropped the âI-word.â
Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) has put up on his re-electionÂ websiteÂ that he will be giving away a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic homeland defense rifle on July 4, 2013. Whoa! Talk about a congressman with some guts! I like it! Stockman took to Twitter on Wednesday and stirred the pot.
He and others berated Stockman over pushing the same weapon that was used in the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut back in December. I suppose if it were a DPMS or a Colt Ar-15 everything would be OK for liberals. Probably not, but they do like to pour on the guilty emotions, donât they?
Some followers though took up for Stockman. Linsman102 tweeted âand if the school had 1 guard on duty with an AR-15 those people would be alive today. A âNo Gun Zoneâ sign, BS.â
Another chimed in, âHow much would one of those teachers given to have one when Lanza came calling?â
Still another joked, âWill I have to do a background check?â
Well, you willÂ have to go throughÂ a Federal Firearms License holder if you win. So yeah, you will have to have a background check. Someone please inform Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Stewart that those things do take place when you purchase a gun at any FFL dealer.
UPDATE:Â I got this message once I entered:
Thanks for signing up for the free Bushmaster AR-15. Good luck!
As you know, I never have and never will compromise the right to keep
and bear arms. Iâm proud to have a 100% lifetime rating from the NRA,
Gun Owners of America, the National Association for Gun Rights and
other pro-gun groups.
In just my first few weeks in Congress I have introduced bills to:
>> Overturn Obamaâs anti-gun Executive Orders (HR 410), with my friend Senator Rand Paul
>> Repeal so-called âGun Free School Zonesâ (HR 35)
>> Oppose all anti-gun UN treaties (HR 575), and
>> Stop the government from confiscating the guns of veterans (HR 577)
That means Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg want to spend millions
to defeat me.
At a time when the U.S. government is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in, it makes no sense at all for our elected leaders to be consideringÂ anyÂ legislation that adds to the federal deficit, which is already more than 100 percent of our entire gross domestic product.
And yet, that’s exactly the kind of legislation dominating the discussion and debate in Washington, D.C. What’s worse, the people who would benefit from this new, costly legislation,Â aren’t even American citizens.
It doesn’t get any more insane than this.
The new “immigration reform” bill making the rounds in our nation’s capital is nothing more than an amnesty forÂ 95 percent of the illegal immigrantsÂ currently in our country (no, they’re not “undocumented migrants” or “undocumented workers” – don’t let others steal the language and define the debate).
What’s more, according toÂ Breitbart News, the bill, if passed, would completely overwhelm the nation’s social system because the vast majority of these newly legalized criminalsÂ would become eligible for taxpayer-supported welfare benefits.
Did I not tell you this isÂ insane?
‘Illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers’
The immigration bill introduced to the Senate a week and a half ago would, if passed, allow illegal immigrants to access state and local welfare benefits immediately. … The financial impact of allowing potentially millions of immigrants onto state and local public assistance could overwhelm these programs’ budgets.
The ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., found theÂ welfareÂ loophole in the mammoth, nearly 900-page bill, as well as several others that has circulated in a memo, which was obtained exclusively byÂ BreitbartÂ in advance.
“The Gang of Eight made a promise thatÂ illegalÂ immigrants will not be able to access public benefits,” Sessions said in a statement toÂ Breitbart News. “We already know that, once granted green cards and ultimately citizenship, illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers. We have, however, identified a number of loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to draw public benefits even sooner than advertised.”
If you’ve not heard anything about this littleÂ hiddenÂ loophole, once again you can – and should – chastise the echo-chamber, far-left mainstream media, which has systemically failed to ask probing questions regarding this massive bill.
If the measure becomes law as is, the nation’s 11 to 14 millionÂ illegal aliensÂ would be legalized within a half a year – when Secretary Janet Napolitano, head of theÂ Department of Homeland SecurityÂ (the agency responsible for the border) submits her border security plan to Congress.
“Illegal immigrants would immediately be eligible for Registered Provisional Immigration (RPI) status, making themÂ legalÂ to live and work in the country,”Â BreitbartÂ reported.
In his memo, Sessions said “state laws frequently extend benefits to anyone ‘lawfully present’ in the U.S.” His team noted aÂ Department of Health and Human ServicesÂ briefÂ which says the only requirement a number of state and local governments have with regard to the ability for immigrants to gain access to public benefits is that they be “lawfully present,” a term that is aÂ legal definition.
Creating lifelong Democrats
Page 91 of the amnesty bill says that all illegal immigrations given RPI status shall be “lawfully present” in the country:
(4) TREATMENT OF REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANTS. – A noncitizen granted registered provisionalÂ immigrantÂ status under this section shall be considered lawfully present in the United States for all purposes while such noncitizen remains in such status…
Sessions’ staff further notes that, when evaluating whether an illegal immigrant qualifies for RPI status, the amnesty bill “explicitly forbids” DHS from using current law,Â which presentlyÂ blocksÂ entry to any illegal immigrant who could become “public charges”Â - that is, someone who would become dependent upon taxpayer-supported welfare programs.
“Therefore, when those here illegally who are unable to support themselves are legalized, much of the immediate fiscal burden will fall on state and local governments,” Sessions’ staff said in the memo.
‘Gang of Eight’ didn’t negotiate withÂ you, did they?
Republicans certainly have their issues when it comes to controlling spending, but without question the Democrat Party is the champion of big government. The reason why so many of them support this “immigration reform” bill is because it would essentially create millions of new constituents.
What’s more, this “Gang of Eight” has negotiated this bill primarily with two major interest groups – Big Labor and Corporate America. Other groups were there as well – some religious organizations, for instance – but do you know who was missing from that table?
You, Mr. and Mrs. America, that’s who. And yet it is you who will be called upon to pay for and support this egregious violation of sovereignty.
Like Obamacare, this bill was also negotiated in secret, is a mile long, and is now being foisted on the whole of Congress for a quick up-or-down vote on it,Â before anyone has a chance to dissect it or debate it. That’s not a “republican form of government,” that is democratic tyranny, period.
Well, the word is out now. This bill doesn’t “reform”Â immigrationÂ law, it creates a new class of voters for one particular party, puts the country further in debt and rewards lawbreakers who are now openlyÂ demanding we cater to them.
The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.
Benghazi whistleblower Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Departmentâs counterterrorism bureau, is expected to level the allegation that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut his department out of the chain of reporting and decision-making. His testimony is set to begin on Wednesday before Chairman Darrell Issaâs House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
But thereâs another official Fox News isÂ reportingÂ on.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau â independently of Thompson â voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompsonâs lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
âYou should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,â the second official in Stateâs counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Â Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompsonâs forthcoming testimony.
The State Department said these allegations are â100 percent false.â
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the departmentâs Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning. He said, âI ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue. Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.â
He said that his bureau was aÂ âcentral participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi.â He said âat no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks.â
Well, letâs see here. The State Department, Hillary Clinton in particular, went along withÂ YouTube video being the reason for the Benghazi attacks, even though they would laterÂ claim they never did.Â In fact, she stillÂ wouldnât ruleÂ that out when she was before the Senate earlier this year. This really brings into question anything anyone in that Department says that is in favor of the current administrationâs âofficial story.â
Maybe itâs just me but Iâm tired of the same old same old in our politics.âŻÂ The big-box monopoly parties have morphed into two sides of the same coin, two heads on the same bird of prey.âŻÂ Today our choice boils down to the Conservative Republican tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource or sovereignty policies or the Liberal Democrat tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource or sovereignty policies.âŻÂ But of course, since we donât want to throw away our vote we must vote for one of the big boys.âŻÂ Â Conservative? Liberal? Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum?
As a voter Iâve had my Damascus Road experience, the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I have reached the point where I would rather throw away my vote voting for someone who might actually try to find a different way to operate our government besides taxing like the Sun King and spending like a drunken sailor.âŻÂ (By the way, do you know the difference between how a drunken sailor spends and how the Republicrats spend?âŻÂ The drunken sailor is spending his own money.)
And what might this different way be?Â âŻÂ How about this for radical: letâs return to constitutional government?Â âŻÂ WOW!âŻÂ What a concept.
How did we arrive at the current situation?âŻÂ James Madison in his speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 said,
âThere are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.â
We didnât get here all in one jump.âŻÂ First the camel said, âCan I just stick my nose in your tent to stay warm?â and finally the generous man found himself out in the cold as the camel settled down for a nice warm nap, one inch at a time.
The compassion of our people built a safety net for those who needed help, and the greed of the lazy have turned it into a hammock.âŻÂ America, the Land of the Free has turned into America, from each according to their abilities to each according to their need. The willingness to share our heritage has led America to welcome more immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined, and the abuse of our generosity has turned into a migration invasion that threatens to overwhelm us and destroy the future of our children.âŻÂ Taxes imposed to meet the ever-swelling demands of government have turned into a blatant wealth re-distribution program that makes most pyramid schemes look fair.âŻÂ Sometimes I think our government looks at a productive citizen as merely a source of residual income.âŻÂ Or as the ads promise, our leaders lay on the beach of self-importance and our checks just keep pouring in.âŻÂ We are no longer respected as Citizens.âŻÂ Instead, we are coveted as consumers, or human capital.
Albert EinsteinÂ said, âInsanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.â
If we want a different world we have to start at the only place we have the absolute sovereign ability to make a change, we must start with ourselves.
I quit the Republican Party once it was obvious that the Republican majority in Congress I had spent my entire adult life working for was just a change in leadership and not a change in direction.Â I quit calling myself a conservative after the second Bush debacle made it obvious that the conservative movement had been hijacked by the neocons and I realized that you canât defend a captured position.Â You canât conserve what has already been lost.Â Â I realized that we as a people, we as a federation of States need to find a different way.
One thing I know, no one person can do this alone.âŻÂ No one group can do it.Â To make any headway in the face of the electoral monopoly held by the party of power the many third party groups are going to have to coalesce into en effective opposition.Â We canât let divisions divide us any more, egos will have to be suppressed, and we will have to bond together with everyone dedicated to limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom.
None of us can roll this big rock up this steep hill by ourselves.Â However, together we can.
âIf you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.Â âŻThere may be a worse case.Â âŻYou may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.â
Looking at the increasing speed with which the Progressive regime is building its command and control structure, the future is invading the present at an ever accelerating pace.Â Their living document has made the Constitution a dead letter.Â Their mixed economy has as many people on the dole as on the job.Â The Fedâs printing press is burying us, our children, and their grandchildren taking out a mortgage on lives that havenât been lived and spending money from taxes on work that hasnât been done.
We must unite if these United States are to once again become the land of the free and the home of the brave instead of the land of the free lunch and the home of the knave.
QuotingÂ Ben Franklin, âWe must hang together, gentlemenâŠelse, we shall most assuredly hang separately.â
In a Presidential Proclamation signed April 30th, President Obama declared May 1st to be “Loyalty Day” in America from this day forward so citizens can reaffirm their allegiance to the United States.
According to the White House:
In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.
LoyaltyÂ Day was first observed as a holiday in 1921 during the first Red Scare “marked by a widespread fear of Bolshevism and anarchism” (Wiki). However, it has only been observed by small localized communities.
Obama’s proclamation will make Loyalty Day a national holiday to rally Americans behind more widespread fear, or freedom according to Obama’s statement.
The Obama administration argued on Wednesday that if a Republican bid to have a judge grant them administration documents related to Operation Fast and Furious that it would prompt a flood of requests for courts to referee political disputes in Washington. In reality, it would open up the truth a bit more on what is going on behind the stonewalling of the Obama administration over the Fast and Furious scandal.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson was skeptical and told Gershengorn, âThere are three branches here, not just two.â She did not say how she would rule, but questioned Gershengorn for more than twice as long as she did House of Representatives lawyer Kerry Kircher.
Kircher told Jackson that if she did not intervene, presidents could withhold documents from Congress at will with no consequence and thwart oversight of government agencies.
The fear about more subpoena cases is overblown, he added. âYou will not be flooded by lawsuits,â Kircher said.
Both sides agree that the question of whether Jackson will step in goes to the heart of how the U.S. president and Congress interact with each other.
Lawyers cited court precedents from the Watergate era and from a more recent document fight in which Democratic lawmakers sent a subpoena to aides of President George W. Bush.
In a decision that now helps Republicans, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled in 2008 that he did have the authority to enforce a subpoena by congressional Democrats in connection with the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
Thomas LifsonÂ comments, âTo my untutored eyes, it looks like there is ample precedent for courts forcing the executive branch to submit to congressional oversight. I am old enough to remember Watergate, in which documents and tape recordings were ordered turned over.â
âWe donât know what evidence exists in the trove that the Obama administration is hiding from Congress,â he added. âMany conservatives suspect the worst, that this was a cynical operation designed to build pressure for more gun control legislation. Others suspect that Holder must have had to sign off on the program, since it involved cross-border operations in Mexico.â
I can tell you that the documents which the Obama administration is not turning over and have not turned over to Congress are things that theyÂ do not want us to find out about. However, this is not only the case in the Fast and Furious scandal, but also in the Benghazi scandal as well.
Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under “extraordinary circumstances.” The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to “use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat.”
You know what’s coming next, right? Paul now says that his only issue with using drones to kill American citizens on American soil is whether there’s an “imminent threat.” And if there is, screw it, PaulÂ doesÂ think we should be using drones to kill American citizens on American soil.
âHereâs the distinction â I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I donât care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but itâs different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”
Holy moly. So it’s not okay for drones to be flying over your hot tub, but if someone just robbed a liquor store somewhere in America and made off with 50 whole dollars, screw itâblow the crap out of him with an unmanned drone.
That’s not even an “imminent threat” kind of case, mind you; if someone justÂ leftÂ a liquor store, the “threat” is now over. And note that he just muses on seeing someone come out of a liquor store with “a weapon and $50,” which is a hell of a low threshold for launching an aerial assault over an American city. Maybe the guy was just standing his ground, right? Aren’t True PatriotssupposedÂ to be toting guns everywhere they go? Didn’t we just have yet another effing filibuster aboutÂ that?
So in the span of a little over a month, Rand Paul has gone from being so outraged over the mereÂ possibilityÂ of using drones to kill American citizens on American soil that he’s willing to launch an old-school filibuster to a new position far more extreme than anyone else discussing the topic, an assertion that dronesÂ canÂ be used to kill American citizens on American soilÂ if you catch them in the act of a suspected crime.Â You just can’t use the drones toÂ lookÂ for the crime, though. I don’t know what Constitution Rand Paul has been reading, but I’m fairly certain he’s been licking toads while reading it.
Of course, what this really means is that Rand Paul’s entire famous filibuster was, in the end, bullshit. It was a lie. He didn’t filibuster because he was outraged that the Obama administration might send unmanned drones to target and kill American citizens, he just outrightendorsedÂ that practice. So why did he filibuster? As a mere political gimmick, a fundraising tool, a chance to bluster about “freedom” to the base on an issue that neither he nor that base really had shred one of concern about to begin with? How many in that base are now feeling suckered, right now, with their “Stand with Rand” stickers and their idol’s supposedly deep-held belief in not sending drones out to kill random Americans who a government agent has determined probably deserved it?
And now we have to ask the questionâso, Rand Paul, now it’s your turn to explain to the American public. When should unmanned drones be used to kill American citizens on American soil? We be using that aerial firepower to respond to liquor store holdups, now? Not just terrorism, butÂ anyÂ crime? No trials, no worries about collateral damage, just blast the guys?
That is a hell of a change in position, and a roundly terrifying one at that. What do you really believe, Rand Paul?
The whole concept of avoiding âconflicts of interestâ is a virtue now consigned to history in the United States.
Remember the good old days, when the good men and women of America got into politics to help serve their country, and not for the money?
Imagine if you were able to pass a law that would regulate your own behavior and ultimately define the consequences of that behavior. Thatâs what all politicians in Washington DC do on a regular basis.
When it comes to regulating their investments whilst in office, they are able to pass laws that allow them to use special foreknowledge (that only lawmakers and government regulators have) for personal gain.
Itâs all about finding that golden loophole. Once upon a time it was called âinsider tradingâ âŠ hardly a crime on Wall Street anymore (props to Goldman Sachs), and neither in Washington DC, or so it seems, according to the President and his legislative branch.
Now we know how hard it is to be a politician these days. Many of you genuinely feel that there should be some additional value-added perks to your job as a public servant. After all, our elected officials deserve some extra compensation for shunning the public sector and offering their incredible talents for the public good, right?
While tragic events in Boston are dominating the national media this week, US President Barack Obama quietlyÂ signed a bill, and one which passed rather swiftly through Congress we might add âŠ itâs a bill that prevents key financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online. In a rare display of cross-party cooperation, both sides of the aisle seemed happy to approve (surprise, surprise) by unanimous consent.
This latest bill specifically alters the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or “STOCK Act”, which, when it was originally drafted was intended to be a law designed to combat insider trading on Capitol Hill â until our elected officials got their teeth into it that is.
This is how the criminals usually work â quietly and in secret: the bill passed both House and Senate chambersÂ on a voice voteÂ (where lawmakersâ names are not recorded). Both chambers cleared the legislation in near record time by Washington DC standards – taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House to pass.
According to the report below, “The bill represents a major blow to government transparency”. It certainly does and then some, but more than anything it just makes it a lot easier to get richer from a career in politics.
This is really the sort of law you would expect to be passed in a corrupt banana republic, with a fascist dictator presiding over a government full of self-interested industrialists. So is this the new America?
Obama signing a bill like this with the hyper-sonic, complete backing of both chambers of government spells out everything that is wrong with American government today and why so few people trust anyone who calls themselves a politician or government staffer. Itâs also a prime example as to why so many Americans have all but given up on the political process, almost forced to submit to its systemic corruption.
This is one of the ways in which our long-serving Congressmen/women, Senators, esteemed residents and staff in the White House are able the amass such huge fortunes during their glorious political careers- by simply gaming the system.
One set of rules for the people, and another set of rules for our âleadersâ.
It does not appear that they can actually be trusted to make decisions that govern political life.
STOCK Act: President Obama Signs Bill That Would Kill Government Transparency Database
Keeping tabs of financial conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill just got more difficult. On Tuesday, President ObamaÂ signed a bill passed by CongressÂ that would prevent financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online.
Washington DC politicians can breathe easier now that Obama has better enabled insider trading for them.
The bill modifies the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed to combat insider trading. The bill effectively repeals a provision that requires financial disclosure forms to posted online into a searchable database in order to be easily assessed.Â Proponents of repealing the measureÂ argued that it would increase the risk of identify theft and other crimes against disclosures as well as security concerns for the government.
But such disclosure forms are technically already available to the public. Without the provision, the forms must be requested individually from government agencies. The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation, two pro-government transparency organizations harshly criticized the bill. Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight FoundationÂ said of the move, âThe result: More corruption and less trust in government.â
Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper â an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the publicâs access.
This is not true disclosure.
The bill does not completely gut the STOCK Act. Federal workers would still be required to report securities trades over a $1,000 threshold within 45 days and make them available to the public. The president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, Cabinet members, and deputy secretaries are still required to post financial transactions online. However the searchable database was killed along with the requirements that federal employees post transactions.
Rather than reforming the act to address privacy concerns, Congress just decided to get rid of those requirements entirely. The approach is known as “security through obscurity,“Â the idea being that by making the system difficult, people who want to engage in malicious acts will be discouraged from accessing the information. The drawbacks of such a system are immediately obvious, as a criminal simply needs to be dedicated enough to go through the system in order to gain the information they desire.
The STOCK Act has already been criticized for being incomplete. In 2012,Â a loophole in the STOCK ActÂ was discovered that could have allowed family members of lawmakers to still profit from inside information, which was promptly corrected. No word if they will fix other efforts at weakening the act soon.
The US government wants more privacy protections in the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).
After failing to pass through the Senate last year, the bill has already had several amendments.
Intended to protect corporate networks from cyber-attacks, it allows private companies to share cybersecurity information with government agencies.
Opponents say that this is creating a backdoor for governments to snoop on individuals’ data, a point taken on board by the government.
A White House statement said: “The administration remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities.”
Despite this, the bill has found many friends including large technology firms such as AT&T, Comcast, Intel and Oracle.
This week IBM has sent 200 executives to Washington to lobby for the bill.
In a statement the firm said: “IBM believes we can build stronger, more efficient defences against cyber-threats by enabling better information sharing and providing clear authority for the private sector to defend its own networks, as proposed in the Cybersecurity Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa).”
But opponents remain concerned the bill allows a wide range of data to be shared with government. Last month a petition with 100,000 signatures was submitted to the White House.
Opposition has been particularly vocal from privacy groups, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) describing the latest iteration of the bill as “fatally flawed”.
The bill’s sponsor, Republican Mike Rogers, caused anger on Twitter when he suggested in a speech that the typical opponent of the bill was “a 14-year-old tweeter in the basement”.
Dozens of states and local jurisdictions continue to move toward nullifying the unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Yesterday we announced thatÂ Montana has taken the next stepÂ with Senate approval by a margin of 43-7 to protect its citizens from indefinite detention, and the measure is only awaiting signature from Governor Steve Bullock.
Now California has taken a much-needed step toward rebuking federal overreach. And, once again, the protections afforded by the Liberty Preservation Act are seeing support from a wide spectrum of political interest.
The 2012 NDAA applies broad detention power, using terms such as âassociated forcesâ and “substantially supported,” allowing the federal government to detain and even execute any person, including an American citizen, on U.S. soil without due process. Sections 1021 and 1022 areÂ particularlyÂ onerous.
The author of the California bill, Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly stated:
The NDAA gives the executive branchâunder not only President Obama, but also every future president â unprecedented power to detain US citizens without due process . . .
This runs counter to the very principles that make America great, and violates our nationâs commitment to the rule of law. . .
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it in the United States Constitution.”
The Daily Caller notes that even though the bill was introduced by a Republican, it received a unanimous vote across party lines
The bill passed the Democrat-controlled committee 6-0 with the support of a wide-ranging coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union, Tenth Amendment Center, San Francisco 99% Coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Libertarian Party of California.
I rarely go after private citizens in my column. Â Today I’m going to make an exceptionÂ and the reason is that this personÂ inserted themselves, on their own volition, into an attempt to violateÂ every man, woman and child’s fundamental right to life. Â By doing so they have turned themselves into public figures and as such lose any such pretense of “privacy” in their opinion nor do they have a legitimate shield from the equally-public response by those who they offend.
I speak of Francine Wheeler, specifically, who Obama trotted out this morning like a puppet to try to press for more “gun control.”
“I feel Ben’s presence filling me with courage for what I have to do – for him and all the others taken from us so violently and too soon,” Wheeler said in the address, which was broadcast on radio stations and streamed on the Internet.
“But that’s only the start,” Wheeler said. “They haven’t yet passed any bills that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. And a lot of people are fighting to make sure they never do.”
Listen up, you incompetent and defective sack of meatÂ – your son is deadÂ because you areÂ unfitÂ to be parents.
YouÂ sat silently by whileÂ your stateÂ and our nation erectedÂ signsÂ telling people who areÂ criminallyÂ insaneÂ where they can findÂ the maximum number of defenseless peopleÂ to murder.
YouÂ are personally, jointly and severably responsible for the consequences.
YouÂ are unfit to possess a uterus and your husband is unfit to possess testicles.
You, Mrs. Wheeler,Â having willingly and intentionally refused to take responsibility forÂ yourÂ acts of omission and commissionÂ that led to your son being murdered by a madmanÂ now have the audacity to stand in front of the nation and demand thatÂ everyone elseÂ give upÂ theirÂ children to murderous goons as well.
Go to Hell Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler and take your state and its alleged laws with you.
You and the rest of your ilk are unfit as parents and unfit as citizens. Â It is now manifestly clear from the evidence that the murderous bastard who took those lives in Newtown methodically studied mass killings over an extended period of time and sought to get the “high score”, much like I seek to do so in a game of pinball.
But his game wasÂ killingÂ innocent people.
This murderous bastard began his killing by murderingÂ his mother, and thenÂ literally over her dead bodyÂ removed her firearms to be used in his shooting spree. Â This occurred, we know from the official record,Â after he was turned downÂ to buy his own guns because he didn’t want to wait two weeks to commit his horrific crime.
He wanted to murderÂ now.
If these simple facts are not all you need to know about so-called “gun control” then you’re severely mentally challenged and are manifestly unfit to be a parent or even a citizen of this nation. Â A person who is willing to murder their own mother doesn’t give a damn about any law you can pass, no matter what it is. Â There is no law and no regulation that will stop such a person from committing their hideous crime. Â If you could somehow wave a magic wand and make all the guns disappear he would use a can of gasoline, a chainsaw or a Suburban instead. Â You can only hang a man once, and thus once the option to murder has been electedÂ no law bars any aspect of his conduct.
This is simple logic and that it has escaped you labels you as either incompetent or worse, someone who is willing toÂ literallyÂ sacrifice your own offspring for political purpose.
Each and every person who has supported so-called “gun control” measures that disarm peaceable citizens with the simple desire to be left aloneÂ and who are willing to defend themselves and those who are smaller, less-powerful and youngerÂ than the thugs who would take their lives have made a mistake.
Those who do so now, in the light of day of the facts, are willful co-conspirators with the evil bastards thatÂ we produceÂ in our society. Â And yes,Â we make these FrankensteinsÂ and we must live with that.
Some of them are made by accident; genetic or otherwise. Â But some of them, the evidence shows, are made by the decisionsÂ we make, just as are so many of the teen suicides.
Now it may be that for the people who we help with the various “things” we’ve created, including our wonderful video games of violence, our various pharmaceuticals that are prescribed like candy to teens and young adultsÂ despite the black-label warningÂ that they can cause activation of latent manic and homicidal states (in other words, lead people to murder) along with massive depression (in other words, lead people to commit suicide) is worth it. Â After all the medical “industry” alone is some 20% of our economic output and no small part of that is the pill pushing from pharmaceutical firms to doctors that have filled our kids with various mind-altering prescriptions, all with the claim of “helping” them.
I don’t know the answer to the question of whether or not the occasional monstrous outburst and its body count is worth itÂ but we’re not even having that debateÂ in our society, and that’s theÂ first place to start.
But what I do know is this — if and when said Frankenstein creation pops up by whatever means it was generated like most monsters it does not randomly step on churches. Â It instead uses what little information processing capacity it has to choose targets for its actsÂ and a big part of that process includes the likelihood of success in completing those evil plans.
These monsters go into schools, theaters and shopping malls precisely because we emblazon them with signs telling these murderous bastards that nobody inside is capable of defending themselves. Â We state in bright lights and bold text that we the “law-abiding citizens” haveÂ intentionallyÂ forfeited the ability to put down the murderous thug that seeks to take our life and those in our charge.
You, Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler, areÂ directlyÂ responsible for this as are any of the rest of we the people who have allowed this crap go on and cheered on the erection of those signs and the passage of those laws.
And now, to make matters worse, you are exploiting the blood of your dead son toÂ expandÂ those prohibitions rather than end them, toÂ expandÂ the places and times where a murderous bastard can take life without being effectively and immediate deterred by a peaceable citizen who willing to defend him or herselfÂ and others, including those who are too small or weak to do so on their own.
I have to ask:Â Exactly when did our nation check its collective and individual set of balls for a pretty flower? Â And may I ask how you like the perfume of that flower when it is punctuated by the stench of your dead son’s corpse?
I have read too many stories about a family that had their teen daughter sexually assaulted by her alleged “friends” and then took her own life, along with its aftermath. Â The family invariably wants to cry out for “laws” of various sorts.
Where is the father who, in righteous indignation, severs the testicles of the boys who committed that assault and then passed the pictures around on the Internet — with full knowledge and acceptance of the fact that he’ll go to prison for making sure those “boys”Â neverÂ rape anyone ever again.
We recently heard of some “pretty snowflakes” who got what amount toÂ petty sentencesÂ in Ohio for committing such an offense upon a teen girl. Â 100 or 200 years ago those “boys” would have had their balls cut off and fed to the family dog by a shotgun-wielding father. Â This sort of crap didn’t happen all that often back then and this is the reason why –Â it was well-known what sort ofÂ riskÂ you took doing it, drunk or not, with your death quite-possibly being what you were going to have for breakfast the next morning.
Recently MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry claimedÂ that “children do not belong to their parents.” Â Well now there’s everything I need to know aboutÂ why we’ve lost our individual set of ballsÂ when it comes to parenting and theÂ responsibilityÂ that arises with it!
There it is; it’s just a penis and vagina, and a uterus doing what a uterus does, right? Â There’s noÂ obligationÂ to defend and protect that which comes with the single most-important power that we as humans have — the power toÂ create lifeÂ –Â nor is there anything thatÂ distinguishes us from animals like cows and mice.
It takes a village, yes?
Like hell. Â We’re supposed to be better than animals. Â We claim the privilege of sentience. Â With that privilege comesÂ obligation, but like so much of society todayÂ we refuse to accept our obligation while flaunting our alleged “privilege.”
That simple fact, above and beyond all else, is why this nation is disintegrating around us.
If you choose to reproduce, and absent******reproduction is a choice,Â then you take upon yourself theÂ dutyÂ to protect that offspring until your offspring is ready to defend and protect themselves. Â You have aÂ dutyÂ toÂ demandÂ that those who you allow to assume “in loco parentis” status be both willingÂ and capableÂ of discharging that duty when you are not.
If you paint a target on the back of your son or daughter when you send him or her to school by erecting signs proudly proclaiming that this is a “gun free zone”,Â inviting murderous thugs to shoot there by announcing in big, bold letters that everyone inside is defenseless,Â thenÂ youÂ are jointly responsible forÂ attractingÂ the murderous bastard to a place where he can kill unopposed if and when it happens.
Every single parent, teacher, principal, representative, senator, school board member and superintendent Â who supported, suborned, condoned or silently accepted such crapÂ must bear the responsibility for attracting that nut to this particular place where your son died.
No, they did not pull the trigger. Â But tell me this:Â Why did not Adam instead to go to the local cop shop and shoot everyone there?
You’re not really going to try to tell me that a big part of the reason that these mass-murderersÂ invariablyÂ choose places like a school or movie theater with a big sign saying “no guns” rather than a police stationÂ isn’tÂ because they know damn well that in the cop shopÂ every single person there is armed and will return fire. Â
Nice try Mrs. Wheeler, but thisÂ fatherÂ who takes his responsibility toÂ protect his offspringÂ with the utmost seriousness and sobriety, including being willing to back up his commitment with hisÂ life, will stand here andÂ respond to your pugnacious crap with two simple words:
The city of New Rochelle, N.Y., has removed the historic Gadsden âDonât Tread On Meâ flag from a military armory, deeming the flag âtoo partisanâ because it often is used by the tea party movement.
And in response, veterans groups have tapped the Thomas More Law Center to take up the fight.
It was after an official ceremony on March 21 at the New Rochelle Armory that a new American flag was unfurled to replace the previous weathered flag that flew at the location. Beneath the new American flag, the yellow Gadsden Flag was flown, as is common tradition on many military sites.
However, within a week of the ceremony, City Manager Chuck Strome ordered the Gadsden flag be taken down because of âunidentified complaintsâ that the flag was a symbol of the tea party movement.
Peter Parente, president of the United Veterans Memorial and Patriotic Association of New Rochelle, sent Strome links to the history of the flag so he decided to allow it to remain.
But the city council then stepped in, voting 5-2 to order the flag to be removed.
The five members who voted to uphold its removal were Democrats, while the two voting to reinstate the flag were Republicans.
That same day, the public works department removed the flag.
Yesterday the United States Senate overcame the threatened Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and voted to proceed toÂ Harry Reidâs gun control bill, S. 649. Reid needed 60 votes to do this and in the end theÂ votes were 68-31. Thatâs right Republican Senators sold the American people out on this issue, along with Socialist Democrats. Only two Democrats voted against moving forward on the bill, Sen Begich (D-AK) and Sen. Pryor (D-AR).
Understand that they were not just voting to proceed and not go through a filibuster, they were voting anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment here. Instead of allowing the filibuster to move forward, these Senators decided to trample over those willing to stand up for your Constitutionally protected right in favor of debating delusional, gun control nut liberals.
As soon as the Senate proceeded, Reid used his privileged recognition to put several amendments in place. As I told you about just the other day, these are referred to as an âamendment tree.â Among the amendments put in place are the universal registry bill, the Feinstein gun ban, and the magazine ban. These will be voted on very shortly.
Gun Owners of America (GOA)Â warns, âAs for theÂ Toomey-Manchin-Schumer universal registry bill, donât believe the pressâ efforts to sugar-coat it. If you have ever had an âInternet âŠ postingâ on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the governmentâs approval. Only a cave man would be exempt. And once you have a 4473? Well, the ATF is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms, and feeding it into a database. But, says Toomey, heâs against universal registries. This is where it would have helped if Toomey had consulted someone who knew something about guns.â
While Toomey uses âanti-registry languageâ which is supposed to prohibit photocopying 4473 forms, there is nothing to keep them from going into a FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer and copying all the information onto a laptop. In fact, Iâve received confirmation that this has already been occurring in the State of Colorado, which is illegal. ATF claims that the data it is accumulating is not a âregistry.â Right, so why are they gathering data illegally then? Well look who is behind them, Attorney General Eric Holder who headed the department that illegally trafficked nearly 2,500 firearms over the U.S. / Mexican border. People do you really believe this administration cares about the law? Holders heads the âJusticeâ department for crying out loud!
But Toomeyâs treasonous collaboration with Senators Manchin and Schumer also has Section 107 which waives any federal privacy prohibitions under HIPAA to sending the names of Americans with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression to the gun ban database.
Erick EricksonÂ writesÂ at Red State on what is to come via the Toomey-Manchin sellout, âActivist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.â See? I told those conservatives jumping on the mental health bandwagon that this would come back and bite them in the rear. Did they listen? Nope, they just kept on pushing that old saw.
Nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have stopped what happened in Aurora, Colorado. It wouldnât have stopped what happened in Newtown, Connecticut. It wouldnât have stopped what happened at Columbine High School. These measures will simply be applauded as âdoing everything to insure these tragedies wonât happen againâ while at the same time doing nothing to insure they wonât happen again, but rather will simply criminalize law abiding citizens.
GOA says of this sellout, âLike sprinkles on a pile of dung, Toomey and Schumer steal some of the proposals we drafted and try to use them to get us to buy onto gun control. But it wonât work. The gun movement is united against this disgusting pile of gun control.â
The good news is that the Senate will have to have 60 out of 100 votes in order to move several of these measures forward. GOA, theÂ National Rifle Association (NRA)Â and other Second Amendment organizations are against the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer proposal, so it is virtually ensured that the amendment will fail, but we must be vigilant.
The support for the filibuster was not wasted time either. According to GOA, âwe forced Obama to fire most of his ammunition, as he dragged his human props around Washington in an effort to exploit them for political gain. If Obama had been able to wait to play this card until Toomey-Manchin-Schumer came up for a vote, that vote would be a lot harder for us to win. But Obama has already played this card for his âthey deserve a voteâ theme. Okay, theyâre getting their vote. But by the time we reach the vote on cloture on Toomey-Manchin-Schumer, Obamaâs exploitation of the victims of Newtown will begin to be realized for the cynical exploitative political ploy that it is. And he will be less able to shift gears and use the victims for the theme ââThey deserve a âyesâ vote.ââ
Hereâs the full list of those that voted to proceed on Reidâs gun control:
Contact your SenatorÂ and either encourage or reprimand them, depending on their vote, over this decision and then urge them to vote against Reidâs bill and every amendment put forward for the sake of freedom.
Tens of thousands of immigrants and activists rallied across the U.S. Wednesday in a coordinated set of protests aimed at pressing Congress to approve immigration measures that would grant 11 million immigrants living here illegally a path toward citizenship.
Organizers said demonstrations were taking place in at least 18 states and in Washington, where a large, festive crowd gathered on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol.
âWe wonât win immigration reform just coming to Washington. We need to walk the streets all over the country,â said Ben Monterroso, national director of civic participation of the Service Employees International Union, which represents nurses and lower-wage employees including janitors and child care workers.
In Atlanta, more than 1,000 people marched around the Georgia Capitol Wednesday midday, calling for comprehensive changes to immigration policy and an end to deportation.
In San Francisco, several hundred demonstrators marched toward the federal building holding red and orange paper flowers representing the number of people deported daily for immigration violations.
In San Diego, about 50 demonstrators gathered on a sidewalk outside the office of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a sharp contrast to massive protests in 2006 when thousands of demonstrators shut down downtown streets to support looser immigration policies.
Senators writing a sweeping immigration bill have said they hope to finish their work this week, opening what is sure to be a raucous public debate over measures to secure the border, allow tens of thousands of foreign workers into the country and grant eventual citizenship to the millions living illegally in the United States.
A person familiar with proposed bipartisan immigration legislation being written in the Senate said Wednesday the bill would require greatly expanded surveillance of the U.S. border with Mexico and greatly increased detention of border crossers in high risk areas. The person provided the information on condition of anonymity because the deliberations were private.
Groups opposed to illegal immigration say they are not worried that lawmakers or voters will be swayed by emotional messages, and argue that extending legal rights to immigrants living illegally in the U.S. will create financial problems for cash-starved governments and spur more illegal immigration.
âThere ought to be a rally for the 20 million Americans who canât find a full-time job,â Numbers USA President Roy Beck, whose group advocates reductions in immigration levels, said in a statement Wednesday.
The immigrant activism movement gained national attention in 2007 when President George W. Bush and a bipartisan group of lawmakers unsuccessfully tried comprehensive immigration overhaul. Some high school and college students who were brought to the U.S. as young children began living openly and holding rallies.
The movement gained new supporters in 2010, when Congress debated but did not pass the DREAM Act â legislation that would have granted legal status to young immigrants living illegally in the country.
President Barack Obama announced in June his deferred-deportation program allowing young immigrants to apply for work visas. During his State of Union address in February, Obama called on Congress to quickly pass an immigration bill.
Based on their review of leaked top-secret intelligence reports,Â McClatchyÂ is reporting that the Obama Administration has long been guilty of misrepresenting the kind of groups and individuals it has targeted with its fleet of armed Predator and Reaper drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Though critics of Obama’s targeting killing have long-believed that so-called signature strikesâwhere targets are chosen for their behavior rather than confirmed intelligence on who they areâwould be illegal under US and international law, the White House has long defended the manner in which it targets specific groups and individuals. It has done so, however, without releasing the trail of documents that track the program’s decision-making.
But asÂ McClatchyÂ reports, the top-secret U.S. intelligence reports it reviewed “show that drone strikes in Pakistan over a four-year period didnât adhere” to the standards put fourth in public statements and press interviews by White House officials.
According toÂ McClatchy:
The intelligence reports list killings of alleged Afghan insurgents whose organization wasnât on the U.S. list of terrorist groups at the time of the 9/11 strikes; of suspected members of a Pakistani extremist group that didnât exist at the time of 9/11; and of unidentified individuals described as âother militantsâ and âforeign fighters.â [...]
The documents also show that drone operators werenât always certain who they were killing despite the administrationâs guarantees of the accuracy of the CIAâs targeting intelligence and its assertions that civilian casualties have been âexceedingly rare.â
McClatchyâs review is the first independent evaluation of internal U.S. intelligence accounting of drone attacks since the Bush administration launched Americaâs secret aerial warfare on Oct. 7, 2001, the day a missile-carrying Predator took off for Afghanistan from an airfield in Pakistan on the first operational flight of an armed U.S. drone.
The analysis takes on additional significance because of the domestic and international debate over the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan amid reports that the administration is planning to broaden its use of targeted killings in Afghanistan and North Africa.
McClatchyÂ also explores the broadly held view that the US drone attacks are exacerbatingÂ conflicts, not solving them, in the regions where they take place.
Obama, they think, is misinterpreting international law, including the laws of war, which they say apply only to the uniformed military, not the civilian CIA, and to traditional battlefields like those in Afghanistan, not to Pakistanâs tribal area, even though it may be a sanctuary for al Qaida and other violent groups. They argue that Obama also is strengthening his executive powers with an excessively broad application of the September 2001 use-of-force resolution.
The administrationâs definition of âimminent threatâ also is in dispute. The Justice Departmentâs leaked white paper argues the United States should be able âto act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack.â Legal scholars counter that the administration is using an exaggerated definition of imminence that doesnât exist in international law.
âIâm thankful that my doctors donât use their (the administrationâs) definition of imminence when looking at imminent death. A head cold could be enough to pull the plug on you,â said Morris Davis, a Howard University Law School professor and former Air Force lawyer who served as chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo Bay terrorism trials.
Since 2004, drone program critics say, the strikes have killed hundreds of civilians, fueling anti-U.S. outrage, boosting extremist recruiting, and helping to destabilize Pakistanâs U.S.-backed government. And some experts warn that the United States may be setting a new standard of international conduct that other countries will grasp to justify their own targeted killings and to evade accountability.
The story goes that some mice became very upset about the cat in the house and convened an emergency meeting. They finally came up with the idea of tying a bell around the catâs neck, so the dangerous feline could no longer catch victims unawares. The plan gained a lot of enthusiastic praise, until one mouse piped up with a question that preceded a long silence: âWhoâs going to bell the cat?â
In recent days, the big cat in the White House has provoked denunciations from groups that have rarely crossed him. Theyâre upset about his decision to push for cuts in Social Security benefits. âProgressive outrage has reached a boiling point,â the online juggernaut MoveOn declared a few days ago.
Obamaâs move to cut Social Security is certainly outrageous, and itâs encouraging that a wide range of progressive groups are steamed at Obama as never before. But this kind of outrage should have reached a âboiling pointâ a long time ago. The administrationâs undermining of civil liberties, scant action on climate change, huge escalation of war in Afghanistan, expansion of drone warfare, austerity policies serving Wall Street and shafting Main Street, vast deference to corporate power. . . The list is long and chilling.
So is the evasive record of many groups that are now denouncing Obamaâs plan to cut Social Security. Mostly, their leaders griped in private and made nice with the Obama White House in public.
Yet imagine if those groups had polarized with President Obama in 2009 on even a couple of key issues. Such progressive independence would have shown the public that there is indeed a left in this country â that the left has principles and stands up for them â and that Obama, far from being on the left, is in the center. Such principled clarity would have undermined the right-wing attacks on Obama as a radical, socialist, etc. â and from the beginning could have gotten some victories out of Obama, instead of waiting more than four years to take him on.
Whether or not Obamaâs vicious assault on Social Security is successful, it has already jolted an unprecedented number of longtime supporters. It should be the last straw, suffused with illumination.
That past is prologue. We need to ask: Do such groups now have it in them to stop pretending that each of the Obama administrationâs various awful policies is some kind of anomaly?
From this spring onward, a wide range of progressive groups should be prepared to work together to effectively renounce Obamaâs leadership.
We need to invigorate political options other than accepting the likes of President Obama â or embracing self-marginalization.
For progressives, thereâs not a lot to be gained by venting against Obama without working to implement a plausible strategy for ousting corporate war Democrats from state power. Nor is there a useful path for third parties like the Green Party in races for Congress and other partisan contests; those campaigns rarely end up with more than a tiny percentage of the vote, and the impacts are very small.
This spring, thereâs a lot of work beckoning for progressives who mean business about gaining electoral power for social movements; who have no intention of eliding the grim realities of the Obama presidency; who are more than fed up with false pretenses that Obama is some kind of ally of progressives; who recognize that Obama has served his last major useful purpose for progressives by blocking a Romney-Ryan regime from entering the White House; who are willing to be here now, in this historical moment, to organize against and polarize with the Obama administration in basic terms; and who, looking ahead, grasp the tragic folly of leaving the electoral field to battles between right-wing Republicans and Democrats willing to go along with the kind of destructive mess that President Obama has been serving up.
A vital next step is staring us in the face: get to work now to develop and launch grassroots progressive campaigns for next yearâs primaries that can defeat members of Congress who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk of challenging Obamaâs austerity agenda.
Who are those congressional incumbents who call themselves âprogressiveâ but refuse to take a clear stand against slashing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits? I have a little list. Well, actually itâs not so little.
As of today, after many weeks of progressive lobbying and pleading and petitioning nationwide, 47 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have refused to sign the letter, initiated by Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, pledging to âvote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits â including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.â
After all this time, refusal to sign the Grayson-Takano letter is a big tipoff that those 47 House members are keeping their options open. (To see that list of 47, click here.) They want wiggle room for budget votes on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits. Most of them represent a left-leaning district, and some could be toppled by grassroots progressive campaigns.
By itself, lobbying accomplishes little. Right now, itâs time to threaten members of Congress with defeat unless they vote against all efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Click here if you want to send that message directly to your representative and senators.
The best way to sway members of Congress is to endanger their seats if they arenât willing to do the right thing. In the real world, politics isnât about playing cat and mouse. Itâs about power.
Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are authoring a âSee a Shrink, Lose Your Gunsâ sell-out bill that Gun Owners of America claims is âworse than the Feinstein gun ban,Â which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an âamendment tree.ââ This bill not only is being authored by these guys, but has Senator Chuck Schumerâs (D-NY) fingerprints all over it.
Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers âgun show salesâ and Internet sales. However, if youâve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known youâd like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, youâre covered.
The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)
For Republicans who think theyâre going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use an amendment tree to block out all amendments. And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesnât give âunanimous consentâ to set that blocking effort aside.
If you live in a rural area, youâre effectively barred from selling or buying a gun or it at least becomes very, very difficult.
Although theÂ press releaseÂ issued by Manchin and Toomey explicitly states that the bill will not create a national registry and makes it illegal to establish one,Â Guns Saving LivesÂ points out:
âIf transfers are done through a federally licensed firearms dealer there WILL be a form 4473 for every single transaction. These forms must be turned over to the government whenever a dealer changes owners or closes its doors. The ATF can also inspect these forms almost at will. This will create a de facto gun registry through the records that will be generated.â
Not only that, but the billâs ânational registryâ language is full of holes. Because of this sell-out, there will most definitely be a national gun registry.
However, things gets worse. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA, your guns could be taken away because your private psychiatrist thinks you are dangerous and sends your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system. In other words, if you were offended because of 150,000 military veterans were added to the NICS system because they had PTSD, then this should really anger you since this will far surpass veterans to include you and me.
No doubt the next step will be to criminalize shrinks that donât make such a report. All of this will come under the amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazines ban.
In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed toÂ repeal one of the most important protections for gun ownersÂ that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act â the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin bill would require you to âdemonstrateâ to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you donât do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.
We are told that these measures are put in place to prevent tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting. Pray tell, what in this unconstitutional, treasonous legislation would have prevented it or any other shooting? Not one thing!
âBut nobody here, and I mean not one of us in this great Capitol of ours with a good conscience, could sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again,â Manchin said. âAnd I think thatâs what weâre doing.â
Mr. Toomey said he doesnât consider criminal background checks to be âgun control.â
âI think itâs just common sense,â he said. âIf you pass a criminal background check, you get to buy a gun. Itâs no problem. Itâs the people who fail a criminal or a mental health background check that we donât want having guns.â
âThis agreement is a big step forward, and we commend Senators Manchin and Toomey for working across the aisle on legislation that will expand our current background check system,â the two said in a joint statement. âBackground checks on firearm purchases are the first line of defense against criminals and the dangerously mentally ill getting guns. This legislation is enforceable, it will save lives, and it respects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.â
Letâs make these Senators prove their words. This legislation will do nothing but infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, period. It will not save one life, but it will violate the Constitution.
Following statements from the Senators, the NRA released a statement blasting the expanse of background checks.
âWhile the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor [Michael] Bloombergâs âuniversalâ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows,â the statement reads.
If the NRA really believes this, Iâd say itâs high time to rerate both of these men with an âF.â
People listen. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Pat Toomey and the rest of the Washington crowd that capitulates to the Socialists in Washington are traitors to the U.S. Constitution. They are not upholding their oath of office and frankly they need to be removed and tried for what they are engaging in. What is even more egregious is that John McCain was considered a war hero in the Vietnam era. Now he is a Judas to every Vietnam veteran living today, just as Jane âHanoiâ Fonda was back then.
We must support the Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee filibuster on this issue. We must flood the offices of our representatives with faxes, emails and phone calls until they hear us. If they do not listen, they are looking to provoke Americans towards Revolution, and not the peaceful kind. I for one desire peaceful resolution, but this bunch of cowards, who donât want the people to know what they are doing to them cannot be tolerated. We must be heard on the issue.
Contact your Senator today and demand that they oppose any and all gun control legislation in the U.S. Senate, including this newest measure by Sens. Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin.
Bordering an interstate highway in Arkansas, a giant billboard with a photo of a stoic-looking farmer watches over the speeding traffic. Heâs staring into the distance against the backdrop of a glowing wheat field, with the caption âAmericaâs Farmers Grow America.â Itâs an image to melt all our pastoral hearts.
Until we read the small print in the corner: âMonsanto.â
The maker of Agent Orange, Monsantoâs former motto used to be, âWithout chemicals, life itself would be impossible.â Today its tag line is âCommitted to Sustainable Agriculture, Committed to Farmers.â Its website claims the company helps farmers âbe successful [and] produce healthier foodsâŠ while also reducing agriculture’s impact on our environment.â It even boasts of the corporationâs dedication to human rights.
Behind the PR gloss is a very different picture. Via Campesina, the worldâs largest confederation of farmers with member organizations in 70 countries, has called Monsanto one of the âprincipal enemiesÂ of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples.â Via Campesina members also target Monsanto as a driving influence behind land grabs, forcing small farmers off their land and out of work. The agribusiness giants alsoÂ contributeÂ to climate change and other environmental disasters, outgrowths of industrial agriculture.
Together with Syngenta and Dupont, Monsanto controlsÂ more than halfÂ of the worldâs seeds.Â The company holds more than 650Â seed patentsÂ - most of them for cotton, corn and soy – and almost 30% of the share of all biotech research and development. Monsanto came to own such a vast supply by buying major seed companies to stifle competition, patenting genetic modifications to plant varieties, and suing small farmers. Monsanto is also one of the leading manufacturers of genetically modified organisms [GMOs].
Monsanto has filed more than 140 lawsuits againstÂ 400 farmers and 56 small businessesÂ for alleged violations of contract or GMO patents. One such case is currently under consideration in the Supreme Court. âFarmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone elseâs genetically engineered crop [or] when genetically engineered seed from a previous yearâs crop has sprouted,â said the Center for Food Safety.[i] In total, the company has won more than $23 million from these suits. The multinational appears to investigate 500 farmers a year, in estimates based on Monsantoâs own documents and media reports.[ii]
In Colombia, Monsanto has received upwards of $25 million from the U.S. government for providing Roundup Ultra in the anti-drug fumigation efforts of Plan Colombia. Roundup Ultra is a highly concentrated version of Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide, with additional ingredients to increase its lethality. Local communities and human rights organizations have charged that the herbicide has destroyed food crops, water sources, and protected areas in the Andes, and has led to increased incidents of birth defects and cancers.
On March 26, siding once again with corporations, President ObamaÂ signed into lawÂ a spending bill with a âMonsanto Protection Rider.â This requires the government to allow GMO crops to be planted before an environmental and health assessment is completed. This means that crops may be planted with the permission of the USDA even if it is not known whether they are harmful.
One Goliath, Many Davids
Farmers and activists are not sitting idly by.
Via Campesina launched a global campaign against Monsanto on International World Food Day in 2009, with marches, protests, land occupations, and hunger strikes in more than 20 countries. The coalition continues organizing international days of action against the company and agribusiness in general. Via Campesina has kept the spotlight on Monsanto at its global protests, such as the 2012 UN Climate Change Conference in Bangkok.
One of the rejections of Monsanto occurred in the small village of Hinche, Haiti in June, 2010. There, thousands of farmers burned Monsanto seeds. The Haitian Ministry of Agriculture had given Monsanto permission to import and âdonateâ 505 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds. âItâs a declaration of war,â said Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, director of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP). The importation of massive amounts of hybrid seed threatens the traditional, regionally adapted seed stock of Haiti, as it does in many other countries. Hybrid seeds also cause a cycle of dependence, with farmers buying them from Monsanto each year rather than relying on local markets or their own saved seed. In an open letter, Jean-Baptiste called the entry of the seeds âa very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seedsâŠ, and on what is left of our environment in Haiti.â[iii]
The same day as the protest in Haiti, activists in Seattle gathered in solidarity. They burned Monsanto seeds in front of the headquarters of the Gates Foundation, which is promoting GMO seeds in Africa. In Montana, the home state of Monsantoâs world headquarters, activists dressed in lab coats and Tyvek to demand that Monsanto âseeds of dependencyâ be kept out of Haiti. In Chicago, a Haiti support group did not have Monsanto seeds, so they burned Cheetos instead. The Organic Consumers Associationâs network sent more than 10,000 emails protesting Monsantoâs âdonationâ to USAID and President Obama. African-American farmers in Mississippi mobilized letters to the White House, too.
Around the world, farmers and activists have long taken it upon themselves to destroy Monsantoâs GMO crops. Groups have cut down or pulled up fields of corn, potatoes, rapeseed, and other crops, sometimes laying them at the entryways of government buildings where they are demanding anti-GMO legislation. In 2003 in the state of ParanĂĄ in Brazil, activists uprooted plants at one of Monsantoâs experimental labs. They went on to file and win a land reform claim, and then started their own agroecology university on the site.
In the U.S., the Organic Consumers Association has spearheaded theÂ âMillions Against MonsantoâÂ campaign, demanding that the company stop intimidating small family farmers and forcing untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods on consumers. The campaign works to unearth information about Monsantoâs practices, push legislation to limit corporate power, and disseminate research and action items through its extensive network.Â Occupy MonsantoÂ has also held a number of actions around the country. This week, starting April 8, groups from around the country are gathering in Washington, D.C. for Occupy Monsantoâs âeat-inâ at the FDA, demanding GMO regulation and an end to corporate influence in food policy.
In 2012, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative (Prop 37) in California to mandate labeling of products containing GMOs. Their hope was that forcing companies to label in California, the eighth-largest economy in the world, would prompt countrywide labeling. Companies poured money into defeating the measure, the largest donors being Monsanto (about $8.1m) and DuPont (about $5.4m). Also donating millions were companies that ownÂ major organic labelsÂ like Kashi (Kellogg Company), Horizon (Dean Foods), Odwalla (Coca-Cola), and Cascadian Farms (General Mills). The measure failed by a tiny margin, causing the anti-GMO movement to redouble its efforts. Labeling laws have been proposed in more than 20 other states and are currently under consideration by legislators in Vermont and Washington.
In 2011, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association â together with 82 other plaintiffs, including agricultural associations, seed companies, and farmers â brought a lawsuit against Monsanto in Manhattan federal district court to establish protections for organic farmers whose crops are contaminated by GMOs. The court ruled against them, but the plaintiffs appealed and are currently awaiting a ruling.
Back in the rural Haitian town of Hinche on March 22 of this year, the same peasant farmer group that had burned Monsanto seeds held another demonstration. Holding banners reading âDown with Monsanto,â they demanded an end to corporate tyranny of agriculture. Allies from many countries in Latin America, North America, Europe, and Africa joined them in that dusty town, recommitting themselves to a world with food and seed sovereignty.
PresidentÂ Obama recently gave a speech in Colorado regarding the new gun laws that haveÂ just been passed. As always Mr. Obama tried to give the impression that he hadÂ the support of everyone and their brother as he had the local police force setÂ up behind him.
That same day the county sheriff made a video ridiculing such aÂ stunt and supporting the second amendment. We need more like him to take aÂ stand. What should be concerning people about this speech is the fact that thisÂ President is the only president in U.S. history that seems to complain about theÂ constitution limiting the powers of government.
He said plain as day whileÂ mocking gun owners for being weary of government overreach that he isÂ constrained by the system our founders put in place. The president is veryÂ intelligent and calculating, he knows very well that he canât just take ourÂ rights. The only way we can lose our rights is if we voluntarily surrender them,Â or by not knowing they exist in the first place. Â (Can anyone say common coreÂ curriculum?)Thatâs why from now until the 2014 elections the President and theÂ rest of the democratic socialists will be campaigning on the issue of gun rightsÂ and an inability to stop gun violence because of theÂ constitution.
As it standsÂ right now there are 46 senators, all of which are democrat socialists who wouldÂ happily sign our rights away by ratifying the U.N small arms treaty. Keep inÂ mind that the U.N passed the language of the treaty and the President signed onÂ to it while nearly 1 in 5 countries around the world opposed it. If theÂ democrats gain a stronger foothold in 2014 we can likely be facing the end ofÂ the second amendment as we know it because there are enough useful idiots outÂ there to actually elect more gun control zealots into the senate. It doesnâtÂ help when on the Republican Party you have progressive slime like John McCainÂ questioning the motives of filibustering gun controlÂ legislation.
Most peopleÂ seem to understand that Mr. Obama is an extremely liberal president, but what IÂ am afraid people do not understand are the tactics he uses in conjunction withÂ what people are being conditioned with while in the education system. Letâs takeÂ critical thinking, a term we are all likely familiar with. Â Critical thinking is a Marxist tacticÂ devised at the Frankfort school of social research and is being used to get ourÂ kids to think critically about their culture, their beliefs and their parentâsÂ beliefs.
This is also called values clarification. The child is encouraged toÂ examine their values from a stand point of there being no right or wrong andÂ then comparing these values with their culture and their parentâs worldview.Â Â At the same there is virtually noÂ education on the constitution above an eighth grade level. Our constitutionÂ requires an informed public to be involved in governance to be effective.
Todayâs generations of twenty somethingâs know nothing, and I can only imagineÂ what is going to be presented in this âcommon core curriculum.â When Mr. ObamaÂ speaks of the constitution constraining him, his target audience, having beenÂ educated by the left automatically view it as an oppressive document that tiesÂ the hands of government from being able to do what they need to do to create theÂ perfect utopia.
Believe me folks; we are only a couple of generations away fromÂ the masses demanding the constitution be done away with. We are already hearingÂ rumors of a constitutional convention; as long as the progressives are inÂ control we must oppose this at every turn.
The presidentÂ and his progressive cadre of gun grabbers were not expecting the kind of supportÂ to spring up for the second amendment the way it had. Many of these states thatÂ had passed gun control laws had done so by closing off the means of debate. TheyÂ silenced the people by passing the laws in the name of an emergency.
The bill inÂ Connecticut for example was 138 pages long and in usual fashion was presented toÂ the legislature two hours before an expected vote. These are the types ofÂ tactics we can expect to see over the course of the next year or so. In the meanÂ time the schools will continue to push out students ignorant of theÂ constitution, trained in social justice and believing in the need of aÂ collective utopia; while the president continues to talk to them about how theÂ constitution places limits on his power to create it.
In essence, theÂ constitution constrains him now but if his tactics are successful he will haveÂ conned the American people into sacrificing liberty for security while goingÂ down in history as being the president that brought social justice to theÂ oppressive United States of America. Watching people closely for signs ofÂ concern about what is happening around us,Â Â Â I am not seeing anÂ overwhelming amount of people who seem to give a damn.